SUBMITTED BY: AMOROSO, ARRIANE MARIE S.

2019400122

CHAPTER 10 SUMMARY: AMENDMENT, REVISION, CODIFICATION AND

REPEAL
Power to Amend
 Vested in the legislature
 The SC in the exercise of its rule-making power or of its power to
interpret the law, has no authority to amend or change the law, such
authority being the exclusive to the legislature.

How amendment effected

 By the enactment of an amendatory act modifying or altering some
provisions of a statute either expressly or impliedly.
 Express amendment – done by providing in the amendatory act that
specific sections or provisions of a statute be amended as recited
therein or as common indicated, “to readas follows.”

Amendment by implication
 Implied Amendment- when a part of a prior statute embracing the
same subject as the later may not be enforced without nullifying the
pertinent provision of the latter in which event, the prior act is deemed
amended or modified to the extent of repugnancy.

When amendment takes effect

 15 days following its publication in the Official Gazette or
newspaper of general circulation, unless a date is specified therein
after such publication.

How amendment is construed

 Statute and amendment – read as a whole
 Amendment act is ordinarily construed as if the original statute has
been repealed and a new independent act in the amended form had
been adopted.
 Read in a connection with other sections as if all had been enacted in the
same statute.
 Where an amendment leaves certain portions of an act unchanged, such
portions are continued in force, with the same meaning and effect they
have before the amendment.
 Where an amendatory act provides that an existing statute shall be
amended to read as recited in the amendatory act, such portions of the
existing law as are retained either literally or substantially

Meaning of law changed by amendment

 An amended act should be given a construction different from the law
prior to its amendment, for it is presumed that the legislature would not
have amended it had not it not wanted to change its meaning.
 Prior to the introduction of the amendment, the statute had a different
meaning which the amendment changed in all the particulars touching
which a material change in the language of the later act exists.

Amendment Operates Prospectively

  An amendment will not be construed as having a retroactive effect,
unless the contrary is provided or the legislative intent to give it a
retroactive effect is necessarily implied from the language used and only
if no vested right is impaired.

Effect of Amendment on Vested Rights

 After a statute is amended, the original act continues to be in force with
regard to all rights that had accrued prior to the amendment or to
obligations that were contracted under the prior act and such rights and
obligations will continue to be governed by the law before its
amendment.

Effect of amendment on jurisdiction

 Jurisdiction remains with the court until the case is finally decided
therein.
 Applies to quasi-judicial bodies
Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act
 Where a statute which has been amended is invalid, nothing in effect
has been amended
 The amendatory act, complete by itself, will be considered as an
original or independent act.

REVISION AND CODIFICATION

 Purpose: to restate the existing laws into one statute and simply
complicated provisions, and make the laws on the subject easily found.

Construction to harmonize different provisions

 Presumption: author has maintained a consisted philosophy or position.
 Rule: a code enacted as a single, comprehensive statute, and is to be
considered as such and not as a series of disconnected articles or
provisions.

What is omitted is deemed repealed

 All laws and provisions of the old laws that are omitted in the revised
statute or code are deemed repealed, unless the statute or code
provides otherwise
 Reason: revision or codification is intended to be a complete enactment
on the subject and an expression of the whole law thereon, which
thereby indicates intent on the part of the legislature to abrogate those
provisions of the old laws that are not reproduced in the revised statute
or code.
 Rule: a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former
revises the whole subject matter of the former statute.
 The whereas clause is the intent to cover only those aspects of
government that pertain to administration, organization and procedure,
and understandably because of the many changes that transpired in the
government structure since the enactment of the old code.

Change in phraseology
  Rule: neither an alteration in phraseology nor the admission or addition
of words in the later statute shall be held necessarily to alter the
construction of the former acts.
 Words which do not materially affect the sense will be omitted from the
statute as incorporated in the revise statute or code, or that some
general idea will be expressed in brief phrases.
 If there has been a material change or omission, which clearly indicates
an intent to depart from the previous construction of the old laws, then
such construction as will effectuate such intent will be adopted.

Continuation of existing laws.

 A codification should be construed as the continuation of the existing
statutes.
 The codifiers did not intend to change the law as it formerly existed.
 The rearrangement of sections or parts of a statute, or the placing of
portions of what formerly was a single section in separate sections, does
not operate to change the operation, effect of meaning of the statute,
unless the changes are of such nature as to manifest clearly and
unmistakably a legislative intent to change the former laws.

REPEAL
 Repeal maybe total or partial, express or implied
Total repeal – revoked completely
Partial repeal – leaves the unaffected portions of the statute in force.
Express repeal- A particular or specific law, identified by its number of title
All other repeals are implied repeals.
 Failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was
not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency
and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old laws, latter
situation falls under the category of an implied repeal.
 Repealed only by the enactment of subsequent laws.

Repeal by implication
 Where a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of
the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must
be given effect.
 There must be a sufficient revelation of the legislative intent to repeal.
 Intention to repeal must be clear and manifest
 General rule: the latter act is to be construed as a continuation not a
substitute for the first act so far as the two acts are the same, from the
time of the first enactment.

Irreconcilable inconsistency
 Implied repeal brought about by irreconcilable repugnancy between
two laws takes place when the two statutes cover the same subject
matter; they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each
other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized and both cannot be
given effect, once cannot be enforced without nullifying the other.
 Implied repeal – earlier and later statutes should embrace the same
subject and have the same object.
  In order to effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so
irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that
they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together.
 Repeal by implication – based on the cardinal rule that in the science of
jurisprudence, two inconsistent laws on the same subject cannot co-
exist in one jurisdiction.
 There cannot be two conflicting law on the same subject. Either
reconciled or later repeals prior law.
 Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (a later law repeals the
prior law on the subject which is repugnant thereto)

Implied repeal by revision or codification

 Revised statute is in effect a legislative declaration that whatever is
embraced in the new statute shall prevail and whatever is excluded
there from shall be discarded.
 Must be intended to cover the whole subject to be a complete and
perfect system in itself in order that the prior statutes or part thereof
which are not repeated in the new statute will be deemed impliedly
repealed.

Repeal by reenactment
 Where a statute is a reenactment of the whole subject in substitution of
the previous laws on the matter, the latter disappears entirely and what
is omitted in the reenacted law is deemed repealed.

Other forms of implied repeal

 The most powerful implication of repeal is that which arises when the
later of two laws is expressed in the form of a universal negative.
 Affirmative statute does not impliedly repeal the prior law unless an
intention to effect a repeal is manifested.
 A negative statute repeals all conflicting provisions unless the contrary
intention is disclosed.
 Legislative intent to repeal is also shown where it enacts something in
general term and afterwards it passes another on the same subject,
which though expressed in affirmative language introduces special
conditions or restrictions

Repeal by implication not favored

 Presumption is against inconsistency or repugnancy and, accordingly,
against implied repeal
 Legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the subject and
not to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.
 A construction which in effect will repeal a statute altogether should, if
possible, be rejected.
 In case of doubt as to whether a later statute has impliedly repealed a
prior law on the same subject, the doubt should be resolved against
implied repeal. Courts are slow to hold that one statute has repealed
another by implication and they will not make such adjudication if they
can refrain from doing so, or if they can arrive at another result by any
construction which is just and reasonable.
As between two laws, one passed later prevails
 Leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant (later statute repeals
prior ones which are not repugnant thereto.)
 Applies even if the later act is made to take effect ahead of the earlier
law. As between two acts, the one passed later and going into effect
earlier will prevail over one passed earlier and going into effect later.

The later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later

legislative will.
 Presumption: the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to
change it.
 Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, not the other way around.

General law does not repeal special law

 A general law on a subject does not operate to repeal a prior special law
on the same subject, unless it clearly appears that the legislature has
intended by the later general act to modify or repeal the earlier special
law.
 Presumption against implied repeal is stronger when of two laws, one is
special and the other general and this applies even though the terms of
the general act are broad enough to include the matter covered by the
special statute.
 Generalia specialibus non derogant – a general law does not nullify a
specific or special law
 Reason why a special law prevails over a general law: the legislature
considers and makes provision for all the circumstances of the
particular case.
 General and special laws are read and construed together, and that
repugnancy between them is reconciled by constituting the special law
as an exception to the general law. General law yields to the special law
in the specific law in the specific and particular subject embraced in the
latter.
 Applies irrespective of the date of passage of the special law.

When special or general law repeals the other.

 There is always a partial repeal where the later act is a special law.
Intent to repeal the earlier special law where the later general act
provides that all laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent therewith
are repealed or modified accordingly
 If the intention to repeal the special law is clear, then the rule that the
special law will be considered as an exception to the general law does
not apply; what applies is the rule that the special law is deemed
impliedly repealed.

Effects of repeal
 Appeal of a statute renders it inoperative as of the date the repealing act
takes effect.
 Repeal is by no means equivalent to a declaration that the repealed
statute is invalid from the date of its enactment.
 The repeal of a law does not undo the consequences of the operation of
the statute while in force, unless such result is directed by express
 language or by necessary implication, except as it may affect rights
which become vested when the repealed act was in force.

On jurisdiction
 General rule: where a court or tribunal has already acquired and is
exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to
final determination of the cause is not affected by the new legislation
repealing the statute which originally conferred jurisdiction.
 Rule: once the court acquires jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall
continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the final determination of the
case and it is not affected by subsequent legislation vesting jurisdiction
over such proceedings in another tribunal admits of exceptions.
 Repeal or expiration of a statute under which a court or tribunal
originally acquired jurisdiction to try and decide a case, does not make
its decision subsequently rendered thereon null and void for want of
authority, unless otherwise provided.
 In the absence of a legislative intent to the contrary, the expiration or
repeal of a statute does not render legal what, under the old law, is an
illegal transaction, so as to deprive the court or tribunal the court or
tribunal of the authority to act on a case involving such illegal
transaction.
 Where a law declares certain importations to be illegal, subject to
forfeiture by the Commissioner of Customs pursuant to what the latter
initiated forfeiture proceedings, the expiration of the law during the
pendency of the proceedings does not divest the Commissioner of
Customs of the jurisdiction to continue to resolve the case, nor does it
have the effect of making the illegal importation legal or of setting aside
the decision of the commissioner on the matter.

On jurisdiction to try criminal case

 Once a jurisdiction to try a criminal case is acquired, that jurisdiction
remains with the court until the case is finally determined.
 A subsequent statute amending or repealing a prior act under which the
court acquired jurisdiction over the case with the effect of removing the
courts’ jurisdiction may not operate to oust jurisdiction that has already
attached.

On actions, pending or otherwise

 Rule: repeal of a statute defeats all actions and proceedings, including
those, which are still pending, which arose out of or are based on said
statute.
 The court must conform its decision to the law then existing and may,
therefore, reverse a judgment which was correct when pronounced in
the subordinate tribunal, if it appears that pending appeal a statute
which was necessary to support the judgment of the lower court has
been withdrawn by an absolute repeal.

On vested rights
 Repeal of a statute does not destroy or impair rights that accrued and
became vested under the statute before its repeal.
  The statute should not be construed so as to affect the rights which have
vested under the old law then in force, or as requiring the abatement of
actions instituted for the enforcement of such rights.
 Rights accrued and vested while a statute is in force ordinarily survive
its repeal.

On contracts
 Where a contract is entered into by the parties on the basis of the law
then obtaining, the repeal or amendment of said law will not affect the
terms of the contract nor impair the right of the parties thereunder.

Effect of repeal of tax laws

 Rule favoring a prospective construction of statutes is applicable to
statutes which repeal tax laws.
 Such statute is not made retroactive

Effect of repeal and reenactment

 Simultaneous repeal and reenactment of a statute does not affect the
rights and liabilities which have accrued under the original statute,
since the reenactment neutralizes the repeal and continues the law in
force without interruption.
 The repeal of a penal law, under which a person is charged with
violation thereof and its simultaneous reenactment penalizing the same
act done by him under the old law, will not preclude the accused’s
prosecution, nor deprive the court of the jurisdiction to try and convict
him.

Effect of repeal of penal laws

 Where the repeal is absolute, so that the crime no longer exists,
prosecution of the person charged under the old law cannot be had and
the action should be dismissed.
 Where the repeal of a penal law is total and absolute and the act which
was penalized by a prior law ceases to be criminal under the new law,
the previous offense is obliterated.
 That a total repeal deprives the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and
sentence, persons, charged with violations of the old law prior to the
repeal.
 Repeal of a statute which provides an indispensable element in the
commission of a crime as defined in the RPC likewise operates to
deprive the court of the authority to decide the case, rule rests on the
same principle as that concerning the effect of a repeal of a penal law
without qualification.
 Reason: the repeal of a penal law without disqualification is a legislative
act of rendering legal what is previously decreed as illegal, so that the
person who committed it is as if he never committed an offence
 Exception: where the repealing act reenacts the statute and penalizes
the same act previously penalized under the repealed law, the act
committed before reenactment continues to be a crime, and pending
cases are not thereby affected.

Effect of repeal of municipal charter

  The repeal of a charter destroys all offices under it, and puts an end to
the functions of the incumbents.
 The conversation of a municipality into a city by the passage of a
charter or a statute to that effect has the effect of abolishing all
municipal offices then existing under the old municipality offices then
the existing under the old municipality, save those excepted in the
charter itself.

Repeal or nullity of repealing law effect

 When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the
law first repealed shall not thereby revived unless expressly so
provided
 Where a repealing statute is declared unconstitutional, it will have no
effect of repealing the former statute, the former or old statute
continues to remain in force.

CHAPTER 11 SUMMARY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION

Constitution definition
 Fundamental law of the land which sets up a form of government and
defines and delimits the powers thereof and those of its officers,
reserving to the people themselves plenary sovereignty
 Written charter enacted and adopted by the people by which a
government for them is established
 Absolute and unalterable except by amendments
 All other laws are expected to conform to it

Origin and history of the Philippine Constitutions

 1935 Constitution
 1973 Constitution
 1987 Constitution

Primary purpose of constitutional construction

 Purpose: to protect and enhance the people’s interests because it
governs the life of the people not only at the time of its framing but far
into the indefinite future
 Its stability protects the rights, liberty, and property of the people (rich
or poor)
 Courts should construe the constitution so that it would be consistent
with reason, justice and the public interest

How language of constitution construed

 Primary source in order to ascertain the constitution is the LANGUAGE
itself
 The words that are used are broad because it aims to cover all
contingencies
 Words must be understood in their common or ordinary meaning
except when technical terms are employed

Aids to construction
 Apart from its language courts may refer to the following in construing
the constitution:
- History
 - proceedings of the convention
- prior laws and judicial decisions
- contemporaneous constructions
- consequences of alternative interpretations
 These aids are called extraneous aids because though their effect is not
in precise rules their influence describes the essentials of the process

Realities existing at time of adoption; object to be accomplished

 History basically helps in making one understand as to how and why
certain laws were incorporated into the constitution.
 In construing constitutional law, the history must be taken into
consideration because there are certain considerations rooted in the
historical background of the environment at the time of its adoption

Proceedings of the convention

 RULE: If the language of the constitutional provision is plain it is not
necessary to resort to extrinsic aids
 EXCEPTION: when the intent of the framer doesn’t appear in the text or
it has more than one construction.
 Intent of a constitutional convention member doesn’t necessarily mean
it is also the people’s intent
 The proceedings of the convention are usually inquired into because it
sheds light into what the framers of the constitution had in mind at that
time. (refers to the debates, interpretations and opinions concerning
particular provisions)

Contemporaneous construction and writings

 May be used to resolve but not to create ambiguities
 In construing statutes, contemporaneous construction are entitled to
great weight however when it comes to the constitution it has no weight
and will not be allowed to change in any way its meaning.
 Writings of delegates – has persuasive force but it depends on two
things:
- if opinions are based on fact known to them and not established it is
immaterial
- on legal hermeneutics, their conclusions may not be a shade better in
the eyes of the law

Previous laws and judicial rulings

 Framers of the constitution is presumed to be aware of prevailing
judicial doctrines concerning the subject of constitutional provisions.
THUS when courts adopt principles different from prior decisions it is
presumed that they did so to overrule said principle

Changes in phraseology
 Before a constitution is ratified it undergoes a lot of revisions and
changes in phraseology (ex. deletion of words) and these
changes may be inquired into to ascertain the intent or purpose of the
provision as approved
 HOWEVER mere deletion, as negative guides, cannot prevail over the
positive provisions nor is it determinative of any conclusion.
Consequences of alternative constructions
 Consequences that may follow from alternative construction of doubtful
constitutional provisions constitute an important factor to consider in
construing them.
 If a provision has more than one interpretation, that construction which
would lead to absurd, impossible or mischievous consequences must be
rejected.

Constitution construed as a whole

 Provision should not be construed separately from the rest it should be
interpreted as a whole and be harmonized with conflicting provisions so
as to give them all force and effect.
 Sections in the constitution with a particular subject should be
interpreted together to effectuate the whole purpose of the
Constitution.

Mandatory or directory
 RULE: constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandatory
unless a different intention is manifested.
 REASON: Because in a constitution, the sovereign itself speaks and is
laying down rules which for the time being at least are to control alike
the government and the governed. failure of the legislature to enact the
necessary required by the constitution does not make the legislature is
illegal.

Prospective or retroactive
 RULE: constitution operates prospectively only unless the words
employed are clear that it applies retroactively