CONSOLIDATED REVIEWER FROM RABUYA,
Implied Repeal – Takes place when the
STA. MARIA, AND PARAS
Atty. Gonzales
ARTICLE 7. Laws are repealed only by
subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or
custom or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent
with the Constitution, the former shall be void
and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and
regulations shall be valid only when they are not
contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (5a)
Sources of law in Order of Preference of Article 7
1. Constitution
2. Laws/Statutes/P.D.
3. Administrative/Executive Acts
4. Orders
5. Regulations
Lapse of Laws - Laws may lapse (i.e., end by itself in
view of the expiration of the period during which it was
supposed to be effective) without the necessity of any
repeal as exemplified by the law granting the
President, Emergency Powers or the annual
appropriations law.
Non-Observance of Law, Disuse, custom,
or practice to the contrary does not
repeal a law. Thus, although hardly
enforced nowadays, an article of the Revised
Penal Code still prohibits betting on the
results of a basketball game, or any other
sports contest.
A mistake in the law or in legislation cannot
be corrected by executive fiat but by
another legislation.
Repeal - Repeal of a law is the legislative act of
abrogating through a subsequent law the effects of a
previous statute or portions thereof.
Laws are repealed in two ways:
1. Express Repeal – An express repeal
contained in a special provision of
subsequent law.
a. If repeal of a particular law
intended, the proper step is
express it.
2.
provisions of the subsequent law are
incompatible with those of an earlier law and
there is no express repeal.
a. There must be a plain, unavoidable
and irreconcilable repugnancy
between the provisions of the
earlier law and the subsequent law.
b. Requisites of Implied Repeal
i. The laws cover the same
subject matter
ii. The latter is repugnant to
the earlier
c. Repugnancy
i. Condition: there must be
a substantial conflict
between the new and prior
laws.
ii. There must be an
irreconcilable
inconsistency and
repugnancy in the terms of
the old and new laws.
iii. The two must be
absolutely incompatible
with each other that they
cannot be made to stand
together.
Presumption against Implied Repeal
• All doubts must be resolved against
implied repeal, and all efforts should be
exerted in order to harmonize and give effect
should be exerted in order to harmonize and
give effect to all laws on the subject.
• Every statute must be so interpreted and
brought into accord with other laws as to
form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
(interpretare et concordare lequibus est
optimus interpretendi)
• This is based on the fact that the legislature
should be presumed to have known the
existing laws on the subject and not have
enacted conflicting statutes.
Conflict Between General and Special Laws
is
a • When there is conflict, the special statute
should prevail since the special statute
is evinces the legislative intent more clearly
to than the general statute.
 • The special statute must be taken as the
exception to the said general law since
implied repeals are not favored.
o A special law CANNOT BE
REPEALED, AMMENDED OR
ALTERED by a subsequent general
law BY MERE IMPLICATION.
o Except: the INTENT TO REPEAL
OR ALTER IS MANIFEST.
• General Law Enacted Prior to Special
Law: If the general law was enacted PRIOR
to the special law, the special law is
considered the exception to the general law.
Therefore, the general law, in general
remains good law, and there is no repeal,
except insofar as the exception or special
law is concerned.
• General Law Enacted After Special Law: If
the general law was enacted AFTER the
special law, the special law remains.
o Unless:
▪ There is an express
declaration to the contrary
▪ There is a clear,
necessary and
irreconcilable conflict
▪ The subsequent general
law covers the whole
subject and is clearly
intended to replace the
special law on the matter.
Effect of Repeal of Repealing Law
- The repeal of the Repealing law shall DEPEND on
whether the previous repeal was express or implied.
• Express Repeal of the Law first repealed:
When a law which expressly repeals a prior
law is itself repealed, the law first repealed
shall not be revived unless expressly so
provided.
• Implied Repeal of Law first repealed:
When a law which impliedly repeals a prior
law is itself repealed, the prior law shall
thereby be revived, unless the repealing law
provides otherwise.
Constitution - The constitution is the fundamental
law of the land, and all laws must bow before it. Thus,
if a law, administrative or executive acts, orders and
regulations are inconsistent with the Constitution, they
are considered not valid.
Supreme Court - may declare an act of the national
legislature invalid because if it is in conflict with the
fundamental law
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven
members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
All cases involving the constitutionality of a
treaty, international or executive agreement,
or law, which shall be heard by the
Supreme Court en banc.
an En Banc session is a session in which a
case is heard before all the judges of a court
rather than by one judge or a smaller panel
of judges.
Cases or matters heard by a
division shall be decided or
resolved with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who
actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon
Matters that need to be heard en banc:
constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the members
who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.
Supremacy of the Constitution
The last paragraph of Article 7 asserts the supremacy
of the law and the constitution over administrative or
executive acts.
Power to Declare law Unconstitutional, Power of
Judicial Review
• Under the constitution, the Supreme Court
may declare an act of the national legislature
invalid because if it is in conflict with the
fundamental law.
• When the Supreme Court thus passes
judgment upon the constitutionality of a
 statute or an administrative action, the Court But in deciding the constitutionality of a statute, every
is said to be exercising the “power of presumption favors the validity of the same and
judicial review.” whenever possible, statutes should be given a
meaning that will not bring them in conflict with the
(Some) Grounds for Declaring a Law Constitution.
Unconstitutional
No Collateral Attack
1. The enactment of the law may not be within
the legislative powers of the lawmaking • Collateral Attack - an attack on the
body. judgment is made as an incident in said
a. Example: Legislative act controlling action.
the Supreme Court in its
supervision and discretion of It is well-settled that the constitutionality of a
matters pertaining to Bar law or executive order may not be collaterally
Admission. attacked. To properly assail the
2. Arbitrary methods may have been unconstitutionality of a law, they must be
established. attacked directly and be the subject matter of the
3. The purpose or effect violates the case. They shall, therefore, be deemed valid
Constitution or its basic principles. unless declared null and void by a competent
court.
Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Partial Unconstitutionality
Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that when the
courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Where a portion of a statute is rendered
Constitution, it shall be void and the latter shall unconstitutional and the remainder valid, the parts will
govern. be separated, and the constitutional portion
upheld.
• Orthodox View: That an unconstitutional act
confers no rights, imposes no duties, and Except: But when the parts of the statute are
affords no protection whatsoever. so mutually dependent and connected, as
o Our Supreme Court has already conditions, considerations, inducements, or
rejected this view. compensations for each other, as to warrant
• Modern View: That before an act is declared a belief that the legislature intended them as
unconstitutional it is an “operative fact” a whole, and that if all could not be carried
which can be the source of rights and duties into effect, the legislature would not pass the
especially if complied with in good faith. residue independently, then if some parts
o the actual existence of the law prior are unconstitutional, all the provisions which
to such declaration is an operative are thus dependent, conditional or
fact and may have consequences connected, must fall with them.
which cannot justly be ignored.
▪ Example: Thus, it has Rules and Regulations: Administrative and
been held that although Executive Acts
the Moratorium Law was
• General Rule: Rules and regulations as well
eventually declared
as administrative or executive acts violative
unconstitutional, it
of the law and the constitution are invalid.
suspended the period of
• Exception: A rule is binding on the courts so
prescription for actions to
long as the procedure fixed for its
enforce the obligations
promulgation is followed, and its scope is
covered by the
within the statutory authority granted by the
moratorium.
legislature, even if the courts are not in
• Operative Fact Doctrine: This is when a
agreement with the policy stated therein or
legislative or executive act, prior to its being
its innate wisdom.
declared as unconstitutional by the courts, is
valid and must be complied with.
An administrative officer cannot change a
congressional law by a wrong interpretation of it.
Departmental regulations must be in harmony with
legal provisions. The regulations by themselves
should NOT be allowed to enlarge or extend the law.
ARTICLE 8. Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
(n)
Effect of Judicial Decisions
Judicial Decisions shall form part of the
Legal System of the Philippines
The settled rule supported by
numerous authorities is
restatement of the legal maxim
“legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet”
— the interpretation placed upon
the written law by a competent
court has the force of law
While judicial decisions form part of the legal
system, judicial decisions are not laws.
They are, however, evidence of what the
law means, and this is why they are part of
the legal system of the Philippines. The
interpretation placed upon the written law by
a competent court has the force of law.
Under the principle of separation of
powers, the judicial department has
no power to enact laws because the
same is the exclusive province of
the legislative department.
Only the decisions of the Supreme Court establish
jurisprudence or doctrines in this jurisdiction.
Decisions of the Supreme Court, although in
themselves not laws, are evidence of what the law
means.
Decisions of Court of Appeals
The decisions of subordinate courts are only
persuasive in nature and can have no
mandatory effect. However, this rule does
not militate against the fact that a conclusion
or pronouncement of the Court of Appeals
which covers a point of law still undecided in
the Philippines may still serve as a judicial
guide to the inferior court
Be it noted that only the decisions of the
Supreme Court, and unreversed decisions
of the Court of Appeals on cases of first
impression, establish jurisprudence or
doctrines in the Philippines.
However, this rule does not militate against
the fact that a conclusion or pronouncement
of the Court of Appeals which covers a point
of law still undecided in the Philippines may
still serve as a judicial guide to the inferior
Courts.
It is even possible that such conclusion or
pronouncement can be raised to the status
of a doctrine, if after it has been subjected
to test in the crucible of analysis and
revision, the Supreme Court should find that
it has merits and qualities sufficient for its
a
consecration as a rule of jurisprudence.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis (let it stand, et non quieta
movere)
Means that when the Court has once laid down a
principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all
future cases where the facts are substantially the
same.
Once a case has been decided one way, then another
case involving exactly the same point at issue, should
be decided in the same manner. (Paras)
• Its purpose is to enjoin adherence
to judicial precedents
• The doctrine, however, does not
mean blind adherence to
precedents. If the doctrine is found
to be contrary to law or erroneous,
it should be abandoned.
o Of course, when a case
has been decided
erroneously, such an
error must not be
perpetuated by blind
obedience to the doctrine
of stare decisis. No matter
how sound a doctrine may
be, and no matter how
long it has been followed
thru the years, still if
found to be contrary to
law, it must be
abandoned.
Note that only decisions of the Supreme Court
establish jurisprudence or doctrine in this jurisdiction.
Hence, only decisions of the Supreme Court are
considered in the application of the doctrine of stare
decisis
WHEN JUDICIAL DECISIONS DEEMED PART OF
THE LAW
The application or interpretation placed by the
Supreme Court upon a law is part of the law as of
the date of its enactment because the Court’s
application or interpretation merely establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed
law purports to carry into effect.
Exception: Prospective Application of
Doctrines (basis: art4: laws shall have no
retroactive effect).
When a doctrine of this Court is
overruled and a different view is
adopted, the new doctrine should
only be applied prospectively,
and should not apply to parties who
had relied on the old doctrine and
acted on the faith thereof. This is
especially true in the construction
and application of criminal laws,
where it is necessary that the
punishability of an act be
reasonably foreseen for the
guidance of society
It is clear that a judicial
interpretation becomes a part of the
law as of the date that law was
originally passed. However, a
reversal of that interpretation
cannot be given a retroactive
effect to the prejudice of parties
who had relied on the first
interpretation.
Decisions referred to in Article 8
Ratio Decidendi - The rationale for the
decision". The ratio decidendi is "the point in
a case that determines the judgement" or
"the principle that the case establishes"
Basis: No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based.
Not part of Judicial Precedents (No force and
effect)
1. Obiter Dicta (singular- dictum) are opinions
not necessary to the determination of a case.
They are not binding and cannot have the
force of judicial precedents. It has been
said that an obiter dictum is an opinion
“uttered by the way, not upon the point of
question pending.” “It is as if the Court were
turning aside from the main topic of the case
to collateral subjects.”
2. Dissenting Opinions - Upon the other
hand, a dissenting opinion affi rms or
overrules no claim, right or obligation. And
neither disposes of nor awards anything. It
merely expresses the view of the dissenter.
How Judicial Decisions may be Abrogated
1. By a contrary ruling by the Supreme
Court itself. Example is when the court
abandoned its previous decision and issued
another one.
2. Corrective legislative acts of Congress. If
the Congress passes a curative law.
However, the corrective law cannot
adversely affect those who were favored
prior to the SC Decision. Congress cannot,
however, alter a Supreme Court
interpretation of a constitutional provision, for
this would be an unwarranted assumption of
judicial power.
Philippines is not a common law country; we are a
civil law country.
But if what is meant by the phrase is case
law, based almost exclusively on Anglo-
American common law which is not in
conflict with local laws, customs and
constitution, then we have some sort of
Philippine Common Law — a common law
that supplements and amplifi es our statute
law. Of course, if a case is covered by an
express provision of the Civil Code, the
common law principle cannot be applied in
deciding the same.
Administrative Decisions can be made subject to
Judicial Review
Judicial review of the decision of an
administrative official is subject to certain
guideposts. For instance, findings of fact in
 such decision should not be disturbed if
supported by substantial evidence; but
review is justified when there has been a
denial of due process, or mistake of law, or
fraud, collusion, or arbitrary action in the
administrative proceeding.

When Final Judgements may be Changed

While it is true that the trial court cannot change,

amplify, enlarge, alter, or modify the decision of an
appellate court which is final and executory, still two
important things must be pointed out;

1. Firstly, a judgment void for lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter can be
assailed at any time either directly or
collaterally.
2. Secondly, it is now well-settled in this
jurisdiction that when after judgment has
been rendered and the latter has become
final, facts and circumstances transpire
which render its execution impossible or
unjust, the interested party may ask the
court to modify or alter the judgment to
harmonize the same with justice and with the
facts.

ARTICLE 9. No judge or court shall decline to render

judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws. (6)