I.

STATUTES
A. Definition
B. Distinguished from
1. Constitution
2. Ordinances
3. Administrative orders
C. Classification
1. According to duration: permanent vs. temporary
a. GR: Permanent; EXC: law with sunset clause; emergency measures
CASE:
Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August 26, 1949
Rodriguez v. Gella, G.R. No. L-6266, February 2, 1953
2. According to time of applicability: prospective vs. retroactive
3. According to operation: declaratory; curative
4. According to compliance requirement: mandatory vs. directory
5. According to WON rights are given: substantive vs. non-substantive (remedial)
6. According to form: affirmative vs. negative
7. According to WON there is a penal provision: penal vs. non-penal
D. Enactment (How a bill becomes a law)
1. Legislative power: vested on Congress (Read Sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution)
2. Procedure (Read Sec 24, 25, 26 and 27, Art. VI of the Constitution)
E. Enrolled Bill doctrine
CASES:
Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
F. Parts of Law
1. Title
a. Single subject rule [Read Section 26 (1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution]
CASES:
Lidasan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003
2. Enacting clause
3. Preamble (seldom included)
4. Body (purview) of the statute
5. Separability clause
G. Effectivity (See Art. 2, Civil Code)
1. Publication requirement
CASES:
Tañada v. Tuvera (resolution of the M.R.), L-63915 December 29, 1986
Phil. Veterans Bank Employees Union v. Vega, GR No. 105364, June 28, 2001
(deviation from Tañada v. Tuvera)
2. GR: Prospective operation of laws (Art. 4, Civil Code)
a. Exception to prospectivity
(1) law provides for retroactive application
(2) penal provision favorable to the accused
CASE:
People v. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, February 5, 2014
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017
(3) rules of procedure
CASE: Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
b. Exception to exception
(1) rule of procedure intended to apply prospectively
CASE: People v. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003
(2) rules that are substantive in character
CASE: In Re Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan, A.C. 9676, April 2, 2018
H. Amendments
1. Coverage: only specific provisions
2. Form
a. General rule: express
b. Exception: amendment by implication
3. Construction of amendments
CASE: Estrada v. Caseda, G.R. No. L-1560, October 25, 1949
4. Operation of amendments
a. Generally, prospective
b. Exception: express provision on retroactivity
c. Exception to the exception: when vested rights are impaired
 5. Effect on jurisdiction of courts
6. Effect of nullity of prior or amendatory act
I. Revision and Codification
1. Construction: harmonize the different provisions of the revised statute or code
2. Effect of omission of provision/s of the old laws
a. Generally: what is omitted is deemed repealed
b. Exception: revised statute provides otherwise
3. Effect of change in phraseology
CASE:
Dreamwork Construction v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009
People v. Manantan, G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962
J. Repeals
1. Civil Code provision on repeals [Art. 7 (1), NCC]
2. Distinguished from Amendments
3. General Rule: Non-retroactive application
CASE: Tac-an v. CA, G.R. No. L-38736 May 21, 1984
Facts:
4. Forms of repeal
a. Express repeal
b. Implied repeal
(1) Presumption Against Implied Repeal
CASE: National Power Corporation v. Angas, G.R. Nos. 60225-26, May 8,
1992
(2) Categories of implied repeal
a) Irreconcilable inconsistency between two laws with similar subject matter
CASES:
Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No. L-31711, September 30, 1971
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, December 12, 1995
University of the Philippines v. City Treasurer of Quezon City, G.R. No.
214044, June 19, 2019
b) Later law covers whole subject of earlier law AND is clearly intended as a
substitute
CASE: People v. Almuete, G.R. No. L-26551, February 27, 1976
5. Nature of repealing clause: predicated on substantial (irreconcilable) conflict between
prior and later laws
6. Earlier law vs. later law
a. Irreconcilable inconsistency of two laws: later law prevails
CASE: David v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997
b. Earlier special law vs. later general law
(1) Effect: Generalia specialibus non derogant (Later general law does not repeal
earlier special law)
CASE: Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71
December 7, 1995
(2) Harmonizing the two laws: Generally, earlier special law is deemed an exception
to the later general law
CASE: Magtajas v. Pryce properties Corp., G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
(3) Exceptions
a) Later general enactment intended to cover the whole subject and to repeal the
all prior laws inconsistent therewith
CASE: Gaerlan vs. Catubig, G.R. No. L-23964, June 1, 1966
b) Earlier special law establishes a general rule; later general law creates
specific rule
CASE: City of Manila v. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, January 29, 1968
c) manifest intention of the legislature to repeal the earlier special law
CASE: City Government of San Pablo v. Reyes, G.R. No. 127708, March
25, 1999
c. Earlier general law vs. later special law – Effect: later special law deemed an
exception to earlier general law
CASES:
Lagman v. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-23305, June 30, 1966
Republic v. Yahon, G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
7. Effect of Repeal
a. On when repealed law is rendered inoperative: date repealing act takes effect
 b. On jurisdiction already acquired by courts: not lost by subsequent repeal or expiration
of the law giving the jurisdiction
(1) But courts are to use the prevailing law in disposing of the merits of the case
a) Exception: where vested rights are impaired
c. On contracts previously had under the repealed law
d. On taxes assessed under the repealed tax law
e. On municipal offices under the old charter of an LGU
8. Effect of Repeal or Declaration of Unconstitutionality of Repealing law
CASE: JG Summit Holdings v. CA, G.R. No. 124293, November 20, 2000
(IMPORTANT: Read also the Resolutions dated September 24, 2003 and January 31,
2005)
9. Only a law can repeal another law
CASE: Palanca v. CA, G.R. No. 106685, December 2, 1994
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5,
2014
10. No such thing as irrepealable law
CASE: Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011