REVISION AND CODIFICATION Generally Purpose: to restate the existing laws into one statute and simply complicated

ted provisions, and make the laws on the subject easily found. Construction to harmonize different provisions Presumption: author has maintained a consisted philosophy or position. The different provisions of a revised statute or code should be read and construed together. 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.

Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol A irreconcilable conflict between parts of a revised statute or a code, that which is best in accord with the general plan or, in the absence of circumstances upon which to base a choice, that which is later in physical position, being the latest expression of legislative will, will prevail. What is omitted is deemed repealed all laws and provisions of the old laws that are omitted in the revised statute or code are deemed repealed, unless the statute or code provides otherwise Reason: revision or codification is, by its very nature and purpose, intended to be a complete enactment on the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. Possible only if the revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject to is a complete and perfect system in itself. Rule: a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute. When both intent and scope clearly evince the idea of a repeal, then all parts and provision of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are deemed repealed.

Mecano v. Commission on Audit Claim for reimbursement by a government official of medical and hospitalization expenses pursuant to Section 699 of the Revised Administration Code of 1917, which authorizes the head of office to case a reimbursement of payment of medical and hospital expenses of a government official in case of sickness or injury caused by or connected directly with the performance of his official duty. CoA denied the claim on the ground that AC of 1987 which revised the old AC, repealed Sec. 699 because it was omitted the revised code. SC ruled that the legislature did not intend, in enacting the new Code, to repeal Sec. 699 of the old code. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulation, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. New code did not expressly repeal the old as the new Code fails to identify or designate the act to be repealed. Two categories of repeal by implication Provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter that are in irreconcilable conflict. Later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a statute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. There is no irreconcilable conflict between the two codes on the matter of sickness benefits because the provision has not been restated in the New Code. 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

 It is a well settled rule that in the revision or codification of statutes, 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 seprate 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.