This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This is what is known as an implied repeal. Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that 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.[12] There are two categories of implied repeal. The first is where the provisions in the two acts on the same subject matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the latter act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one.[13] The second is if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law.[14] The second category of repeal is only possible if the revised statute was intended to cover the whole subject matter and as a complete and perfect system in itself. It is the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of the former statute.[15] | |||||