This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-01-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the rule is settled that repeals by implication are not favored, because laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing pertaining to the subject.[46] An implied repeal is predicated upon the condition that a substantial conflict or repugnancy is found between the new and prior laws. Thus, in the absence of an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws.[47] We find no such conflict between the provisions of Act 2655 and R.A. No. 7653. | |||||