DOJ Opinion No. 032, s. 1992

DOJ OPINION NO. 032 , s. 1992 March 9, 1992 Executive Secretary Franklin M. Drilon Office of the President Malacaang, Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for opinion on "whether or not the Local Government Code [of 1991] superseded the provisions of Executive Order No. 392" which created the Metro Manila Authority. LexLib It appears that you have raised the issue in your capacity as the Chairman of the Oversight Committee which is mandated by law to formulate and issue the appropriate rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) because the resolution thereof has a great bearing on the financial viability and the delivery of basic services in the Metropolitan Manila. Upon a close examination of the LGC which is a general law vis-a-vis E.O. No. 392 which is a special law, we are of the opinion that the former did not repeal the latter. Firstly, were it the intention of the legislature to repeal E.O. No. 392, it could have easily stated so in the repealing clause of the LGC as it did with the numerous specific laws which were expressly repealed therein (see Section 354). Secondly, it is settled that a general law cannot repeal a special law by implication. The repeal must be express and specific (People vs. Palma, 76 SCRA 243). Repeals by implication are not favored (Valdez vs. Tuazon, 40 Phil. 943; Bocobo vs. Estanislao, 72 SCRA 520). For the legislature is presumed to know all the existing laws on the subject (U.S. vs. Palacio, 33 Phil. 208). It is true that Section 534 of the LGC has a repealing clause which repeals "[a]ll general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamation and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of [the] Code." However, a repealing clause of such nature cannot be considered as having the effect of an express repeal for it does not only fail to identify or designate the act or acts that are intended to be repealed but it predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found on existing prior acts, and such being the case, the presumption against implied repeal applies ex proprio vigore (Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. vs. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377). prcd In the absence of an express repeal, the rule is that the general law and special law on the same subject matter are deemed statutes in pari materia and should, accordingly, be read together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving effect to every provision thereof (City of Naga vs. Agna, 71 SCRA 176). If harmonization is impossible, the rule is that the earlier enactment must yield to the later one, it being the later expression of legislative will( ibid. ). Applying this rule, the provisions of the LGC which took effect on January 1, 1992 should, in case of conflict, prevail over the earlier provisions of E.O. No. 392 which was issued on January 9, 1990. Significantly, the primacy of the LGC over E.O. No. 392 is conceded in Section 11 of said E.O. which provides that ". . . Until otherwise provided by law , the [Metropolitan Manila] Authority shall be exempted from the coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the Local Government Code" (emphasis ours). Indeed, there are many provisions of the LGC which are expressly made applicable to the independent component cities and municipalities within the Metropolitan Manila, as well as to the MMA itself, such, Section 144, 205, 212, 218, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 252, 258, 275, 277, 386, 455, 492, 494, 502, 504, 508, to cite a few. This strongly indicate the legislative intent to place the MMA under the coverage, albeit in a limited manner, of the LGC. Accordingly, in case of conflict with the provisions of E.O. No. 392, the specific provisions of the LGC which expressly apply to the MMA, and/or to the independent component cities and municipalities therein should, conformably with said Section 11, prevail over the provisions of E.O. No. 392. Based thereon, we reiterate the view that the LGC did not repeal E.O. No. 392 but in case of conflict between the provisions of E.O. No. 392 and those of the LGC, the former must yield to the latter. Very truly yours, (SGD.) EDUARDO G. MONTENEGRO Acting Secretary