DOJ Opinion No. 078, s. 1988

DOJ OPINION NO. 078 , s. 1988 April 21, 1988 Ms. Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando Chairman Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board East Avenue, Quezon City M a d a m : This is with reference to your request for opinion "on whether bus operators can still avail of and invoke Section 71 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992, as amended)". Said provision reads as follows: "Section 71. Municipal control of garages and parking regulations . Municipal councils are authorized and empowered to prescribe reasonable regulations and fees not inconsistent with this Act for the conduct, control and operation of garages, and to determine where and how vehicles of all kinds may, while not in use, park upon or occupy the public streets or places: Provided, however, That no public place within a radius of one hundred meters from any competing public service station, designated as such by the Public Service classification: and provided, moreover, That no provincial or municipal authority shall impose or collect any tax or fee on the business or privilege of maintaining or operating a Public Service motor vehicle." You state that bus operators continue to invoke Section 71 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law in their petitions for the declaration of their bus stations as "public service stations" notwithstanding its repeal by the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, arguing that since Section 63 of the repealing law provides that only provisions of the repealed law which are in conflict with the repealing law are repealed, Section 71 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, which is not inconsistent with any provision of the repealing law, may still be invoked and availed of by the bus operators. Pertinently, Section 63 of Republic Act No. 4136, as amended, otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, provides as follows: "Section 63. Repeal of law and ordinances . Act Numbered Thirty-nine hundred ninety-two, as amended, and all laws, executive orders, ordinances, resolutions, regulations, or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this Act are repealed : Provided, however, That nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as limiting or superseding any provision of the Public Service Act, as amended, with respect to the control by the Public Service Commission of motor vehicles operating as public service, nor shall any provision of this Act be construed as limiting or abridging the powers conferred upon and exercised by the Public Service Commission with regard to the control and supervision of the operation of such motor vehicles as public service." (Emphasis supplied) As we see it, Section 63 is clear and explicit in its intent to repeal and abrogate Act No. 3992 in its entirety. Repeals are either express or implied and in the case of Act No. 3992, its express mention in the repealing provisions of Section 63 constitutes an express repeal of the said law by R.A. No. 4136. It is not tenable to contend that Section 71 of Act No. 3992, which does not have a counterpart provision in R.A. No. 4136, is not repealed because it is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the said later law. The mere fact that it was omitted from R.A. No. 4136 is already indicative of the intent to repeal it. It is a principle in statutory construction that failure to set out former statutory provisions in a later enactment will operate to repeal the omitted provisions even though not in all respects repugnant to the new provisions (1 Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction, pp. 477-478; People vs. Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; Ops., Sec., of Justice, No. 206, s. 1969 and No. 99, s. 1971). Furthermore, R.A. No. 4136 is a reenactment of Act No. 3992 in that it covers the entire subject of the prior law (i.e., Act No. 3992). It is also a rule in statutory construction that where a statute is a reenactment of the whole subject in substitution of the previous law on the matter, the latter disappears entirely and what is omitted in the reenacted law is deemed repealed (Agpalo, Statutory Construction [1986]. p. 293). prcd In view of the foregoing, it is our view that Section 71 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992, as amended) can no longer be invoked and availed of by bus operations in view of its repeal by the Land Transportation and Traffic Code (R.A. No. 4136, as amended). Very truly yours, (SGD.) SEDFREY A. ORDOEZ Secretary of Justice