Tung Chin Hui v Rodriguez G.R. No.

137571 September 21, 2000 FACTS: Petitioner, Tung Chin Hui is an alien who has allegedly entered the Philippines illegally, and was thus turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Petitioner then filed for a writ of habeas corpus for illegal detention while Respondent, Rufus B. Rodriguez as Commissioner of Immigration filed for an appeal five (5) days after its receipt of the order of releasing Petitioner. Petitioner however, contends that the appeal was already late under sec 18, rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court. Respondent on the other hand avers that Petitioners claim has no merit because such provision was completely abrogated by sec. 3, rule 41 of the 1997 rules of court. ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal made by respondent should be considered to be late. HELD: NO. Sec. 18, rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court is deemed omitted from and thereby repealed by the 1997 Rules of Court, which completely replaces Rules 1 to 71. This is because provisions of an old law that were not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed repealed and discarded; which in this case is the intention of the Supreme Court. Thus, declaring the appeal of respondent to be not considered late in its submission to the court. THIRD DIVISION J. Panganiban

David v COMELEC GR No. 127116 April 8, 1997 FACTS: Petitioner, Alex L. David in his capacity as a Barangay Chairman petitioned for the prohibition and rescheduling of holding the barangay elections on May 2, 1997 under RA 7160 or the Local Government Code (LGC) instead of holding the barangay elections on a later date under RA 6679. This is because under RA 6679, the earlier law, Petitioner together with other barangay officials will hold office for five (5) terms while under RA 7160, the later law, reduced the term of office of all local elective officials to three (3) years. ISSUE: WON RA 6679 should prevail over RA 7160 in terms of the term of office of barangay officials. HELD: No. In this case it would seem that RA 6679 ad RA 7160 are irreconcilable laws and in cases where irreconcilable conflict between two laws of different vintages, the latter enactment prevails. Legis posteri ores priores contrarias abrogant. A later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later legislative will wherein it is presumed EN BANC J. Panganiban

that the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it. Thus, the barangay election will continue as scheduled by COMELEC for May 2, 1994.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v CA GR Nos. 120865-71 FACTS: Petitioner, Laguna Lake Development Authority was created under RA 4850 which enables such government agency to be the sole authority in charge of the development and preservation of the Laguna Bay region. Petitioner was given the exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for the use of all surface waters for any projects in or affecting the said region, including the operation of fish pens. Respondent cities and municipalities, on the other hand under RA 7160 was granted exclusive authority to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters; which, allowed for the construction and operation of fish pens in the Laguna Bay region without permit from the Petitioner. ISSUE: WON respondent cities and municipalities had the authority and jurisdiction to issue permits for the construction and operation of fish pens in the Laguna Bay region. HELD: No. The Court held that RA 7160 did not necessarily repeal RA 4850 and its amendments for it did not have had any express provisions repealing the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority which is a special law. This is because the enactment of a later general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law; and that repeal of laws, specially of special laws should be made clear and expressed for a special law cannot be repealed, amended, or altered by a subsequent general law by mere implication. Thus, the issued permits by respondent cities and municipalities are declared null and that whatever constructions made due to such permits are to be subject to the demolition of the Laguna Bay Devt Authority. December 7, 1995 FIRST DIVISION J. Hermosisima, Jr.

Bagatsing v Ramirez GR No. L-41631 December 17, 1976 FACTS: Petitioners, officials of the City of Manila through Ramon Bagatsing as Mayor claims that Ordinance No. 7522 is a valid ordinance under the Local Tax Code because it requires on a post-publication which was made by the Petitioners. Respondents on the other hand alleges that such ordinance is invalid because under the City Charter of Manila regarding publication of ordinances which requires before enactment and after approval of the ordinance which was not followed by Petitioners. ISSUE: EN BANC J. Martin

Whether or not Ordinance No. 7522 is valid under the provision of the Local Tax Code and the City Charter of Manila. HELD: Yes. A charter of a city, which is a special law, may be impliedly modified or superseded by a later statute, and where a statute is controlling, it must be read in the charter, notwithstanding any of its particular provisions. A subsequent general law similarly applicable to all cities prevails over ay conflicting charter provisions, for the reason that a charter must not be inconsistent with the general laws and public policy of the State which are deemed incorporated therein the general laws affecting local governments. Thus, Ordinance No. 7522 is deemed valid and enforceable.

Department of Agrarian Reform v Sutton GR No. 162070 October 19, 2005 FACTS: EN BANC J. Puno