Gaerlan Jr v. Catubig

Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/jun1966/gr_l-23964_1966.html

Facts: 
Gaerlan Jr and Catubig were registered candidates for councilors in 8-seat City Council of Dagupan in the 1963 elections. Catubig was proclaimed one of the eight elected councilors while Gaerlan lost his bid.
However, Gaerlan went to Court to challenge Catubig's eligibility for the office on the averment of non-age. Catubig was below 25 years of ages as of the date of the filing of his certificate of candidacy or date of election or date of assumption of office. Catubig claims that the question of age-eligibility should be governed by RA 170 which provides that the elective members of the Municipal Board shall be qualified electors of the city residents therein for at least one year and not less than 23 years of age and not RA 2259 which provides that no person shall be a city mayor, vice mayor or councilor unless he is at least 25 years of age, resident of the city for one year prior to his election and is a qualified voter.

Issue:
Whether or not Section 12 of RA 170 (23 years of age) should give way to Section 6 of RA 2259 (25 years of age).

Held:
No. Section 6 of RA 2259 (25 years of age) should prevail. RA 484 amending Section 12 of the Dagupan City Charter (RA 170), took effect on June 10, 1950 whereas RA 2259 became law on June 10, 1959.
The question whether or not a special law has been repealed or amended by one or more subsequent general laws is dependedt mainly upon the intent of Congress in enacting the latter. The discussions on the floor of Congress show beyond doubt that its members intended to amend or repeal all provisions of special laws inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 2259,except those which are expressly excluded from the operation thereof. All cities not particularly excepted from the provisions of said act are subjct thereto. Hence, the age-limit provision in RA 2259 is continuing, because Dagupan City was not excluded. Therefore, its charger provision on the age limit is thereby repealed. This is because the last statute si so broad in terms and so clear and explicit in its words so as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject and therefore to displace the prior staute.