Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc., et al, v. Feliciano

Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/mar1965/gr_l-24022_1965.html

Facts:

On December 26, 1964, Jose Y. Feliciano, Chairman and General Manager of the Rice and Corn Administration, wrote the President of the Philippines urging the immediate importation of 595,400 metric tons of rice, thru a government agency which the President may designate, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Economic Council. The President submitted said letter to his cabinet for consideration and on December 28, 1964, the cabinet approved the needed importation. On January 4, 1965, the President designated the Rice and Corn Administration as the government agency authorized to undertake the importation. Considering that said importation, the Iloilo Palay and corn Planters Association alleged that it is contrary to RA 3453 which prohibits the government from importing rice and tat there is no law appropriating funds to finance the same. They said that it its illegal because it is prohibited by RA 3452 which in Section 10 provides that the importation of rice and corn is only left to private properties upon payment of the corresponding taxes. They claim that RCA is prohibited from doing so. According to them, RA 2207 which provides that should there be an existing or imminent shortage in the local supply of rice of suh gravity as to constitute a national emergency and certified by the NEC, the president may authorize such importation thru any government agency he may designate - is repealed by RA 3452.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 2207 which allows importation of rice by government agency during national emergency is repealed by RA 3452

Held:

No, RA 2207 is not repealed by RA 3452.

Section 16 of RA 3452 contains a repealing clause which provides "All laws or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.". This repealing clause is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the act/s that are intended to be repealed. Rather, is is a clause which predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. Such being the case, the presumption against implied repeals and the rule against strict construction regarding implied repeals apply ex proprio vigre. The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless on irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. Here there is no inconsistency.

While the two laws are geared towards the same ultimate objective, their methods of approach are different; one is by a total ban of rice importation and the other by a partial ban, the same being applicable only to the government during normal period. Also, RA 3452 only authorizes importation during normal times, but when there is shortage in the local supply of sucy gravity as to constitute a national emergency, we have to turn to RA 2207. These two laws are therefore not inconsistent and so implied repeal does not ensue.