Practice question
A city amends an invalid benefit ordinance only by increasing years of service required. The amendment retains the same nationally prohibited supplemental-retirement scheme. It argues the new ordinance number alone cures the legal vice. Which Hagedorn principle applies?
- An amendment retaining the same prohibited scheme is not cured merely by changing eligibility or numbering
- Every amendment automatically defeats national law
- A new number creates constitutional authority
- Eligibility changes always repeal the governing statute
- The beneficiaries may validate the ordinance by vote
Legal references
- Civil Code RA386: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html Article7.
- CIR v Primetown GR162155 August28,2007 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_162155_2007.html general repealers and conflicting legal-period rules.
- Hagedorn v COA GR260458 June4,2024 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jun2024/gr_260458_2024.html MAIN invalidated measures and limited consequences.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.