Practice question
A new enactment contains only a general inconsistent-laws repealer. Two provisions are reasonably compatible. Does that clause alone specifically repeal the earlier one?
- No; inconsistency supporting implied repeal must be established
- Yes, every earlier law is specifically named by implication
- Yes, chronology alone necessarily proves conflict
- Yes, a general clause abolishes all prior rights
- Yes, administrative preference supplies the repeal
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.