“Neither is there any
inconsistency between Art. 99 and R.A. No. 6975. Repeals by implication are not
favored. To the contrary, every statute must be so interpreted and brought in
accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
Interpretare et concordare leqibus est optimus interpretendi. [Republic of the
Philippines v Marcopper Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 137174, July 10, 2000
citing Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1995)]. For there to be an implied
repeal, there must be a clear showing of repugnance. The language used in the
later statute must be such as to render it irreconcilable with what has been
formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not
suffice. [Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17 (1996) citing
AGPALO, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 287-288 (1990)].”
CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY
JAIL, petitioner, vs. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, et. al., G.R. No. 141211, August 31,
2001.
