“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.