Difference Between General Law and Special Law

Legal Notes struggle surrounded by additional and commonplace impartiality By Judge Gabriel T. Ingles Cebu perfunctory News First Posted 115900 10/12/2007 Filed down the stairs Laws Reprint this articleSend as an e-mailPost a commentRelated expressionsPelaez gets court reliefEsperon d bes coup plotters Tell virtue in courtCalifornia bans smoking in cars with child passengers also in this sectionGestaltwerte pa si PB member TebanPartnership for better infrastructureWorthy TanodbayanJoavans comeuppanceBulls are backWhen deeds speakIn drive of creativityHealing the waterLimiting, not eliminating fatNo idling ordinance a moldiness Advertisement Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G. R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007 A command jurisprudence is sensation which embraces a mannequin of casings or places and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to much(prenominal) sept. A extra jurisprudence, as the term is chiefly understood, is ace which relat es to particular persons or things of a class or to a particular portion or section of the state only. A general rectitude and a fussy righteousness on the like subject are statutes in pari materia and should, accordingly, be memorise together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving upshot to both.The rationale is that where there are two acts, one of which is picky and particular and the opposite general which, if stand alone, would include the same matter and thus participation with the extra act, the supernumerary law mustiness keep since it evinces the legislative intent more than clear than that of a general statute and must not be taken as intended to affect the more particular and specific renders of the earlier act, unless it is utterly indispensable so to construe it in set out to give its words any meaning at all. The circumstance that the additional law is passed to begin with or after the general act does not diverge the principle.Wher e the additional law is later, it will be regarded as an expulsion to, or a qualification of, the earlier general act and where the general act is later, the exceptional statute will be construed as rest an elision to its terms, unless invalidateed expressly or by necessary implication. 22 Thus, in metropolis of manilla paper v. Teotico, the court of law held that member 2189 of the polished law which holds provinces, cities, and municipalities civilly fountainable for death or injuries by reason of big conditions of roads and some other public works, is a special provision and should prevail over Section 4 of nation passage No. 09, the postulate of Manila, in determining the financial obligation for defective street conditions. Under said Charter, the city shall not be held for remediation or injuries arising from the failure of the local officials to follow out the provision of the charter, law, or ordinance, or from disregard maculation enforcing or attemp ting to en event the same. As explained by the Court Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because Republic Act 409 is a special law, intended exclusively for the City of Manila, whereas the Civil Code is a general law, applicable to the entire Philippines.The Court of Appeals, however, applied the Civil Code, and, we think, correctly. It is true that, insofar as its territorial activity is concerned, Republic Act No. 409 is a special law and the Civil Code a general legislation but, as regards the subject matter of the sustenance above quoted, Section 4 of Republic Act 409 establishes a general dominion regulating the liability of the City of Manila for ? damages or crack to persons or property arising from the failure of? city officers ? to enforce the provisions of? said Act ? or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence? of the city ?Mayor, Municipal Board, or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions.? Upon the other hand, Article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a particular ethical drug making ? provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for damages for the death of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason? ? specifically ? ?of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.? In other words, said section 4 refers to liability arising from negligence, in general, regardless of the object thereof, whereas Article 2189 governs liability due to ? efective streets,? in particular. Since the present live up to is based upon the alleged defective condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon. In the plate of Bagatsing v. Ramirez, the issue was which law should govern the issue of a tax ordinance, the City Charter of Manila, a special act which treats ordinances in general and which requires their publication before enactment and after 23 approval, or the tax Code, a general law, which deals in particular with ? ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges,? nd which demands publication only after approval. In holding that it is the appraise Code which should prevail, the Court elucidated that There is no irresolution that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a special act since it relates only to the City of Manila, whereas the topical anesthetic measure Code is a general law because it applies universally to all local governments. Blackstone defines general law as a universal rule affecting the entire community and special law as one relating to particular persons or things of a class.And the rule commonly said is that a prior special law is not ordinarily abrogationed by a accompanying general law. The fact that one is special and the other general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception of the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular sk id. However, the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statute treats in particular. This exactly is the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar.Section 17 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila speaks of ? ordinance? in general, i. e. , irrespective of the temper and scope thereof, whereas, Section 43 of the Local Tax Code relates to ? ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges? in particular. In regard, therefore, to ordinances in general, the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is doubtless dominant, but, that dominant force loses its continuity when it approaches the realm of ? ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges? in particular. There, the Local Tax Code controls.Here, as always, a general provision must give way to a particular provision. Conflict Between Special and frequent Law division Persons and Family Relations Conflict Between Special and General Law What are the rules when a struggle arises between a special and a general law? 1. If the general law was enacted first, the special law is considered the exception to the general law. Therefore the general law remain a ethical law, and there is no repeal (Lichauco v. Apostol, 44 Phil 138), except insofar as the exception or special law is concerned.However if there are inconsistencies with the general law it is considered as a repeal to the general law. 2. If the special law was enacted first, both special law and general law are good laws unless a. There is an express declaration to tho contrary. b. Or the is a clear , necessary and unreconcilable conflict (Cia General v. Coll. of Customs, 46 Phil. Cool c. Or unless the subsequent general law covers the whole subject and is clearly intended to replace the special law on the matter. (Joaquin v. Navarro, 81 Phil. 373)