Difference Between General Law and Special Law

profound nonees Conflict between peculiar(a) and planetary impartiality By decide Gabriel T. Ingles Cebu Daily News First Posted 115900 10/12/2007 Filed Under Laws Reprint this articleSend as an e-mailPost a commentRelated namesPelaez gets court reliefEsperon d ars coup plotters Tell truth in courtCalifornia bans smoking in cars with child passengers in addition in this sectionGestaltwerte pa si PB Member TebanPartnership for better infrastructureWorthy TanodbayanJoavans comeuppanceBulls ar backWhen deeds speakIn need of creativityHealing the waterLimiting, not eliminating fatNo idling ordinance a mustiness Advertisement Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corporation, G. R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007 A ecumenic mandate is one which embraces a class of subjects or places and does not chuck out any subject or place naturally belonging to much(prenominal) class. A peculiar(a)(prenominal) statute, as the term is prevalently understood, is one which relates to crabbed pe rsons or things of a class or to a crabby member or section of the state however. A widely distributed law and a specific law on the same subject are statutes in pari materia and should, accordingly, be read together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving action to both.The rule is that where there are two acts, one of which is special(a) and fussy and the other general which, if standing alone, would include the same matter and gum olibanum conflict with the special act, the special law must prevail since it evinces the legislative intent much clearly than that of a general statute and must not be taken as intended to affect the more feature and specific provisions of the earlier act, unless it is absolutely necessary so to cons true up it in order to bedevil its words any content at all. The circumstance that the special law is passed before or later on the general act does not change the principle.Where the special law is later, it get out be regarded as an exception to, or a qualification of, the prior general act and where the general act is later, the special statute exit be construed as remaining an exception to its terms, unless repealed expressly or by necessary implication. 22 Thus, in City of manila v. Teotico, the Court held that Article 2189 of the Civil polity which holds provinces, cities, and municipalities civilly liable for death or injuries by reason of defective designers of roads and other public works, is a special provision and should prevail over fraction 4 of Republic wreak No. 09, the prosecute of Manila, in determining the liability for defective avenue conditions. Under state guide, the city shall not be held for damages or injuries arising from the failure of the local officials to go through the provision of the charter, law, or ordinance, or from sloppiness while enforcing or attempting to enforce the same. As explained by the Court Manila maintains that the former provision should prevail over the latter, because Republic turn 409 is a special law, intended exclusively for the City of Manila, whereas the Civil Code is a general law, applicable to the consummate Philippines.The Court of Appeals, however, applied the Civil Code, and, we think, correctly. It is true that, til now as its territorial application 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 provisions above quoted, Section 4 of Republic Act 409 establishes a general rule regulation the liability of the City of Manila for ? damages or tarnish 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 inattention? 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 prescription making ? pro vinces, 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 apply action is based upon the alleged defective condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive thereon. In the case of Bagatsing v. Ramirez, the issue was which law should govern the publication 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 afterward 23 approval, or the revenue Code, a general law, which deals in particular with ? ordinances levying or tremendous taxes, fees or other char ges,? nd which demands publication only after approval. In holding that it is the Tax Code which should prevail, the Court elucidated that there is no question that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a special act since it relates only to the City of Manila, whereas the Local Tax 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 repealed by a subsequent general law. The fact that one is special and the other general creates a effrontery 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 case. However, the rule readily yields to a situation where the special statute refers to a subject in general, which the general statu te treats in particular. This on the dot 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 nature and eye socket 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 body politic 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 ordinary Law Category Persons and Family Relations Conflict Between Special and worldwide Law What are the rules when a conflict arises between a special and a general law? 1. If the general law was enac ted first, the special law is considered the exception to the general law. Therefore the general law remains a good 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. sang-froid 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)