Short answer. No. A law does not lose its force merely because it has gone unenforced for a long time. The Civil Code says laws are repealed only by later laws, and that non-observance is not excused by disuse or by a custom or practice to the contrary.
What the law says
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
Civil Code, Article 7 — How Laws Are Repealed; Supremacy of the Constitution. Read the full provision →
Repeal takes another law
The article states a basic rule about how laws end: Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. A statute stays in force until the legislature passes a later law that removes or replaces it, whether expressly or by clear inconsistency. Time alone does no such thing. A rule that has sat unused for a decade is, legally, exactly as binding as one applied every day, because nothing in the mere passage of years performs the act of repeal. This matters because people sometimes assume an old, rarely invoked provision has quietly lapsed. It has not, unless a later law actually displaced it.
Disuse and contrary custom are not excuses
The same article closes off the obvious argument. It provides that the violation or non-observance of a law shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. So a person cannot defend breaking a rule by saying everyone ignores it, or that local practice has long run the other way. Widespread non-compliance does not repeal a statute; it just means many people are exposed to it. Nor does a settled custom override a written law it conflicts with. The written rule prevails until it is changed through the proper legislative process.
The article's other two rules
Article 7 also arranges the hierarchy above and below ordinary statutes. It provides that when the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern, so the Constitution outranks any statute, and a law that clashes with it gives way. At the lower end, it says administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. Rules issued by agencies cannot override the statutes or the Constitution they are meant to implement. Disuse aside, this is the ordering the article sets.
Why this matters in practice
The practical lesson is caution about so-called dead-letter laws. If a provision looks obsolete because no one seems to enforce it, that appearance is not a safe legal footing: the law can still be applied to you, and the fact that it was long ignored is not a shield. Equally, if you are relying on an old rule in your favour, it likely remains available for the same reason. Because whether a law was truly repealed depends on tracing later legislation, not on how active it has been, that question is one to check rather than assume.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Bayan Muna, as represented by Rep. Satur Ocampo, et al. vs. Alberto Romulo, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Justo Q. Sinag, et al. vs. the Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan Ng Batangas, G.R. No. 234228, February 25, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Mark Paul Ildefonso, G.R. No. 249858, February 19, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Patrick Alex M. Hagedorn, et al. vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 260458, June 4, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →