Legally Yours,  Political Law

Araneta v. Dinglasan

Constitutional Law. Political Law. Delegation of Powers.
ARANETA v. DINGLASAN
84 PHIL 368

FACTS:
The five cases are consolidated for all of them present the same fundamental question. Antonio Araneta is being charged for violating EO 62 which regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings. Another case is of Leon Ma. Guerrero seeking to have a permit issued for the exportation of his manufactured shoes. Another is of Eulogio Rodriguez seeking to prohibit the Treasury from disbursing funds pursuant to EO 225, while another is of Antonio Barredo attacking EO 226 which appropriated funds to hold the national elections. They all content that CA 671 or the Emergency Powers Act is already inoperative and that all EOs issued under said Act also ceased

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Emergency Powers Act has ceased to have any force and effect

HELD:
CA 671 does not fix the duration of its effectiveness. The intention of the act has to be sought for in its nature, object to be accomplished, the purpose to be subserved and its relation to the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution provides that any law passed by virtue thereof should be “for a limited period”. It is presumed that CA 671 was approved with this limitation in view. The opposite theory would make the law repugnant to the Constitution and is contrary to the principle that the legislature is deemed to have full knowledge of the Constitutional scope of its power. CA 671 became inoperative when Congress met in regular session of May 25, 1946, and that EO Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 were issued without authority of law. In a regular session, the power of Congress to legislate is not circumscribed except by the limitations imposed by the organic law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *