Araneta v Dinglasan

G.R. No. L-2044 | August 26, 1949

Tuason, J.
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 Eulogia
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
Ruling
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 if Congress to legislate
is not circumscribed except by the limitations imposed by the organic law.