Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 Araneta V Dinglasan

    Uploaded by

    KIRSTEL GYFVENETH POBLACIO
    165 views2 pages
    The case involves five consolidated cases challenging various executive orders issued under the Emergency Powers Act. The issue is whether the Emergency Powers Act ceased to have effect. The court ruled that the Act was intended to be for a limited period based on Article VI of the Constitution. Section 4 of the Act also indicated the rules would be in effect until Congress provided otherwise. Furthermore, President Quezon stated the Act would become invalid unless reenacted. Therefore, the court held that the Emergency Powers Act became inoperative when Congress reconvened in 1946, and the challenged executive orders were issued without legal authority.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    29 Araneta v Dinglasan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involves five consolidated cases challenging various executive orders issued under the Emergency Powers Act. The issue is whether the Emergency Powers Act ceased to have effect. The court ruled that the Act was intended to be for a limited period based on Article VI of the Constitution. Section 4 of the Act also indicated the rules would be in effect until Congress provided otherwise. Furthermore, President Quezon stated the Act would become invalid unless reenacted. Therefore, the court held that the Emergency Powers Act became inoperative when Congress reconvened in 1946, and the challenged executive orders were issued without legal authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    165 views2 pages

    29 Araneta V Dinglasan

    Uploaded by

    KIRSTEL GYFVENETH POBLACIO
    The case involves five consolidated cases challenging various executive orders issued under the Emergency Powers Act. The issue is whether the Emergency Powers Act ceased to have effect. The court ruled that the Act was intended to be for a limited period based on Article VI of the Constitution. Section 4 of the Act also indicated the rules would be in effect until Congress provided otherwise. Furthermore, President Quezon stated the Act would become invalid unless reenacted. Therefore, the court held that the Emergency Powers Act became inoperative when Congress reconvened in 1946, and the challenged executive orders were issued without legal authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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 contend 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:
    Petition is granted. We trust, also serve to answer the vehement plea that for the good of the
    Nation, the President should retain his extraordinary powers as long as turmoil and other ills
    directly or indirectly traceable to the late war harass the Philippines.
    Article VI of the Constitution provides that any law passed by virtue thereof should be
    "for a limited period." It is to be presumed that Commonwealth Act No. 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 powers.
    For Congress might not enact the repeal, and even if it would, the repeal might not
    meet with the approval of the President, easier for Congress to delegate its powers than to take
    them back.
    Section 4 goes far to settle the legislative intention of this phase of Act No. 671. Section
    4 stipulates that "the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be in full force and
    effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall otherwise provide."
    Anomaly of nullifying each other’s actions (because two legislative bodies are
    operating on it)
    President Quezon to be entrusted with its execution, stated in his autobiography, "The
    Good Fight," that Act No. 671 was only "for a certain period" and "would become invalid unless
    reenacted." These phrases connote automatical extinction of the law upon the conclusion of a
    certain period.
    It is our considered opinion, and we so hold, that Commonwealth Act No. 671 became
    inoperative when Congress met in regular session on May 25, 1946, and that Executive Orders
    Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 were issued without authority of law.

    You might also like