11 ARANETA v. DINGLASAN Order 62.

Petitioner prays for the issuance of writ of prohibition to the judge and
the city fiscal.
GR No. L-2044, L-2756, L-3054, L-3055, L-3056 | 1949 | Araneta | Marithe Charenai 3. Case No. L-3054: Rodriguez Sr., a taxpayer, elector, and president of the
Matta Nacionalista party applies for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Philippine
Treasurer from disbursing money under Executive Order 225. Under the said
Petitioner: J. Antonio Araneta; Eugelio Rodriguez Sr.; Leon Ma. Guerrero; Antonio
executive order, which funds are appropriated for the operation of the
Barredo
Government of the Republic of the Philippines during the period from July 1,
Respondents: Rafael Dinglasan; Gregorio Villamor, El Tesorero de Filipinas; 1949 to June 30, 1950, and for other purposes.
Commissioner of Customs; Commission on Elections
4. Case No. L-3055: Guerrero seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents
Recit-Ready:
to allow his exportation of shoes. The respondents did not issue the petitioner
Facts - The petitions challenged the validity of executive orders issued by virtue of
the required export license due to the provisions of Executive Order 192 which
Commonwealth Act No. 671 or the Emergency Powers Act. CA 671 declared a state of
sets prohibition and control exports from the Philippines.
emergency as a result of war and authorized the President to promulgate rules and
5. Case No. L-3056: Executive Order No. 226 appropriates P6,000,000 to defray the
regulations to meet such emergency. However, the Act did not fix the duration of its
expenses in connection with, and incidental to, the holding of the national
effectivity.
elections to be held in November, 1949. Barredo, as a citizen, tax-payer and
Issue - Whether or not Commonwealth Act 671 have ceased to have any force and
voter, asks this Court to prevent "the respondents from disbursing, spending or
effect.
otherwise disposing of that amount or any part of
Held - Executive Orders involved in these petitions which were EO No. 62 (dated June
it."
21, 1947) regulating house and lot rentals, No. 192 (dated December 24, 1948)
regulating exports, Nos. 225 and 226 (dated June 15,1949) the first appropriation funds
6. CA 671 is an act declaring a state of total emergency as a result of war
for the operation of the Government from July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950, and the second
that involved the Philippines. It authorized the President to promulgate rules and
appropriating funds for election expenses in November 1949, were declared null and
regulations to meet such emergency, pursuant to Article VI Section 26 of the
void for having been issued after Act No. 671 had lapsed and/or after the Congress
constitution. However, CA 671 does not fix the term of its effectiveness.
had enacted legislation on the same subjects. This is based on the language of Act 671
that the National Assembly restricted the life of the emergency powers of the President
ISSUES: Whether or not Commonwealth Act 671 has ceased to have any force and effect.
to the time the Legislature was prevented from holding sessions due to enemy action or
other causes brought on by the war. The petitions were granted.
- YES, CA 671 has ceased to have any force and effect.
Doctrine: Executive Orders, even if issued within the powers validly vested in the Chief
Executive (The President), are not laws, although they may have the force of law. CA 671
RATIO:
was created during a time of emergency and was only effective while the congress could
Article VI of the Constitution provides that any law passed by virtue thereof
not hold its regular session. Following the doctrine of delegation of powers, only the
should be "for a limited period." The words "limited period" as used in the Constitution
congress can exercise legislative power.
are beyond question intended to mean restrictive in duration. In order to justify the
delegation of emergency powers, it "must be temporary or it cannot be said to be an
FACTS: emergency." It is to be presumed that Commonwealth Act No. 671 was approved with this
limitation in view.
1. All of the petitions challenges the validity of executive orders of the president Moreover, Sec 4 of CA 671 stipulates that "the rules and regulations
issued in the virtue of the emergency powers in Commonwealth promulgated thereunder shall be in full force and effect until the Congress of the
Act No. 671 Philippines shall otherwise provide." The silence of the law regarding the repeal of the
2. Case No. L-2044 and L-2756: Araneta is under the prosecution of the Court of authority itself, in the face of the express provision for the repeal of the rules and
First Instance of Manila due to his violation of the regulation for rentals for regulations issued in pursuance of it, a clear manifestation of the belief held by the
houses and lots for residential buildings as issued in the provisions of Executive National Assembly that there was no necessity to provide for the former
 Commonwealth Act No. 671 became inoperative (ex proprio vigore) when
Congress met in regular session on May 25, 1946, and Executive Orders Nos. 62, 192, 225
and 226 were issued without authority of law.
There is no pretense that the President has independent or inherent power to
issue such executive orders as those under review. The Court takes it that the
respondents, in sustaining the validity of these executive orders rely on Act No. 600, Act
No. 620, or Act No. 671 of the former Commonwealth and on no other source. To put it
differently, the President's authority in this connection is purely statutory, in no sense
political or directly derived from the Constitution.
Upon the foregoing considerations, the petitions were granted.