ARANETA v.

DINGLASAN, Delegation of Powers

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 if Congress to legislate is not circumscribed except by the limitations
imposed by the organic law.