Araneta Vs Dinglasan Case Digest

Araneta Vs Dinglasan Case Digest – GR No L-2044 – August 26, 1949

Araneta Vs Dinglasan Case Digest


Commonwealth Act No. 671 does not in term fix the duration of its effectiveness. The intention of the Act has to be sought for in its nature, the object to be accomplish, the purpose to be subserved, and its relation to the Constitution. The consequences of the various constructions offered will also be resorted to as additional aid to interpretation

Facts – Araneta Vs Dinglasan Case Digest

In view of the State of world war in 1941, Commonwealth Act (CA) 671 (Emergency Act) was enacted by the National Assembly. It authorizes the President to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency. CA 671 did not expressly fix the term of its effectiveness. Several executive orders by the authority vested by CA 671.


RELATED


Issue

Whether CA 671 ceased to have force and effect

Ruling

Yes.

Emergency power must be temporary or it cannot be said to be an emergency. It is clear from the language of Section 3 of CA 671 that the legislative body intended to limit the duration of the Act.

EOs issued before the adjournment of the regular session of the Congress in 1946 are valid, but EOs issues after the said date are null and void.


Total
0
Shares
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Related Posts