Scribd
Upload
94 views2 pages

Paras, C.J.:: Rodriguez V Gella G.R. No. L-6266 February 2, 1953

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Orders 545 and 546, which appropriated funds for public works and relief efforts, were not valid as the President no longer possessed emergency powers granted by Commonwealth Act 671. 2. Commonwealth Act 671 granted emergency powers to the President during times of war, but was intended to be temporary. The Congress had since assumed legislative responsibilities, including appropriating funds. 3. Similarly, in Araneta v Dinglasan, the Supreme Court found that Executive Orders 62, 192, 225, and 226 regulating rents, exports, and appropriating funds were invalid because Commonwealth Act 671 ceased to have effect when Congress resumed regular sessions after the war, withdrawing those emergency

Uploaded by

eugenebriones27yahoo.com
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views2 pages

Paras, C.J.:: Rodriguez V Gella G.R. No. L-6266 February 2, 1953

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Orders 545 and 546, which appropriated funds for public works and relief efforts, were not valid as the President no longer possessed emergency powers granted by Commonwealth Act 671. 2. Commonwealth Act 671 granted emergency powers to the President during times of war, but was intended to be temporary. The Congress had since assumed legislative responsibilities, including appropriating funds. 3. Similarly, in Araneta v Dinglasan, the Supreme Court found that Executive Orders 62, 192, 225, and 226 regulating rents, exports, and appropriating funds were invalid because Commonwealth Act 671 ceased to have effect when Congress resumed regular sessions after the war, withdrawing those emergency

Uploaded by

eugenebriones27yahoo.com
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Rodriguez v Gella directly. Besides, it is significant that Act No.

671
G.R. No. L-6266 February 2, 1953 expressly limited the power of the President to that
Paras, C.J.: continuing "in force" appropriations which would
lapse or otherwise become inoperative, so that,
Facts: even assuming that the Act is still effective, it is
1. Petitioners sought to invalidate Executive Orders doubtful whether the President can by executive
(EO) 545 and 546 issued on November 10, 1952. orders make new appropriations.
EO 545 appropriated the sum of P37,850,500 for
urgent and essential public works, while EO 546 set 4. The specific power "to continue in force laws and
aside the sum of P11,367,600 for relief in the appropriations which would lapse or otherwise
provinces and cities visited by typhoons, floods, become inoperative" is a limitation on the general
droughts, earthquakes, volcanic action and other power "to exercise such other powers as he may
calamities. deem necessary to enable the Government to fulfil
its responsibilities and to maintain and enforce its
2. Section 26 of Article VI of the Constitution provides authority." Indeed, to hold that although the
that "in times of war or other national emergency, the Congress has, for about seven years since
Congress may by law authorize the President, for a liberation, been normally functioning and legislating
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it on every conceivable field, the President still has any
may prescribe, to promulgate rules and regulations residuary powers under the Act, would necessarily
to carry out a declared national policy." Accordingly lead to confusion and overlapping, if not conflict.
the National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act
No. 671, declaring (in section 1) the national policy 5. The framers of the Constitution, however, had the
that "the existence of war between the United States vision of and were careful in allowing delegation of
and other countries of Europe and Asia, which legislative powers to the President for a limited
involves the Philippines makes it necessary to invest period "in times of war or other national emergency."
the President with extraordinary powers in order to They had thus entrusted to the good judgment of the
meet the resulting emergency," and (in section 2) Congress the duty of coping with any national
authorizing the President, "during the existence of emergency by a more efficient procedure; but it
the emergency, to promulgate such rules and alone must decide because emergency in itself
regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out cannot and should not create power. In our
the national policy declared in section 1." democracy the hope and survival of the nation lie in
the wisdom and unselfish patriotism of all officials
3. House Bill No. 727 sought to repeal all Emergency and in their faithful adherence to the Constitution.
Powers Acts but was vetoed by the President. HB
727 may at least be considered as a concurrent
resolution of the Congress to formally declare the
termination of the emergency powers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Executive Orders are


still operative

NO.

1. EOs 545 and 546 must be declared as having no


legal anchorage. The Congress has since liberation
repeatedly been approving acts appropriating funds
for the operation of the Government, public works,
and many others purposes, with the result that as to
such legislative task the Congress must be deemed
to have long decided to assume the corresponding
power itself and to withdraw the same from the
President.

2. CA 671 was in pursuance of the constitutional


provision, it has to be assumed that the National
Assembly intended it to be only for a limited period.
If it be contended that the Act has not yet been duly
repealed, and such step is necessary to a cessation
of the emergency powers delegated to the
President, the result would be obvious
unconstitutionality, since it may never be repealed
by the Congress, or if the latter ever attempts to do
so, the President may wield his veto.

3. If the President had ceased to have powers with


regards to general appropriations, none can remain
in respect of special appropriations; otherwise he
may accomplish indirectly what he cannot do
Araneta v Dinglasan after Act No. 671 had lapsed and/or after the
G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 Congress had enacted legislation on the
Tuason, J.: same subjects. This is based on the
language of Act 671 that the National
Facts: Assembly restricted the life of the emergency
1. The petitions challenged the validity of executive powers of the President to the time the
orders issued by virtue of CA No. 671 or the Legislature was prevented from holding
Emergency Powers Act. CA 671 declared a state of sessions due to enemy action or other
emergency as a result of war and authorized the causes brought on by the war.
President to promulgate rules and regulations to
meet such emergency. However, the Act did not fix
the duration of its effectivity.

2. EO 62 regulates rentals for houses and lots for


residential buildings. The petitioner, Araneta, is
under prosecution in the CFI for violation of the
provisions of this EO 62 and prays for the issuance
of the writ of prohibition.

3. EO 192, aims to control exports from the


Philippines. Leon Ma. Guerrero seeks a writ
of mandamus to compel the Administrator of the
Sugar Quota Office and the Commissioner of
Customs to permit the exportation of shoes. Both
officials refuse to issue the required export license
on the ground that the exportation of shoes from the
Philippines is forbidden by this EO.

4. EO 225, which appropriates funds for the


operation of the Government during the period from
July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950, and for other
purposes was assailed by petitioner Eulogio
Rodriguez, Sr., as a tax-payer, elector, and
president of the Nacionalista Party. He applied for a
writ of prohibition to restrain the Treasurer of the
Philippines from disbursing the funds by virtue of this
EO.

5. Finally, EO 226, which appropriated P6M to defray


the expenses in connection with the national
elections in 1949. was questioned by Antonio
Barredo, as a citizen, tax-payer and voter. He asked
the Court to prevent "the respondents from
disbursing, spending or otherwise disposing of that
amount or any part of it."

ISSUE: Whether or not CA 671 ceased to have any


force and effect

YES.
1. The Act fixed a definite limited period.
The Court held that it became inoperative
when Congress met during the opening of
the regular session on May 1946 and that
EOs 62, 192, 225 and 226 were issued
without authority of law . The session of the
Congress is the point of expiration of the Act
and not the first special session after it.
2. Executive Orders No. 62 (dated
June 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
for the operation of the Government from
July 1, 1949 to June 30, 1950, and the
second appropriating funds for election
expenses in November 1949, were therefore
declared null and void for having been issued

You might also like