7/22/2019 CONSTILAW1_Digest; Angara vs. Electoral Commission

1/2

012 Angara vs. Electoral Commission

[G.R. L-45081; July 15, 1936 ]

TOPIC: Judicial Review; Theory and Justification of

Judicial ReviewPONENTE: Laurel, J.

AUTHOR: Arthur Archie TiuNOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS:

1. In the election of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara (herein petitioner) and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, DionisioMayor (Respondents) were candidates voted to be members of the national assembly (NA) for the firsdistrict of the Province of Tayabas.

2. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the NA for the said district. On November 151935, he took his oath of office.

3. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session assembled, passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of thmembers of the National Assembly against whom no protest had thus far been filed.

4. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion of Protest against the election oAngara. On Dec 9, 1935, the EC adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said date as the last day for th

filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA, notwithstanding the

previous confirmation made by the NA.

5. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the NA proclamation, Ynsua can no longeprotest (the prescribed period for filing of protests had already ended on December 3, and the responden

was late in filing his protest because he filed the protest after December 3.).6. Ynsua calims that there was no constitutional or legal provision which stated that members of the NA

cannot be contested after confirmationof the NA.. EC denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Petitioner then

files a protest to the Supreme Court (SC) questioning ECs jurisdiction over the case. ( Petitioner argue

that, EC could only regulate proceedings, that SC has jurisdiction to pass upon fundamental questions i

the issue since it is an interpretation of the constitution)

7. The Solicitor General (SolGen) argues that EC is a constitutional body which has jurisdiction to try alcontested cases re:elections and said acts is beyond SC. Further, Res #8 did not deprive EC of it

jurisdiction. Since EC acquired jurisdiction over the election protest, the Motion to dismiss filed in EC i

not reviewable by the SC.8.

ISSUE(S):1. does the SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM and the controversy?

2. If it does, then has ELECOM acted within or without jursidictionHELD: 1. Yes

2. Within Jursidiction

RATIO:- The SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM: separation of powers granted by Consti (through separate articles fo

each branch) but check and balances maintain coordination among the branches. When there are conflicts betwee

the boundaries of powers and functions of each branch, the Judiciary has the power to review and resolve theseconflicts through Judicial Review (referred to as Judicial Supremacy). This however is limited to actual cases an

controversies.- that judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and i

the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is thsource of all authority.

- ELECOM acted within its jurisdiction since ELECOM is recognized as an independent quasi-judicial body whicis not an inferior tribunal, or corporation, board, or person, and is granted the powers to be the sole judge of alcontests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA. The present constitution granted

the ELECOM with all the powers exercised by the legislature relating to the said function of ELECOM, and thiincludes the regulation of the rules and procedures of election protests. The confirmation of NA of its members inot required and does not limit the ELECOM of its power to fix dates for election protest, or else this would

undermine the power and functions of the ELECOM.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

-DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

7/22/2019 CONSTILAW1_Digest; Angara vs. Electoral Commission

2/2

Concurring Opinion:Abad, J. (not relevant to the topic)

- The power vested in the Electoral Commission by the Constitution of judging of all contests relating to thelection, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, is judicial in nature. (Thomas vsLoney, 134 U.S., 372; 33 Law. ed., 949, 951.) On the other hand, the power to regulate the time in which notice o

a contested election may be given, is legislative in character. (M'Elmoyle vs. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; 10 Law. ed177; Missouri vs. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496; 50 Law. ed., 572.)

- It has been correctly stated that the government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the theorof the separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial. Legislative power is vested in the NationaAssembly. (Article VI, sec. 1.) In the absence of any clear constitutional provision to the contrary, the power toregulate the time in which notice of a contested election may be given, must be deemed to be included in the granof legislative power to the National Assembly.