B. Supremacy of the Constitution enforced through judicial review Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil.
139 NATURE: Original action in teh Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of the respondents from taking further cognizance of the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another respondent against the election of said petitioner as member of the National Assembly for the first assembly district of the Province of Tayabas. FACTS: IN the elections of September 17, 1935, Jose Angara and respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor, were candidates voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Taybas.. On October 7, 1935 petitioner Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the National Assembly and he later took his oath of office on November 15, 1935. On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8 which declared with finality the victory of petitioner. On December 8, respondent Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against Angara praying that said the former be declared elected member of the National Assembly or that the election of the said position be nullified. On December 20, Angara filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest" arguing that a) Resolution 8 was adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative to prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its member should be presented; b) that aforesaid resolution has for its object and is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said period; and c) protest was filed out of the prescribed period. The Electoral Commission denied petitioner's motion. Thus, this action in the present case. ISSUE: 1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdictionover teh Electoral Commission and teh subject matter of the controversy upon the foregoing facts; 2.WON the Electoral Commission committed a grave abuse of its discretion having entertained a protest after the National Assembly passed Resolution 8 which declared the deadline of filing of protests. HELD: 1. The nature of the present case shows the necessity of a final arbiter to determine the conflict of authority between two agencies created by the Constitution. NOt taking cognizance of said controversy would create a void in our constitutional system which may in the long run prove destructive of the entire framework. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutitonl organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between teh several departments and among teh ingral or constituent units thereof. 2. The Electoral Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction. It has been created by thew Constitution as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department invested with the jurisdiction to decide "all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly". Thus, entertaining the protest of Ynsua must conform to their own prescribed rules and the National Assembly cannot divest them of any such powers. Wherefore, petition DENIED