ANGARA vs.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION
GR No. L-45081

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, 1935 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, 1935
Angara filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest" arguing that a) Resolution 8 of the National
Assembly 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: Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject
matter of the controversy upon the foregoing facts;

Whether or not the Electoral Commission committed a grave abuse of its jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly?

Held: The nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a final constitutional arbiter
to determine the conflict of authority between two agencies created by the Constitution. The
court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the present
controversy for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional
grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." (Sec 4 Art. VI 1935
Constitution).

The Electoral Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction. It has been created by the 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.