Angara v.

Electoral Commission
Facts:
1. That in the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara and the
respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionision Mayor, were candidates for the
position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of
Tayabas
2. October 7, 1935 – provincial board of passers proclaimed Angara as member-elect of NA
3. November 15, 1935 – he took his oath of office
4. December 1935 – NA passed Resolution no. 8 the respondents filed election protests;
petitioner filed motion to dismissed
Petitioner claims:
1. Resolution No. 8 of NA was a legitimated exercise of its constitutional prerogative to
prescribe the period which protests against the election of its members should be
presented
2. Resolution has for its object and is the accepted formula
3. The protest was filed out of the prescribed period
Respondent (Ynsua) filed an Answer to the Motion of Dismissal – there is no legal or
constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest after confirmation.
Petitioner replied:
1. Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the EC solely as regards the MERITS of
contested elections
2. Constitution excludes in the said jurisdiction the power to regulate PROCEEDINGS of
contested elections
Solicitor General in behalf of EC defended:
1. EC has been created by the constitution as an instrumentality of the legislative invested
with the jurisdiction to decide “all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the NA
2. It acted within its jurisdiction and in the legitimate exercise of the implied powers granted
by the Constitution
3. The resolution of NA could not and did not deprive the C of its jurisdiction to take
cognizance of election protests
4. EC is a body invested with quasi-judicial jurisdiction created by the Cons. And not an
inferior tribunal
Ynsua said that he presented his motion of protest before te EC on December 9, 1935, the last
day fixed by par 6 of the rules of EC. EC can acquire jurisdiction.`
ISSUES:
 1. Has the SC jurisdiction over EC and the subject matter of controversy upon the
foregoing related facts, and in the affirmative
2. Has the said EC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction?
Ruling.
1. Yes, SC has jurisdiction because
- Judiciary is the only constitutional arbiter to allocate constitutional boundaries. It has the
power to determine the proper allocation of powers among several departments and
among the integral or constituent units.
- The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of judiciary as rational way.
- It has the power to determine conflicting claims of authority under the constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures
and guarantees to them.
2. EC acted within its jurisdiction
- From the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, it is evident that jurisdiction
over election protest must be transferred from the legislature to an independent and
impartial tribunal
- EC is an independent constitutional creation.
- Its power is intended to be as complete and unimpaired.
- Its power to promulgate incidental rules and regulation was a necessary implication. It is
a settled rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined,
every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the
other is also conferred.
- While there might have been good reason for the legislative practice of confirmation of
members of the legislature at the time the power to decide election contests was still
lodged in the legislature, confirmation alone by the legislature cannot be construed as
ddepriving the EC of the authority incidental to its constitutional power.
DECISION: the petition is DISMISSED. SC and EC acted within its jurisdiction