You are on page 1of 2

B.

Supremacy of the Constitution enforced through judicial review


A n g a r a v. E l e c t o r a l C o m m i s s i o n ,
63 Phil. 139

NATURE: Original action in teh Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of
prohibition torestrainand prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of the
respondents from taking further cognizanceof the protest filed by Pedro
Ynsua, another respondent against the election of said petitioner asmember
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 theNational Assembly for the
first district of the Province of Taybas.. On October 7, 1935 petitionerAngara
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 ResolutionNo. 8 which declared with finality the victory of
petitioner. On December 8, respondent Ynsuafiled before the Electoral
Commission a "Motion of Protest" against Angara praying that said theformer
be declared elected member of the National Assembly or that the election of
the saidposition be nullified. On December 20, Angara filed a "Motion to
Dismiss the Protest" arguingthat a) Resolution 8 was adopted in the
legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative toprescribe the period
during which protests against the election of its member should
bepresented; b) that aforesaid resolution has for its object and is the
accepted formula for, thelimitation of said period; and c) protest was filed out
of the prescribed period. The ElectoralCommission denied petitioner's
motion. Thus, this action in the present case.

I S S U E : 1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdictionover teh Electoral Commission


and teh subject matter of thecontroversy upon the foregoing facts;2.WON
the Electoral Commission committed a grave abuse of its discretion having
entertained aprotest after the National Assembly passed Resolution 8 which
declared the deadline of filing of protests.

H E L D : 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 saidcontroversy would create a
void in our constitutional system which may in the long run provedestructive
of the entire framework.In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the
only constitutitonl organ which can be calledupon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between teh several departments andamongteh ingral
or constituent units thereof.2. The Electoral Commission did not exceed its
jurisdiction. It has been created by thewConstitution as an instrumentality of
the Legislative Department invested with the jurisdiction todecide "all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members
of theNational Assembly". Thus, entertaining the protest of Ynsua must
conform to their ownprescribedrules and the National Assembly cannot
divest them of any such powers.Wherefore, petition DENIED