LAYOG, EMMYLOU SHAYNE L.
2020-0288
G.R. No. L-45081 (63 Phil. 139) July 15, 1936
JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner,
vs.
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA,
MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C.
MAYOR, respondents.
FACTS: In the elections of Sept. 1935, petitioner 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 1st district of the province of
Tayabas.
On Oct. 1935, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed
ANGARA as member-elect of the National Assembly for the
said district for having received the most number of votes.
On Nov. 1935, ANGARA took his oath of office.
On Dec. 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed Resolution No.
8, which says that the Acts of Election of the Deputies against
whom a protest has not been duly presented before the
adoption of this resolution are hereby approved and
confirmed.
Howevever, on Dec. 8, 1935, respondent PEDRO YNSUA filed a
“Motion of Protest” before the electoral commission. The said
protest was against Angara’s election, and it is the only one
filed after the passage of Resolution No. 8. YNSUA prayed that
he be declared elected member of the National Assembly for
the 1st district of Tayabas or that election of said position be
nullified.
Thereafter, the Electoral Commission adopted a resolution
which provides that the last day of filing electoral protests is on
Dec. 9, 1935.
According to ANGARA, in a Motion to dismiss the protest filed
before the Electoral Commission, Resolution No. 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 should be presented.
YNSUA alleges that there is no legal or constitutional provision
barring the presentation of a protest against the election of a
member of the National Assembly after confirmation.
ISSUE(S): WON the SC has jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and so, if the Electoral Commission had acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming cognizance
of the protest filed RE: election of ANGARA, notwithstanding
the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the
National Assembly.
RULING: YES, the Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission. NO, the Electoral Commission did not act without
or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming cognizance of the
protest filed by YNSUA against ANGARA’s election,
notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by
resolution of the National Assembly.
ON JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. It
has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the
rational way. So, when the judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the same, and to establish
for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that
instrument secures and guarantees to them.
This is, in truth, all that is involved in “JUDICIAL SUPREMACY”,
which properly is the power of judicial review under the
Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is limited
to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full
opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to
the constitutional question or the very lis mota presented.
IN THIS CASE
The nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a
final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of authority
between the two agencies of the Constitution.
The Court said that it 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.”
The Electoral Commission is a constitutional organ created for
a specific purpose, namely to determine all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of the member of the
National Assembly. Although the Electoral Commission may
not be interfered with, when, and while acting within the limits
of its authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the reach of
the constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and that
it is not subject to constitutional restrictions. The Electoral
Commission is not a separate department of the government,
and even if it were, conflicting claims of authority under the
fundamental law between department powers and agencies of
the government are necessarily determined by the judiciary in
justifiable and appropriate cases.
To conclude, the Electoral Commission acted within its
jurisdiction in adopting its Dec. 9, 1935 resolution. It is also
authorized to take cognizance of the protest filed against the
election of ANGARA notwithstanding the previous confirmation
thereof by the National Assembly on Dec. 3, 1935.