Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil.

139 (1936)
FACTS

Petitioner Jose A. Angara and the respondents Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, and
Dionisio Mayor were candidates for the position of members of the National Assembly
for the first district of Tayabas.

On Oct. 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Angara as member-elect

of the National Assembly and on Nov. 15, 1935, he took his oath of office.

On Dec. 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8, which in effect, fixed
the last date to file election protests.

On Dec. 8, 1935, Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest"
against Angara and praying, among other things, that Ynsua be named/declared elected
Member of the National Assembly or that the election of said position be nullified.

On Dec. 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted a resolution (No. 6) stating that last
day for filing of protests is on Dec. 9.
Angara contended that the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Electoral
Commission solely as regards the merits of contested elections to the National
Assembly and the Supreme Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Whether the Supreme Court

has jurisdiction over the
Electoral Commission
Whether the Supreme Court
has jurisdiction over the
Electoral Commission
ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission