CONSTILAW1_Digest; Angara vs. Electoral Commission

AUTHOR: Arthur Archie Tiu 012 Angara vs. Electoral Commission NOTES: (if applicable) [G.R. L-45081; July 15, 1936 ] TOPIC: Judicial Review; Theory and Justification of Judicial Review PONENTE: Laurel, J. FACTS: 1. In the election of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara (herein petitioner) and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, Dionision Mayor (Respondents) were candidates voted to be members of the national assembly (NA) for the first district of the Province of Tayabas. 2. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the NA for the said district. On November 15, 1935, he took his oath of office. 3. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session assembled, passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly against whom no protest had thus far been filed. 4. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a “Motion of Protest” against the election of Angara. On Dec 9, 1935, the EC adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said date as the last day for the filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA, notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the NA. 5. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the NA proclamation, Ynsua can no longer protest (the prescribed period for filing of protests had already ended on December 3, and the respondent was late in filing his protest because he filed the protest after December 3.). 6. Ynsua calims that there was no constitutional or legal provision which stated that members of the NA cannot be contested after confirmationof the NA.. EC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner then files a protest to the Supreme Court (SC) questioning EC’s jurisdiction over the case. ( Petitioner argues that, EC could only regulate proceedings, that SC has jurisdiction to pass upon fundamental questions in the issue since it is an interpretation of the constitution) 7. The Solicitor General (SolGen) argues that EC is a constitutional body which has jurisdiction to try all contested cases re:elections and said acts is beyond SC. Further, Res #8 did not deprive EC of its jurisdiction. Since EC acquired jurisdiction over the election protest, the Motion to dismiss filed in EC is not reviewable by the SC. 8. ISSUE(S): 1. does the SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM and the controversy? 2. If it does, then has ELECOM acted within or without jursidiction HELD: 1. Yes 2. Within Jursidiction RATIO: - The SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM: separation of powers granted by Consti (through separate articles for each branch) but check and balances maintain coordination among the branches. When there are conflicts between the boundaries of powers and functions of each branch, the Judiciary has the power to review and resolve these conflicts through Judicial Review (referred to as Judicial Supremacy). This however is limited to actual cases and controversies. - that judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority. - ELECOM acted within its jurisdiction since ELECOM is recognized as an independent quasi-judicial body which is not an inferior tribunal, or corporation, board, or person, and is granted the powers to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NA. The present constitution granted the ELECOM with all the powers exercised by the legislature relating to the said function of ELECOM, and this includes the regulation of the rules and procedures of election protests. The confirmation of NA of its members is not required and does not limit the ELECOM of its power to fix dates for election protest, or else this would undermine the power and functions of the ELECOM. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

Concurring Opinion: Abad, J. (not relevant to the topic) - The power vested in the Electoral Commission by the Constitution of judging of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, is judicial in nature. (Thomas vs. Loney, 134 U.S., 372; 33 Law. ed., 949, 951.) On the other hand, the power to regulate the time in which notice of a contested election may be given, is legislative in character. (M'Elmoyle vs. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; 10 Law. ed., 177; Missouri vs. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496; 50 Law. ed., 572.) -

It has been correctly stated that the government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of the separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial. Legislative power is vested in the National Assembly. (Article VI, sec. 1.) In the absence of any clear constitutional provision to the contrary, the power to regulate the time in which notice of a contested election may be given, must be deemed to be included in the grant of legislative power to the National Assembly.