B.

Supremacy of the Constitution enforced through judicial review

Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139
NATURE: Original action in teh Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to
restrain
and prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of the respondents from taking further cognizance
of
the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another respondent against the election of said petitioner as
member 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 the
National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Taybas.. On October 7, 1935 petitioner
Angara 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 Resolution
No. 8 which declared with finality the victory of petitioner. On December 8, respondent Ynsua
filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against Angara praying that said the
former be declared elected member of the National Assembly or that the election of the said
position be nullified. On December 20, Angara filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest" arguing
that
a) Resolution 8 was adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative to
prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its member should be
presented; b) that aforesaid resolution has for its object and is the accepted formula for, the
limitation of said period; and c) protest was filed out of the prescribed period. The Electoral
Commission denied petitioner's motion. Thus, this action in the present case.
ISSUE:
1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdictionover teh Electoral Commission and teh subject matter of
the
controversy upon the foregoing facts;
2.WON the Electoral Commission committed a grave abuse of its discretion having entertained a
protest after the National Assembly passed Resolution 8 which declared the deadline of filing of
protests.
HELD:
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 said
controversy would create a void in our constitutional system which may in the long run prove
destructive of the entire framework.
In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutitonl organ which can be called
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between teh several departments and
among
teh ingral or constituent units thereof.
2. The Electoral Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction. It has been created by thew
Constitution as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department invested with the jurisdiction to
decide "all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly". Thus, entertaining the protest of Ynsua must conform to their own
prescribed
rules and the National Assembly cannot divest them of any such powers.
Wherefore, petition DENIED