Article VIII Section 5 Angara V Electoral Commission 63 Phil.

136 (1936) This is an original action instituted in this court by the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, 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 September 17, 1935: Election: 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 Tayabas October 7, 1935: Angara was proclaimed as the winner and his oath of office on November 15 of the same year December 3, 1935: National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8 declaring the finality of the victory of petitioner having no protests regarding his election during such time December 9, 1935: Electoral Commission on the other hand (despite said confirmation of victory of Angara by the Natl. Ass. on Dec. 3) adopted a resolution fixing the same date (Dec. 9) as the last day for filing of protests against the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the National Assembly December 8, 1935: Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against Angaras election December 20, 1935: Angara filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest" on the following grounds: - a) Resolution No. 8 was adopted in the legitimate exercise of National Assemblys 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 (since petitioner is of the belief that his confirmation by Natl. Ass. as the winner also bars further protests on such) Electoral Commission dismissed Angaras Motion, hence this case.

ISSUES WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy WON Electoral Commission committed a grave abuse of its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction having entertained a protest against election of petitioner in spite of a Resolution by the National Assembly confirming such election (which can also imply that the deadline for filing of protests was set already)

HELD (1) YES, the SC has jurisdiction. The present case shows a situation wherein theres a great need to have a final arbiter who shall determine the constitutional conflict of authority between two agencies created also by the same. It would be inevitable that when said controversy is left unresolved, it would pose a threat in our constitutional framework in the long run. Since the judiciary is vested by the Constitution itself of the power of judicial review by which it is

recognized as having judicial supremacy in that sense, it is expected that whenever conflicts arise, it is the one to determine the proper allocation of such powers between and among such agencies/departments. (2) NO, since the Electoral Commission was created by the Constitution as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department provided with the jurisdiction to decide "all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly". And so, entertaining the protest of Ynsua must conform to their prescribed rules (since having the power of being the sole-judge also extends to making such rules like setting deadlines for filing protests) and the National Assembly cannot deny them such powers.