Angara v.

Electoral Commission Nature: Original action for a writ of prohibition against the Electoral Commission to prevent them from taking further cognizance of the election protest filed by Ynsua Facts: - Angara and Ynsua, among others, ran for member of the National Assembly in Tayabas - provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Angara member-elect; petitioner took his oath of office - On December 3, 1935 National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8, confirming Angaras election - On December 8, 1935 Ynsua filed a motion of protest against the election of Angara - On December 9, 1935 Electoral Commission adopted a resolution setting Dec 9 as the last day for the filing of election protests - Angara filed motion to dismiss the protest which alleged the ff: 1) Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly legitimately prescribed the period for submitting protests 2) resolution is the accepted formula for the limitation of said period 3) protest was filed out of the prescribed period - Ynsua filed an an answer to the motion averring that there is no legal or constitutional provision barring the submission of election protests after confirmation - Electoral Commission denied Angaras motion to dismiss, hence the present petition. ISSUES: SC condensed the issues into 2: 1) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction? (Yes) 2) Did the Electoral Commission act without or in excess of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the protest of Ynsua even after confirmation of Angara by the National Assembly? (No) DISCUSSION: On the Issue of Jurisdiction: - Separation of powers obtains not by provision but by the actual division of the three branches of government in the Constitution -Each branch is supreme within its own sphere but they are not absolutely unrestrained in that the Constitution provides for an elaborate system of checks and balances.

- Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and bold lines the allotment of power to the three coequal branches but there is an overlapping or interlacing of functions and duties such that there is a difficulty sometimes in telling where one leaves off and the other begins. - The judiciary is the only one that can determine the proper allocation of powers. The Constitution sets forth restrictions and limitations upon the governmental powers, which limitations must be enforced otherwise the Constitution becomes mere verbiage. - It would be inconceivable for there to be no mechanism set to direct the course of government. - In the US, there is no express grant of this moderation power in their Constitution, but it is set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and a half centuries. - In the RP, the power is granted, if not expressly, by clear implication in Sec 2 Art VIII of the 1935 Constitution - The Judiciary, with the SC as final arbiter, is the determiner of the nature, scope and extent of the powers of government. This is what is referred to by judicial supremacy: the power of judicial review under the Constitution. -This power of judicial review is subject to limitations: there must be an actual case or controversy and it can only be exercised after full opportunity is given to the parties to argue and that it is limited to the constitutional question raised. - here, there is an actual controversy between the powers of the Electoral Commission and the Legislature - In countries without judicial review, provisions are set forth in their Constitution expressly withholding such power from the Judiciary. Such fact is an acknowledgement that the default is the existence of such power within the Judiciary. - Nature abhors a vacuum. If the Court refuses to determine the conflict, then who will? - The court therefore has jurisdiction ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE - The Electoral Commission is constituted by Sec 4 Art VI of the 1935 Constitution - Looking into the history of the enactment of this provision, we see an explicit intention to transfer the power to judge election contests, previously lodged in the legislative, to the Electoral Commission - (this is incidental in this part but is important later on) Mr. Roxas said that there is no need for confirmation as it is just a matter of the rules of the assembly. It is not constitutional. It is not necessary. In fact, the election returns are sufficient for a member-elect to claim his seat.

- The transfer of power has historical antecedents. In the British experience, when the power to judge election contests were still lodged in the legislature, there was a trend of deciding controverted elections merely as partisan issues. This was solved by abdicating such power to two judges of the Kings Bench of the High Court of Justice. - The Electoral Commission was created to address the need to determine legislative contests devoid of partisan considerations. It is thus an independent organ when acting within the limits of its authority. - Majority of the members are from the legislature, but it is a body separate and independent from the legislature. Its power to judge election contests is as complete and unimpaired as if such power remained in Congress. - If the power to regulate the Electoral Commission proceedings is conceded to the National Assembly, the grant of power would be ineffective! - Where a general power is conferred, every particular power necessary for the exercise of it is also conferred. As such, the power to decide procedural aspects such as setting the prescriptive period for submission of election contests must attach to the power to decide such contests. - What Is more, the Electoral Commission members were only assigned on 4th December (the 3 justices) and on 6th December (the 6 National Assembly members) and the first time they met was on the 9th of December. Therefore, it would be error to allow the confirmation of Angara on the 8th of December by resolution of Congress to deprive the Electoral Commission of jurisdiction before it was even constituted. - Resolution No. 8, therefore, cannot be construed as a limitation for the filing of election contests. - Confirmation was only practiced because, when the power to judge election contests was still lodged in the legislature, they would confirm the members after the expiration of the prescriptive period. - The Constitution repealed Sec 18 of the Jones Law and Sec 478 of Act No. 3387, therefore, the Assembly had no power to fix the deadline for filing of protests. And, what it cannot do expressly, it cannot do indirectly by confirmation. PETITION DENIED!