A.

CONSTITUTION
1. De Leon v. Esguerra
153 SCRA 602, August, 31,
1987http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/aug1987/gr_78059_1987.html

FACTS: On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain together
with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Muncipality of Taytay,
Province of Rizal in a Barangay election held under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known
as Barangay Election Act of 1982.

On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986

but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating
respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores and the other
respondents as members of Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.
Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that the subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be
declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited by taking over their positions of
Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen. Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of
the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office shall be six years which shall
commence on June 7, 1988 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall
have qualified. It was also their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution,
respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their
successors.

On the other hand, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials
were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional
Constitution and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; that the provision in the
Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six years must be deemed to
have been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made
during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987.

RULING: Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Gov
designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores,
Taytay, Rizal has no legal force and effect. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on
Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25, 1986 must be
deemed to have superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Gov could no longer
rely on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by
petitioners. While the Provisional Constitution provided for a one-year period expiring on March 25,
1987 within which the power of replacement could be exercised, this period was shortened by the
ratification and effectivity on February 2, 1987 of the Constitution. Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1 of the
1987 Constitution further provides in part: "Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials,
except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years x xx."
Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law, therefore, the term of
office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.
2. Angara v. Electoral Commission
G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1936/jul1936/gr_l-45081_1936.html

FACTS: Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took his oath of office as member of
the National Assembly of the Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the National
Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of those who have not been subject of an
election protest prior to the adoption of the said resolution.

On December 8, 1935, however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against
the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of the National Assembly. The following
day, December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission adopted its own resolution providing that it will
not consider any election protest that was not submitted on or before December 9, 1935.

Citing among others the earlier resolution of the National Assembly, the petitioner sought the
dismissal of respondents protest. The Electoral Commission however denied his motion.

ISSUE: Did the Electoral Commission act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly?

RULING: NO, the Electoral Commission did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly.

The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional
prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua against
the election of the petitioner Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National Assembly
cannot in any manner toll the time for filing election protests against members of the National
Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral
Commission might prescribe. The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended
to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express
lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power
by the National Assembly. xxx.

The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitaterei the power
regulative in character to limit the time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be
filed. [W]here a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for
the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. In the absence of any
further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the
Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the
proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to
have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission.