angara v electoral commission digest

8/11/2019 Angara v Electoral Commission digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/angara-v-electoral-commission-digest 1/3

ANGARA V ELECTORAL COMMISSION [63 PHIL. 139 1936]

Nature of the Cae! Original Action to the SC. Petition for the issuance of a writ ofprohibition to restrain and prohibit the ELECOM from taking further cognizance of theprotest led b! Pedro "nsua against the election of the petitioner as a member of the#A

"a#t of the Cae! $he new constitution for the %ndependent PhilippineCommonwealth was &ust promulgated. $he petitioner' Angara' ran for the position ofrepresentati(e of the )irst *istrict of the Pro(ince of $a!abas to the #A Septmeber +,'+-/ against "nsua 0one of the respondents1 and others. On October ,' he wasproclaimed b! the pro(incial board of can(assers as the candidate who won the most(otes and thus the winner. 2e took his oath of o3ce on #o(ermber +/ 0the start of theCommonwealth1 and was conrmed b! the #A on *ecember as an uncontestedmember of the #A. Also on this da!' 4es56 was passed b! the #A' conrming themembership of nonprotested elections of members of the #A and' in e7ect' limitingthe time for presentation of protests. 2owe(er' there was the ELECOM' which was aconstitutional bod! in(ested with the &urisdiction to decide 8all cases relating to the

election' returns' and 9ualications of the members of the #A:' was &ust being formedon *ecember ; and < and &ust met for the rst time on *ecember -' =ing that da! asthe last da! for the ling of election protests. "nsua led his 8Motion of Protest: to theELECOM on *ecember 6' a da! before the said bod! ended the period for ling ofelection protest.After that' Angara led a 8Motion to *ismiss the Protest: to the ELECOM on thegrounds that he was alread! conrmed a member of the #A through the 4es56 andthrough that resolution' the prescribed period for ling of protests had alread! endedon *ecember ' and the respondent was late in ling his protest because he led theprotest after *ecember . "nsua led an 8Answer to the Motion of *ismissal: arguing that there was noconstitutional or legal pro(ision which stated that members of the #A cannot becontested after conrmationof the #A. Angara replied to this 8Answer: but theELECOM promulgated a resolution den!ing the petitioner>s 8Motion to *ismiss theProtest:. $he Petitioner now les a protest to the SC' 9uestioning the &urisdiction of the ELECOMo(er the case' arguing that?

• the ELECOM has &urisdiction o(er the merits of contested elections to the #Abut the #A has the power to regulate the proceedings of the #A' granted thatELECOM is part of the #A. ELECOM could onl! regulate its proceedings if the #Adid not pro(ide for it.

• 4es56 is (alid and should be respected' granted that #A is the onl! bod! thatcould regulate the proceedings of the ELECOM

• @nder Par+ of + of Ordinance appended to the Constitution and par<Art, ofthe $!dingsBMc*u3e Law as well as + and of art D%%% of the Constitution' SChas &urisdiction to pass upon the fundamental 9uestions raised in this issuebecause it in(ol(es the interpretation of the Constitution of the Philippines

 $he SolicitorBeneral responded on behalf of ELECOM arguing that?

• ELECOM is a constitutional bod! in(ested with the &urisdiction to decide 8allcontests relating to the election' returns' and 9ualication of the members ofthe #A: and that *ec - was the date =ed b! ELECOM as the last da! of ling for

protest and its resolution dated Fanuar! ' +-< was an act of its legitimateCodes: ELECOM (Election Commission); NA (National Assembly); Res#8 (Resolution No. 8); SC

(Su!eme Cou!t)

8/11/2019 Angara v Electoral Commission digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/angara-v-electoral-commission-digest 2/3

e=ercise of 9uasiB&udicial functions. Said act is be!ond cognizance or control ofSC.

• 4es56 did and could not depri(e ELECOM of its &urisdiction to take cognizance of election protests led within the limit that the ELECOM would set.

• ELECOM is not an 8inferior tribunal' or corporation' or board' or person:

 "nsua led an anwer arguing that?

• 4es56 did not limit his ling for protest for ELECOM =ed the deadline on *ec -

and not on the passage of 4es56' which was on *ec• 4espondent led protest before ELECOM ended the period for ling election

complaints

• ELECOM ac9uired &urisdiction o(er election protest and Fan resolution ofELECOM den!ing the 8Motion to *ismiss the Protest: was not re(iewable b! theSC b! means of a writ of prohibition since it was part of ELECOM>s &urisdiction

• #o constitutional nor legal pro(ision re9uires the conrmation of members of

the #A and that the said conrmation could not limit the period for ling protest

• ELECOM is an independent constitutional entit! with 9uasiB&udicial functions andthus' its decisions are nal and unappealableG also ELECOM is a constitutional

creation which is not an inferior tribunal' or corporation' board' or person and isnot sub&ect to a writ of prohibition from the SC

• Par<'art, of $!dingsBMc*u3e Law is not applicable

%ssues?+. HO# the SC has &urisdiction o(er the ELECOM and the sub&ect matter of the

contro(ers!. HO#' if e(er the rst is granted' ELECOM acted within or without its &urisdiction

in assuming cognizance of the protest led against the election of Angara

2eld I 4atio?

+. "es. $he SC has &urisdiction o(er the ELECOM? separation of powers granted b!Consti 0through separate articles for each branch1 but check and balancesmaintain coordination among the branches. Hhen there are conJicts betweenthe boundaries of powers and functions of each branch' the Fudiciar! has thepower to re(iew and resol(e these conJicts through Fudicial 4e(iew 0referred toas Fudicial Supremac!1. $his howe(er is limited to actual cases andcontro(ersies.

. "es. ELECOM acted within its &urisdiction since ELECOM is recognized as anindependent 9uasiB&udicial bod! which is not an inferior tribunal' or corporation'board' or person' and is granted the powers to be the sole &udge of all contests

relating to the election' returns and 9ualications of members of the #A. $hepresent constitution granted the ELECOM with all the powers e=ercised b! thelegislature relating to the said function of ELECOM' and this includes theregulation of the rules and procedures of election protests. $he conrmation of#A of its members is not re9uired and does not limit the ELECOM of its power to= dates for election protest' or else this would undermine the power andfunctions of the ELECOM.

*EC%? petition for writ of prohibition denied' with costs against the petitioner.

Codes: ELECOM (Election Commission); NA (National Assembly); Res#8 (Resolution No. 8); SC

(Su!eme Cou!t)

8/11/2019 Angara v Electoral Commission digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/angara-v-electoral-commission-digest 3/3

Codes: ELECOM (Election Commission); NA (National Assembly); Res#8 (Resolution No. 8); SC

(Su!eme Cou!t)