Angara vs.

Comelec

FACTS:

1. In the election of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara, the petitioner and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel
Castillo, Dionisio Mayor, the respondents were candidates voted to be members of the National
Assembly for the first district of the Province of Tayabas.

2. Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the National Assembly for the said district and took
office

3. The National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of the members of the
National Assembly against whom no protest had thus far been filed.

4. Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion of Protest against the election of
Angara. The Electoral Commission adopted a resolution, fixing the date as the last day for the
filing of protests against the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the National
Assembly, notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the National Assembly.

5. Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the National Assembly proclamation,
Ynsua can no longer protest because the prescribed period for filing of protests had already
ended and the respondent was late in filing his protest because he filed the protest after the
proclamation of the National Assembly.

6. Ynsua claims that there was no constitutional or legal provision which stated that members of
the National Assembly cannot be contested after confirmation. Electoral Commission denied
petitioners motion to dismiss. Petitioner then files a protest to the Supreme Court questioning
the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission over the case. Petitioner argues that, Electoral
Commission could only regulate proceedings, that Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon
fundamental questions in the issue since it is an interpretation of the constitution.

7. The Solicitor General, representing the l Commission argues that Electoral Commission is a
constitutional body which has jurisdiction to try all contested cases regarding elections and said
acts is beyond Supreme Courts jurisdiction. Furthermore, the National Assemblys resolution
did not deprive the Electoral Commission of its jurisdiction. Since Electoral Commission acquired
jurisdiction over the election protest, the Motion to Dismiss files in the Electoral Commission is
not reviewable by the SC.

ISSUES:

1. WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Election Commission and the Controversy.
2. WON Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming t the
cognizance of the protest filed by the petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of
such election by resolution of the National Assembly.

RULING:
 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Election Commission. Separation of powers is
granted by Constitution but check and balances maintain coordination among the branches. When there
are conflicts between the boundaries of powers and functions of each branch, the Judiciary has the
power to review and resolve these conflicts through Judicial Review which is referred to as Judicial
Supremacy. This however is limited to actual cases and controversies.

Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see to it that no branch or agency of the government
transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority.

Electoral Commission acted within its jurisdiction. Under the organic law prevailing before the
1935 Constitution went into effect, each house of the legislature was respectively the sole judge of the
elections, returns, and qualification of their respective elective members. The 1935 Constitution has
transferred all the powers previously exercised by the legislature with respect to contests relating to
elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, to the Electoral Commission. Such transfer of
power from the Legislature to the Electoral Commission was full, clear and complete, and carried with it
ex necessitate rei the implied power inter alia to prescribe the rules and regulations as to the time and
manner of filing protests. Thus, the confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any
member against whom no protest had been filed prior to the said confirmation, does not and cannot
deprive the Electoral Commission of its incidental power to prescribe the time within which protest
against the election of any member of the National Assembly should be filed.