A.

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602, August, 31, 1987

(En Banc), J. Melencio-Herrera

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; and 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been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution.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 on Feb 8, 1987
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therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have superseded.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. 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 x x."

Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by aw, therefore, the term of office of
6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.
Angara v. Electoral Commission

In the elections of Sept 17, 1935, Angara, and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua et al. were candidates
voted for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of
Tayabas. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the NA for the said district. On
November 15, 1935, he took his oath of office. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session assembled, passed
Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly against whom no
protest had thus far been filed. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a “Motion
of Protest” against the election of Angara. On Dec 9, 1935, the EC adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which
fixed said date as the last day for the filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of
members of the NA, notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the NA. Angara filed a Motion
to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the NA proclamation, Ynsua can no longer protest. Ynsua argued
back by claiming that EC proclamation governs and that the EC can take cognizance of the election
protest and that the EC cannot be subject to a writ of prohibition from the SC.

ISSUES: Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over such matter.

Whether or not EC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the election protest.

HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Angara. The SC emphasized that in cases of conflict between the several
departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the SC as the final arbiter, is the only
constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries.

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

That the Electoral Commission is an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and
functions to execute and perform, closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any of
the other two departments of the government.

That the Electoral Commission is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly.