Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction in assuming to the cognizance of the protest in the election of the
herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by
resolution of the National Assembly?
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to the Electoral Commission
being the sole judge as regards to the merits of contested elections to the
National Assembly
Rulings:
1. We hold, therefore, that the Electoral Commission was acting within the
legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take
cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua against the
election of the herein petitioner Jose A. Angara, and that the resolution of the
National Assembly of December 3, 1935 can
Not in any manner toll the time for filing protests against the elections, returns
and qualifications of members of the
National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules
of the Electoral Commission
Might prescribe.
2. (a) That the government established by the Constitution follows fundamentally
the theory of separation of power into the legislative, the executive and the
judicial.
(b) That the system of checks and balances and the overlapping of functions and
duties often makes difficult the delimitation of the powers granted.
(c) That in cases of conflict between the several departments and among the
agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, is the
only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate
constitutional boundaries.
(d) 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