Supremacy of the Constitution enforced through judicial review A n g a r a v .

E l e c t o r a l C o m m i s s i o n , 6 3 P h i l . 1 3 9
NATURE: Original action in the Supreme Court for the issuance of a writ of
prohibition to restraina nd prohibit the Electoral Commission, one of
the respondents from taking further cognizance of the protest filed by
Pedro Ynsua, another respondent against the election of said petitioner as
member of the National Assembly for the first assembly district of the
Province of Tayabas.FACTS: IN the elections of September 17, 1935, Jose
Angara and respondents, Pedro Ynsua,Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor,
were candidates voted for the position of member of theNational Assembly
for the first district of the Province of Taybas.. On October 7, 1935
petitioner Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the National Assembly
and he later took his oath of office on November 15, 1935. On December 3,
1935, the National Assembly passed ResolutionNo. 8 which declared with
finality the victory of petitioner. On December 8, respondent Ynsuafiled
before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against Angara
praying that said the former be declared elected member of the
National Assembly or that the election of the said position be nullified. On
December 20, Angara filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Protest" arguing that a)
Resolution 8 was adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional
prerogative to prescribe the period during which protests against the election
of its member should be presented; b) that aforesaid resolution has for its
object and is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said period; and c)
protest was filed out of the prescribed period. The Electoral Commission
denied petitioner's motion. Thus, this action in the present case.I SSUE: 1.
Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the
subject matter of the controversy upon the foregoing facts;2.WON the
Electoral Commission committed a grave abuse of its discretion having
entertained aprotest after the National Assembly passed Resolution 8 which
declared the deadline of filing of protests.HEL D: 1. The nature of the
present case shows the necessity of a final arbiter to determine the
conflict of authority between two agencies created by the Constitution. NOt
taking cognizance of said controversy would create a void in
our constitutional system which may in the long run prove destructive of the
entire framework. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only
constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the
proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among teh
ingral or constituent units thereof.2. The Electoral Commission did not
exceed its jurisdiction. It has been created by thew Constitution as an
instrumentality of the Legislative Department invested with the jurisdiction
to decide "all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
the members of the National Assembly". Thus, entertaining the protest of
Ynsua must conform to their own prescribed rules and the National Assembly
cannot divest them of any such powers. Wherefore, petition DENIED.