Angara vs Electoral Commission 63 PHIL.

134 July 15, 1936

Ponente: Laurel, J.

Art VI Sec 17: The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal
shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be members of the Senate and House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered
under the party list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

Facts:
- Angara asks for writ of prohibition to restrain Electoral Commission from taking further
cognizance of protest raised by Ynsua…*
Background
- 1935 Elections: Jose Angara, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor were
candidates for the position of member of the National Assembly for the first district of
Tayabas
- Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Angara as member-elect of the NA
- Ynsua: Motion to Protest (only protest filed after the passage of Resolution no. 8) and prayed
that he be declared as the elected member of NA for the district
- Angara: Motion to Dismiss the Protest because it is out of the prescriptive period under Res.
No. 8 of the NA
- Ynsua: Answer to Motion of Dismissal  no legal or constitutional provision barring the
presentation of protest against election of member of NA
- *… Grounds for Angara’s writ of prohibition:
o Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Electoral Commission wrt
contested elections in the NA
o Constitution excludes from that jurisdiction the power to regulate proceedings of
election contest (which goes to the NA or Legislature)
o Electoral Commission can only regulate its proceedings if NA did not avail of its
primary power to do so
o Resolution No. 8 of NA should be valid, respected and obeyed
o SC has power to pass upon a decision to this question raised as it is about
interpretation of the Constitution
- Electoral Commission: Denied Angara’s Motion;
o Elecom is an instrumentality of the Legislative Department… it has jurisdiction to
decide on “all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of the
members of the NA”.. Hence, said act is beyond control of the SC
o Take cognizance of election protest filed within the time that might be set by its own
rules
- Angara: preliminary writ of injunction against Elecom… petition was denied “without
passing upon the merits of the case”

Issues
 1. W/N Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter
of the controversy?
2. W/N Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in assuming to take
cognizance of protest filed against election of Angara, notwithstanding his previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the NA?

Held
1. YES
- Separation of Powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government… But it does
not follow that the 3 powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution
intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other.
- Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of various departments
- The constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary… when the
judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority
over other departments... it only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
the constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the constitution
- Judicial supremacy – power to review under the constitution; limited to actual cases and
controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties and limited
further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented.
- Judicial department – solemn and inescapable obligation of interpreting the constitution
and defining constitutional boundaries
- Electoral Commission – constitutional organ to determine all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly
- It does not follow that it (Elecom) is beyond the reach of the constitutional mechanism
adopted by the people
- Electoral Commission is not a separate dept. of government, even if it were, conflicting
claims of authority under the fundamental law between fundamental powers and agencies
of govt. are necessarily determined by the judiciary in justiciable and appropriate cases
- This court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter for the
purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of constitutional grant to the
Electoral Commission as the “sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of the members of the NA”

2. NO. Electoral Commission acted within its constitutional prerogative.

- It was not in excess of its jurisdiction when it assumed to take cognizance of the protest
filed by the respondent Ynsua against the election of the petitioner Angara, and that the
earlier resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any manner toll the time for filing
election protests against members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a
protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe .
- The present constitution has transferred all the powers previously exercised by the
legislature with respect to contests relating to the election, returns and qualification of its
members to the Electoral Commission
- The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as
complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express
lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that
power by the National Assembly.
- Such transfer of power from the legislature to the Electoral Commission was full, clear and
complete and carried with it the ex necessitate rei the implied power inter alia to prescribe
rules and regulations as to the time and manner of filing protests
- That confirmation of the National Assembly of the election of any member against whom no
protest had been filed prior to said confirmation, does not and cannot deprive the Elecom of
its incidental power to prescribe the time within which protests against the election of any
member of the NA should be filed.
- The resolution of the NA cannot toll the time for filing protests against election, returns and
qualification of members of the NA nor prevent filing of a protest within such time as the
rules of the Elecom prescribe

Concurring Opinion (Abad Santos, J)

1. Power vested in the Elecom of judging all contests relating to election returns, and
qualification is judicial in nature whereas power to regulate time in which notice of a
contested election may be given is legislative in nature. Legislative power is vested in the
NA….xxx… the power to regulate time in which notice of contested election may be given
should be granted then to the NA
- The purpose sought to be attained by the Elecom was not to erect body that would be
above the law but to raise legislative election contests from the category of political to that
of justiciable questions…. Not to place commission beyond the reach of law but to place
contests with due process of law
- Sec 478 of the Election law – while it says that HoR and the Senate should prescribe the time
and manner of filing contests (before), it should be construed to refer to the govt and
officials under this constitution (now)… Sec 478 refers now to the Elecom whereas it
previously referred to the HoR and Senate in the previous regime.
- The authority to prescribe time and manner of filing contests was by statute lodged
separately in the bodies clothed with power to decide such contests (based on section 478
of the Election Law referring to the NA, as required by Article XV Sex 2 of the constitution
then, Elecom is now the body clothed with power to decide such contests)
- Therefore, resolution above could not have barred Ynsua from contesting the election of
Angara. Elecom has jurisdiction to hear and determine the contest.