TOPIC: [FOR CONSTI MOCK RECIT]

JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner, vs. THE ELECTORAL

CASE TITLE: COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO, and
DIONISIO C. MAYOR, respondents
DATE: Jan. 23, G.R. NO: 45081 PONENTE: Laurel, J.
1936
FACTS (T-A-C-L-A)
 On the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner,
Jose A. Angara, and the respondents, Pedro Ynsua,
Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor, were candidates
voted for the position of member of the National
Assembly for the first district of the Province of
Tayabas.
 On October 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers,
proclaimed the petitioner as member-elect of the
National Assembly for the said district, for having
received the most number of votes.
 On November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of
office.
 On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly in session
assembled, passed Resolution no. 8, which confirmed
the election of its members against whom no protest
1) As to the Title of
had been filed.
the Petition and
 On December 8, 1935, the herein respondent Pedro
case background:
Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion
of Protest" against the election of the herein petitioner,
Jose A. Angara.
 On December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission
adopted a resolution that it would be the last date that
protests would be considered.
 On December 20, 1935, the herein petitioner, Jose A.
Angara, one of the respondents in the aforesaid protest,
filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion to
Dismiss the Protest. On December 27, Ynsua answered
to the Motion and, on Decemebr 31, Angara sent a
reply.
 On January 23, 1936, the Electoral Commission
promulgated a resolution denying herein petitioner's
"Motion to Dismiss the Protest.”
 The petitioner alleged that the National Assembly, not
2) As to the the EC, has the power to regulate the proceedings of
Allegation of elections, and that that Resolution no. 8 should be valid
petitioner/s: and had prescribed the period when protests were still
valid.
3) As to the  The Solicitor General contends the following:
Contention of the  (a) Â That the Electoral Commission has been created
 by the 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"; that in adopting its resolution of December
9, 1935, fixing this date as the last day for the
presentation of protests against the election of any
member of the National Assembly, it acted within its
jurisdiction and in the legitimate exercise of the implied
powers granted it by the Constitution to adopt the r
ules and regulations essential to carry out the powers
and functions conferred upon the same by the
fundamental law; that in adopting its resolution of
January 23, 1936…
respondent/s:
 (b) Â That the resolution of the National Assembly of
December 3, 1935, confirming the election of the
members of the National Assembly against whom no
protest had thus far been filed, could not and did not
deprive the Electoral Commission of its jurisdiction to
take cognizance of election protests filed within the
time that might be set by its own rules;
 (c) Â That the Electoral Commission is a body invested
with quasijudicial functions, created by the Constitution
as an instrumentality of the Legislative Department,
and is not an "inferior tribunal, or corporation, or board,
or person" within the purview of sections 226 and 516
of the Code of Civil Procedure, against which prohibition
would lie.
4) Lower Court  N/A
Decision:
5) Appellate Court  N/A
Decision:
ISSUE: (W-o-N)
1. Whether or not that the Supreme Court jurisdiction over
the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the
controversy upon the foregoing related facts, and in the
affirmative.
2. Whether or not the said Electoral Commission acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to
take cognizance of the protest filed against the election
of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the
National Assembly?

RULING (Coc-P-Co)
Complete 1. Yes, the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Electoral
Conclusion Commission and the subject matter of the controversy
upon the foregoing related facts, and in the affirmative.
 2. No, the said Electoral Commission did not act without or
in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to take
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of
the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the
National Assembly.
1. In the case at bar, the moderating power of the
Supreme Court is granted, if not expressly, by clear
implication from section 2 of article VIII of the 1935
Constitution1.

Upon principle, reason and authority, the Supreme

Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission
Premise 1 and the subject matter of the present controversy for
the purpose of determining the character, scope and
Specific/Legal Basis extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral
Commission.
2. Section 4 of Article VI of the 1935 Constitution
states that, “The Electoral Commission shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the Members of the National
Assembly.”

Premise 2 1. The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the

restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers
General Application and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are
+ Conclusion transcended, it would be inconceivable if the
Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by
which to direct the course of government along
constitutional channels, for, then, the distribution of
powers would be mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere
expressions of sentiment, and the principles of good
government mere political apothegms

… asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to

it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
parties in an actual controversy the rights which that
1
1935 Phiilippine Constitution, Art. VIII. Sec. 2. The National Assembly shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court
of its original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, nor of
its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the
law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in-

(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or
regulation is in question.
(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any trial courts is in issue.
(4) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment.
(5) All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.
 instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in
truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial
supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial
review under the Constitution.
2. In the case at hand, the Resolution No. 8 of the National
Assembly confirming the election of members against
whom no protests has been filed at the time of its
passage on December 3, 1936, can not be construed as
a limitation upon the time for the initiation of election
contests. While there might have been good reason for
the legislative practice of confirmation of members of
the Legislature at the time the power to decide election
contests was still lodged in the Legislature, confirmation
alone by the Legislature cannot be construed as
depriving the Electoral Commission of the authority
incidental to its constitutional power to be "the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly", to fix the time for the filing of said election
protests. Confirmation by the National Assembly of the
returns of its members against whose election no
protests have been filed is, to all legal purposes,
unnecessary

Furthermore, 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.