Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 196 views

    Angara Vs Electoral Commission

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa Evans Cruz
    This case involved a petition filed by Jose Angara challenging the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua regarding the results of an election for the National Assembly. Angara argued the protest was filed after the deadline. The Commission denied Angara's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction over the Commission and the issue. The Court held that it did have jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between government agencies. It also found that the Commission acted within its authority by entertaining the protest according to its own rules, and the National Assembly could not restrict these powers granted by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Angara Vs Electoral Commission

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa Evans Cruz
    196 views1 page
    This case involved a petition filed by Jose Angara challenging the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua regarding the results of an election for the National Assembly. Angara argued the protest was filed after the deadline. The Commission denied Angara's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction over the Commission and the issue. The Court held that it did have jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between government agencies. It also found that the Commission acted within its authority by entertaining the protest according to its own rules, and the National Assembly could not restrict these powers granted by the Constitution.

    Original Title

    angara vs electoral commission.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a petition filed by Jose Angara challenging the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua regarding the results of an election for the National Assembly. Angara argued the protest was filed after the deadline. The Commission denied Angara's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction over the Commission and the issue. The Court held that it did have jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between government agencies. It also found that the Commission acted within its authority by entertaining the protest according to its own rules, and the National Assembly could not restrict these powers granted by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    196 views1 page

    Angara Vs Electoral Commission

    Uploaded by

    Vanessa Evans Cruz
    This case involved a petition filed by Jose Angara challenging the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua regarding the results of an election for the National Assembly. Angara argued the protest was filed after the deadline. The Commission denied Angara's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction over the Commission and the issue. The Court held that it did have jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between government agencies. It also found that the Commission acted within its authority by entertaining the protest according to its own rules, and the National Assembly could not restrict these powers granted by the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JOSE A.

    ANGARA, petitioner,
    vs.
    THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C. MAYOR,respondents.
    G.R. No. L-45081
    FACTS:
    Jose Angara and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor were candidates voted for the position of member of the National
    Assembly for the 1st district of Tayabas province. On Oct 17 1935, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Angara as member-
    elect of the Nat'l Assembly for garnering the most number of votes. He then took his oath of office on Nov 15th. On Dec 3rd, Nat'l
    Assembly passed Res. No 8 which declared with finality the victory of Angara. On Dec 8, Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a
    motion of protest against the election of Angara, that he be declared elected member of the Nat'l Assembly. Electoral Commission passed
    a resolution in Dec 9th as the last day for the filing of the protests against the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
    National Assembly. On Dec 20, Angara filed before the Elec. Commission a motion to dismiss the protest that the protest in question was
    filed out of the prescribed period. The Elec. Commission denied Angara's petition.

    ANGARA ELECTORAL COMMISSION


    Prayed for the issuance of writ of prohibition to restrain and That the resolution of the National Assembly of December 3, 1935,
    prohibit the Electoral Commission taking further cognizance confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly against
    of Ynsua's protest. He contended that the Constitution whom no protest had thus far been filed, could not and did not deprive the
    confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the said Electoral electoral Commission of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of election
    Commissions as regards the merits of contested elections to protests filed within the time that might be set by its own rules.
    the Nat'l Assembly and the Supreme Court therefore has no That the Electoral Commission is a body invested with quasi-judicial
    jurisdiction to hear the case. 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 section 226 and 516 of the Code
    of Civil Procedure, against which prohibition would lie.

    ISSUE HELD RATIO


    1. Has the Supreme 1. The nature of the present Not taking cognizance of said controversy would create a void in
    Court jurisdiction over the case shows the necessity of a our constitutional system which may in the long run prove destructive of
    Electoral Commission and final arbiter to determine the the entire framework. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the
    the subject matter of upon conflict of authority between only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the
    the foregoing facts? two agencies created by the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among
    Constitution. 2. The Electoral the constituent units thereof.
    2. Whether or not the Commission did not exceed The Electoral Commission has been created by the Constitution as an
    Electoral Commission its jurisdiction. instrumentality of the Legislative Department invested with the jurisdiction
    committed a grave abuse of to decide "all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
    its discretion having of the members of the National Assembly". Thus, entertaining the protest
    entertained a protest after of Ynsua must conform to their own prescribed rules and the National
    the National Assembly cannot divest them of any such powers.
    Assembly passed
    Resolution 8 which
    declared the deadline of
    filing of protests.

    Separation of Powers
    The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision
    but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
    jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept
    separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
    Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
    various departments of the government.
    Art. VI. Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which
    shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
    people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

    Legislative Power is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or
    change existing laws. Executive Branch agencies issue regulations with the full force of law, but these are only under the
    authority of laws enacted by Congress.

    Basic concepts of the grant of legislative power


    1. it cannot pass irrepealable laws
    2. principle of separation of powers
    3. no-delegability of legislative powers

    You might also like