Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 193 views

    Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

    Uploaded by

    Mark Evan Garcia
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy to determine the scope of the Electoral Commission's constitutional authority. Jose Angara contested the Electoral Commission's decision to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, challenging Angara's election to the National Assembly, because the protest was filed after the deadline. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to take cognizance of Ynsua's protest, as the sole judge of all contests relating to elections to the National Assembly.

    Copyright:

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

    Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

    Uploaded by

    Mark Evan Garcia
    193 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy to determine the scope of the Electoral Commission's constitutional authority. Jose Angara contested the Electoral Commission's decision to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, challenging Angara's election to the National Assembly, because the protest was filed after the deadline. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to take cognizance of Ynsua's protest, as the sole judge of all contests relating to elections to the National Assembly.

    Original Description:

    CONSTI

    Original Title

    17. Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy to determine the scope of the Electoral Commission's constitutional authority. Jose Angara contested the Electoral Commission's decision to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, challenging Angara's election to the National Assembly, because the protest was filed after the deadline. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to take cognizance of Ynsua's protest, as the sole judge of all contests relating to elections to the National Assembly.

    Copyright:

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

    Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

    Uploaded by

    Mark Evan Garcia
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy to determine the scope of the Electoral Commission's constitutional authority. Jose Angara contested the Electoral Commission's decision to hear a protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, challenging Angara's election to the National Assembly, because the protest was filed after the deadline. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to take cognizance of Ynsua's protest, as the sole judge of all contests relating to elections to the National Assembly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil.

    139 (1936)

    Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

    G.R. No. L-45081 July 15 1936

    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 prayed for the issuance of writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral Commission
    taking further cognizance of Ynsua's protest. He contended that the Constitution confers exclusive
    jurisdiction upon the said Electoral Commissions as regards the merits of contested elections to the Nat'l
    Assembly and the Supreme Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the
    controversy;
    Whether or not The Electoral Commission has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

    RULING:

    In this case, the nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a final constitutional arbiter to
    determine the conflict of authority between two agencies created by the Constitution. The court has
    jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the present controversy for the
    purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral
    Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
    members of the National Assembly." (Sec 4 Art. VI 1935 Constitution). It is held, therefore, that the
    Electoral Commission was acting within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in
    assuming to take cognizance of the election protest filed by Ynsua.

    You might also like