Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 518 views

    Angara vs. Electoral Commission

    Uploaded by

    benjamintee
    This case involved a dispute over an election for a seat in the National Assembly. Jose Angara was declared the winner but Pedro Ynsua filed a protest with the Electoral Commission after the deadline set by the National Assembly had passed but before the deadline set by the Electoral Commission. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it had jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the dispute. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to set the deadline for filing protests and assume jurisdiction over Ynsua's protest. While departments have separate powers, the constitution provides for checks and balances between them and the judicial department determines the proper allocation of powers.

    Copyright:

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

    Angara vs. Electoral Commission

    Uploaded by

    benjamintee
    518 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over an election for a seat in the National Assembly. Jose Angara was declared the winner but Pedro Ynsua filed a protest with the Electoral Commission after the deadline set by the National Assembly had passed but before the deadline set by the Electoral Commission. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it had jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the dispute. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to set the deadline for filing protests and assume jurisdiction over Ynsua's protest. While departments have separate powers, the constitution provides for checks and balances between them and the judicial department determines the proper allocation of powers.

    Original Description:

    Angara vs. Electoral Commission

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over an election for a seat in the National Assembly. Jose Angara was declared the winner but Pedro Ynsua filed a protest with the Electoral Commission after the deadline set by the National Assembly had passed but before the deadline set by the Electoral Commission. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it had jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the dispute. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to set the deadline for filing protests and assume jurisdiction over Ynsua's protest. While departments have separate powers, the constitution provides for checks and balances between them and the judicial department determines the proper allocation of powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    518 views2 pages

    Angara vs. Electoral Commission

    Uploaded by

    benjamintee
    This case involved a dispute over an election for a seat in the National Assembly. Jose Angara was declared the winner but Pedro Ynsua filed a protest with the Electoral Commission after the deadline set by the National Assembly had passed but before the deadline set by the Electoral Commission. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it had jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the dispute. The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Commission was acting within its constitutional authority to set the deadline for filing protests and assume jurisdiction over Ynsua's protest. While departments have separate powers, the constitution provides for checks and balances between them and the judicial department determines the proper allocation of powers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Angara v.

    Electoral Commission
    Facts: Petitioner Jose A. Angara and the respondents
    Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, and Dionisio Mayor were
    candidates voted for the position of members of the
    National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas. On
    Oct. 7, 1935, the provincial board of canvassers
    proclaimed Angara as member-elect of the National
    Assembly and on Nov. 15, 1935, he took his oath of
    office. On Dec. 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed
    Resolution No. 8, which in effect, fixed the last date to
    file election protests. On Dec. 8, 1935, Ynsua filed
    before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest"
    against Angara and praying, among other things, that
    Ynsua be named/declared elected Member of the
    National Assembly or that the election of said position
    be nullified. On Dec. 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission
    adopted a resolution (No. 6) stating that last day for
    filing of protests is on Dec. 9. Angara contended that
    the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the
    Electoral Commission solely as regards the merits of
    contested elections to the National Assembly and the
    Supreme Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the
    case.
    Issue: WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over
    the Electoral Commision and the subject matter of the
    controversy upon the foregoing related facts.

    Held: The Electoral Commission is acting within the


    legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in
    assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the
    respondent Pedro Ynsua against the election of the
    herein petitioner, Jose A. Angara, and that the
    resolution of the National Assembly on Dec. 3, 1935,
    cannot in any manner toll the time for filing protest
    against the election, returns, and qualifications of the
    members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the
    filing of protests within such time as the rules of the
    Electoral Commission might prescribe. Separation of
    powers states that each department of the government
    is supreme within his own sphere and jurisdiction but it
    does not follow that the three powers are to be
    separate because the constitution has provided a
    system of checks and balances to secure coordination
    in the various parts of the government. Judicial
    department is the only constitutional organ which can
    be called upon to determine the proper allocation of
    powers between the several departments. Although the
    Electoral Commission may not be interfered with, when
    and while acting within the limits of its authority, it does
    not follow that it is beyond the reach of the
    constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and
    that it is not subject to constitutional restrictions

    You might also like