Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936
JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner,
vs.
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C. MAYOR,respondents.
FACTS : At in 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;
That 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. That on
November 15, 1935, the petitioner took his oath of office. That on December 8,
1935, the herein respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a
"Motion of Protest" against the election of the herein petitioner,
Jose A. Angara, being the only protest filed after the passage of Resolutions
No. 8 aforequoted, and praying, among other-things, that said respondent be
declared elected member of the National Assembly for the first district of
Tayabas, or that the election of said position be nullified. That 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", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of Dismiss the
Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly was
adopted in the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative to
prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its members
should be presented; (b) that the aforesaid resolution has for its object, and
is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said period; and (c) that the
protest in question was filed out of the prescribed period. That on December
27, 1935, the herein respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an "Answer to the
Motion of Dismissal" alleging that there is no legal or constitutional
provision barring the presentation of a protest against the election of a
member of the National Assembly after confirmation. That the case being
submitted for decision, the Electoral Commission promulgated a resolution on
January 23, 1936, denying herein petitioner's "Motion to Dismiss the
Protest. That the case being submitted for decision, the Electoral Commission
promulgated a resolution on January 23, 1936, denying herein petitioner's
"Motion to Dismiss the Protest. The respondent Pedro Ynsua, in his turn,
appeared and filed an answer in his own behalf on March 2, 1936. The case was
argued before us on March 13, 1936. Before it was submitted for decision,
ISSUE : Whether or not The Electoral
Commission has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
HELD : When , therefore, they deemed it wise
to create an Electoral Commission as a constitutional organ and invested it
with the exclusive function of passing upon and determining the election,
returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, they must
have done so not only in the light of their own experience but also having in view
the experience of other enlightened peoples of the world. The creation of the
Electoral Commission was designed to remedy certain evils of which the framers
of our Constitution were cognizant. Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of
some members of the Convention to its creation, the plan, as hereinabove
stated, was approved by that body by a vote of 98 against 58
From the deliberations of our Constitutional
Convention it is evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all
the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to
contested elections of its members, to an independent and impartial tribunal.
It was not so much the knowledge and appreciation of contemporary
constitutional precedents, however, as the long-felt need of determining
legislative contests devoid of partisan considerations which prompted the
people, acting through their delegates to the Convention, to provide for this
body known as the Electoral Commission. With this end in view, a composite body
in which both the majority and minority parties are equally represented to
off-set partisan influence in its deliberations was created, and further
endowed with judicial temper by including in its membership three justices of
the Supreme Court
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. And this is as
effective a restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in
the Constitution
We are not insensible to the impassioned
argument or the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the importance and
necessity of respecting the dignity and independence of the national Assembly
as a coordinate department of the government and of according validity to its
acts, to avoid what he characterized would be practically an unlimited power of
the commission in the admission of protests against members of the National
Assembly. But as we have pointed out hereinabove, the creation of the Electoral
Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character
to limit the time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be
filed. It is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is
conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise
of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred (Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, eight ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In the absence of
any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed
in filing protests before the Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental
power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of its
exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission..
No comments:
Post a Comment