Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No.

L-45081, July 15, 1936

DECISION

(En Banc)

LAUREL, J.:

I. THE FACTS

Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took his oath of office as member of the National Assembly of the
Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election
of those who have not been subject of an election protest prior to the adoption of the said resolution.

On December 8, 1935, however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest against the petitioner before
the Electoral Commission of the National Assembly. The following day, December 9, 1935, the Electoral Commission
adopted its own resolution providing that it will not consider any election protest that was not submitted on or before
December 9, 1935.

Citing among others the earlier resolution of the National Assembly, the petitioner sought the dismissal of respondent’s
protest. The Electoral Commission however denied his motion.

II. THE ISSUE

Did the Electoral Commission act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the protest filed against
the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the National
Assembly?

III. THE RULING

[The Court DENIED the petition.]

NO, the Electoral Commission did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the protest filed
against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the
National Assembly.

The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming to take
cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua against the election of the petitioner Angara, and that the
earlier resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any manner toll the time for filing election protests against
members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral
Commission might prescribe.

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. xxx.

[T]he 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. [W]here 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.
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.