Infante, Angelica N.

H136
JPL

Angara vs Electoral Commission

September 17, 1935 in the election, Jose A. Angara, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, Dionisio Mayor
and the petitioner was candidate the position of Member of the National Assembly for the first
district of the Province of Tayabas. Jose Angara Won The 935 As an Assemblyman For the Province
of Tayabas Defeating rival Pedro Ynsua. After Angara Won the assembly Pedro Ynsua decided to
filed election protest to the electoral to remove Angara from his post to replace by himself. And The
Electoral commission convened that the last day of filing electoral protest will be on December 9,
1935. 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.

According to Jose P Angara The National Assembly is the one who will decide for the last day of file
for the electoral Protest. The main issue was whether or not the Electoral Commission went beyond
its mandated power and if the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction over the issue and the Electoral
Commission. Jose Angara also questioning if the jurisdiction supreme court are the one who will
decide for the conflict between the National assembly and the Electoral Commission to set the date
for electoral protest.
After the trial the decision of Supreme of Court according the state of Jose P Laurel “That in case of
conflict between the several departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the
Supreme Court as the final arbiter , is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve
the conflict.” . Means that our judicial branch or the Supreme court is the final decision. Jose P
Laurel Said that this Supremacy is powerful of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and
controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government
transcends to constitution. Therefore our supreme court / judicial branch are the one to check and
balances. As the result Supreme court has the jurisdiction over conflict of the National Assembly and
the Electoral Commission Jose P Laurel said that to the Decision of the Supreme Court
The second issue was “Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in
assuming to the cognizance of the protest filled the election of the herein petitioner notwithstanding
the previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly”. According to the
decision of the Supreme court , the one who will decide is the Electoral Commission. The court sided
with the electoral commission and allowed the electoral protest filed by Pedro Ynsua. Using the
legitimate boundaries of its power. In this time, it happened that Jose P Laurel’s petition to stop the
constitution.
It shows to the first issue that the our branches of the government is subjected to checking balances
and that our supreme court has function of the government whether it follows the government
institution function. And ofcourse when someone file a kind of law there is trial and within the
boundsof the constitution of the law and error. And in this topic shown that court decision of Jose P
Laurel to this topic became the integral part in the history, The Supreme Court shown here that what
can be done in a law what was agreed upon the law. Also we can say that Supreme courts Judiciary role is
very important in our country.
In todays day One example here is the Anti-Terror law is our country,it has one of the numerous protest law, By
which it has trial and error happened before it law The Anti-Terrorism Bill was first pursued during the previous 17th
Congress as a replacement to the Human Security Act of 2007, but it didn’t prosper.
Then, in early June during the current 18th Congress and amid the pandemic, Malacañang certified the measure as
urgent, with Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque saying later that month that “Terrorists have not stopped
launching attacks even if we are grappling with COVID-19.”
By July 3, President Duterte had signed the controversial measure into law.
. The law’s purpose is to prevent, prohibit, and penalize terrorism in the country in a way that the Human
Security Act supposedly failed to do. It will do this by providing authorities with an expanded definition
of terrorism, on top of the creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), among other provisions.

https://mb.com.ph/2020/08/14/the-anti-terrorism-law-a-law-against-terrorists-or-a-terrifying-
law/
Jose Laurel in the Supreme Court: Marcos vs. Nalundasan, Angara vs. Electoral Commission
VD#4
https://www.pinayjurist.com/angara-v-the-electoral-commission-gr-no-45081-jul-15-1936-
doctrine-of-separation-of-powers-judicial-reviewthe-system-of-checks-and-balances/