FACTS

In the elections of September 1935, Jose Angara, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio Mayor were candidates voted for the
position of member of the National Assembly in the first district of Tayabas. The petitioner was proclaimed member-elect for the said
district for receiving the most number of votes and thereafter took his oath in office. A Motion of Protest was filed by Ynsua against
the election of the petitioner. The petitioner countered this with a Motion to Dismiss the Protest which was denied by the Electoral
Commission.

ISSUES

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the controversy; and

Whether the said Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming cognizance of the protest filed over
the election of herein petitioner.

HELD

The National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense that its consent through its Commission on Appointments
is necessary in the appointments of certain officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the
conclusion of treaties. Furthermore, its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established, to define
their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly controls the judicial department to a certain extent.
The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. The Judiciary, in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive
and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. This power of has been stated in Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution.

Section 4, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “x x x The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.” In view of the deliberations of the framers of the
Constitution, it is held that the Electoral Commission was acting within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in
assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua. The petition of writ of prohibition against the Electoral
Commission is hereby denied.