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

L-45081, July 15, 1936

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.

ISSUE

Whether or not the electoral commission erred in taking cognizance of Ynsua’s protest.

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.

PERFECTO VS. MEER

FACT

In April 1947 the Collector of Internal Revenue required Mr. Justice Gregorio Perfecto to pay income
tax upon his salary as member of the Court during the year 1946. After paying the amount, he
instituted an action in Manila Court of First Instance contending that the assessment was illegal, his
salary not being taxable for the reason that imposition of taxes thereon would reduce it in violation of
the Constitution. It provides in its Article VIII, Section 9 that the members of the Supreme Court and
all judges of inferior courts “shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office.

ISSUE

Whether or not the imposition of an income tax upon this salary in 1946 amount to a diminution.

HELD

Yes, the imposition of the income tax upon the salary of Justice Perfecto amount to a diminution
thereof. The prohibition is general, contains no excepting words, and appears to be directed against
all diminution, whether for one purpose or another. The fathers of the Constitution intended to
prohibit diminution by taxation as well as otherwise, that they regarded the independence of the
judges as of far greater importance than any revenue that could come from taxing their salaries. Thus,
taxing the salary of a judge as a part of his income is a violation of the Constitution.

IBP v. Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora et al.

G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

FACTS: President Joseph Estrada ordered the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the
Philippine National Police (PNP) in visibility patrols around Metro Manila to stem the tide of rising
violence and crime. In response to such order, the PNP through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar B.
Aglipay issued Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 02/2000 which detailed the joint visibility patrols called
Task Force Tulungan. This was confirmed by a memorandum Pres. Estrada issued dated 24 January
2000. On January 17, 2000, the IBP filed a petition to annul LOI 02/2000 arguing that the deployment
of the Marines is unconstitutional and is an incursion by the military on the civilian functions of
government as embodied in Article II, Sec. 3 and Art. XVI, Sec. 5(4) of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:

(1) Does the IBP have legal standing in the case at bar?

(2) Is the president’s factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces subject to
judicial review?

(3) Is the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violate constitutional
provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the PNP?

RULING:

In the first issue, the IBP has failed to provide the requisites for legal standing in the case at bar in that
it has failed to conclusively prove that such deployment would harm the IBP in any way. It’s
contention that it is fighting to uphold the rule of law and the constitution is insufficient, too general
and too vague.

As to the second issue, the Court disagrees with the contention of the Solicitor-General that the
president’s act is a political question beyond the authority of the Court to review when the grant of
power is qualified or subject to limitations, the issue becomes whether the prescribed qualifications
have been met, then it becomes a question of legality and not wisdom, so is not a political question. It
is then subject to the Court’s review power.

As to the third issue, the Marines only assist the PNP, the LOI itself provides for this. In fact, the PNP
Chief is the leader of such patrols and in no way places the over-all authority in the Marines.

Petition is dismissed.