Sunday, February 05, 2012

Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal

Facts:  Angara was elected representative of Tayabas, Quezon and was already proclaimed a member of the National Assembly when Ynsua protested to the ELECOM. Angara filed a motion to dismiss the protest but since his motion was denied by the ELECOM, he filed an original action in the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the ELECOM to hear the protest of Ynsua, provided that ELECOM was under the National Assembly which already proclaimed him as its member as the elected representative of Tayabas, Quezon.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court could take cognizance of the case and has jurisdiction over the ELECOM

Held:  Yes. When there is an actual case or controversy, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral constituent units thereof. [based on the powers vested by foreign constitutions to the Judiciary]

The judiciary has judicial power, and included in this power is judicial review. The Court has the discretion whether or not to exercise this power. Hence, it produced standards for justiciability.

Standards:

[1] actual controversy

[2] lis mota of the case

[3] legal standing of the parties

[4] not moot and academic

[5] not a political question

[6] ripeness





Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal"

Post a Comment