CONSTI 1 (ART 8 SEC 5)

1 Marbury vs Madison
Summary: Organic Act; appointment
ng mga judge; purpose: para federal
ang judiciary controlled bago maging
president si Jefferson; Marbury ay
maappoint sana as justice of the
peace; pero failure to deliver
commissions before Thomas Jefferson
took office; not recognized by Thomas
Jefferson; writ of mandamus by
Marbury to compel Madison(US sec of
state) to deliver the commissions; SC:
SC can review acts of Congress;
Congress cannot expand the scope of
SC original jurisdiction (mali yung
judiciary act na yan); SC no original
jurisdiction on writ of mandamus;
kailangan appellate;
Note: A (writ of) mandamus is an
order from a court to an inferior
government official ordering the
government official to properly fulfill
their official duties or correct an abuse
of discretion
Facts
-On his last day in office, President
John Adams named forty-two
justices of the peace and sixteen new
circuit court justices for the District of
Columbia under the Organic Act. The
Organic Act was an attempt by the
Federalists to take control of the
federal judiciary before Thomas
Jefferson took office.
-The commissions were signed by
President Adams and sealed by acting
Secretary of State John Marshall (who
later became Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court and author of this
opinion), but they were not
delivered before the expiration of
Adamss term as president.

Thomas Jefferson refused to honor

the commissions, claiming that they
were invalid because they had not
been delivered by the end of Adamss
term.
-William Marbury (P) was an
intended recipient of an
appointment as justice of the
peace. Marbury applied directly to the
Supreme Court of the United States for
a writ of mandamus to compel
Jeffersons Secretary of State,
James Madison (D), to deliver the
commissions. The Judiciary Act of
1789 had granted the Supreme
Court original jurisdiction to issue
writs of mandamus to any
courts appointed, or persons
holding office, under the authority
of the United States.
Issues
1. Does Marbury have a right to
the commission?
2. Does the law grant Marbury a
remedy?
3. Does the Supreme Court
have the authority to review
acts of Congress and
determine whether they are
unconstitutional and
therefore void?
4. Can Congress expand the
scope of the Supreme
Courts original jurisdiction
beyond what is specified in
Article III of the
Constitution?
5. Does the Supreme Court
have original jurisdiction to
issue writs of mandamus?

Holding and Rule (Marshall)

-IMPORTANT DOCTRINES
HIGHLIGHTED IN 3,4, AND 5
1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the
commission.
-The order granting the
commission takes effect when
the Executives constitutional
power of appointment has been
exercised, and the power has
been exercised when the last
act required from the person
possessing the power has been
performed. The grant of the
commission to Marbury became
effective when signed by
President Adams.
2. Yes. The law grants Marbury a
remedy.The very essence of civil
liberty certainly consists in the
right of every individual to claim
the protection of the laws
whenever he receives an injury.
One of the first duties of
government is to afford that
protection.
-Where a specific duty is
assigned by law, and individual
rights depend upon the
performance of that duty, the
individual who considers himself
injured has a right to resort to
the law for a remedy. The
President, by signing the
commission, appointed Marbury
a justice of the peace in the
District of Columbia. The seal of
the United States, affixed
thereto by the Secretary of
State, is conclusive testimony of
the verity of the signature, and
of the completion of the
appointment. Having this legal
right to the office, he has a
consequent right to the

commission, a refusal to deliver

which is a plain violation of that
right for which the laws of the
country afford him a remedy.
3. Yes. The Supreme Court has
the authority to review acts
of Congress and determine
whether they are
unconstitutional and
therefore void.
-It is emphatically the duty
of the Judicial Department
to say what the law is. Those
who apply the rule to particular
cases must, of necessity,
expound and interpret the rule.
If two laws conflict with
each other, the Court must
decide on the operation of
each. If courts are to regard the
Constitution, and the
Constitution is superior to any
ordinary act of the legislature,
the Constitution, and not such
ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.
4. No. Congress cannot expand
the scope of the Supreme
Courts original jurisdiction
beyond what is specified
in Article III of the
Constitution.
-The Constitution states that
the Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction in all cases
affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls,
and those in which a state shall
be a party. In all other cases,
the Supreme Court shall
have appellate jurisdiction.
If it had been intended to leave
it in the discretion of the
Legislature to apportion the
judicial power between the

Supreme and inferior courts

according to the will of that
body, this section is mere
surplusage and is entirely
without meaning. If Congress
remains at liberty to give this
court appellate jurisdiction
where the Constitution has
declared their jurisdiction shall
be original, and original
jurisdiction where the
Constitution has declared it
shall be appellate, the
distribution of jurisdiction made
in the Constitution, is form
without substance.
5. No. The Supreme Court does
not have original jurisdiction
to issue writs of mandamus.
-To enable this court then to
issue a mandamus, it must
be shown to be an exercise
of appellate jurisdiction, or
to be necessary to enable
them to exercise appellate
jurisdiction.
-It is the essential criterion of
appellate jurisdiction that it
revises and corrects the
proceedings in a cause already
instituted, and does not create
that case. Although,
therefore, a mandamus may
be directed to courts, yet to
issue such a writ to an
officer for the delivery of a
paper is, in effect, the same
as to sustain an original
action for that paper, and is
therefore a matter of
original jurisdiction.
Disposition
Application for writ of mandamus
denied. Marbury doesnt get the
commission.

2 Angara vs Electoral Commission

Summary: Election for the National
Assembly; Angara panalo; NA
resolution confirming election; protest
by Ynsua sa Electoral commission;
Angara: NA proclamation, hindi na
pwede protest; Ynsua: no consti/legal
provision w/c stated that members of
the NA cannot be contested after
confirmation; EC: denied Angara
motion to dismiss; Angara protest to
SC; Angara questions EC jurisdiction;
Angara: EC regulate only proceedings;
SC pa rin kasi fundamental issue is the
interpretation of the constitution;
SOlGen: (Res no. 8 did not deprive EC
of jurisdiction; motion to dismiss not
reviewable by SC) Issue: SC w/
jurisdiction? SC: YES; check and
balance maintain coordination w/
branches; judicial supremacy (no one
agency or branch transcends consti);
ELECOM w/jurisdiction since
independent body;
FACTS:

1. In the election of Sept. 17,

1935, Angara (herein petitioner)
and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel
Castillo, Dionision Mayor
(Respondents) were
candidates voted to be
members of the national
assembly (NA) for the first
district of the Province of
Tayabas.
2. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was
proclaimed as member-elect
of the NA for the said district.

On November 15, 1935, he took

his oath of office.

jurisdiction over the case. (

Petitioner argues that, EC
could only regulate
proceedings, that SC has
jurisdiction to pass upon
fundamental questions in
the issue since it is an
interpretation of the
constitution)

3. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in

session assembled, passed
Resolution No. 8 confirming
the election of the members of
the National Assembly against
whom no protest had thus far
been filed.
4. On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed
before the Electoral
Commission a Motion of
Protest against the
election of Angara. On Dec 9,
1935, the EC adopted a
resolution, par. 6 of which
fixed said date as the last
day for the filing of protests
against the election, returns
and qualifications of members
of the NA, notwithstanding the
previous confirmation made by
the NA.
5.

Angara filed a Motion to

Dismiss arguing that by
virtue of the NA
proclamation, Ynsua can no
longer protest (the
prescribed period for filing
of protests had already
ended on December 3, and the
respondent was late in filing his
protest because he filed the
protest after December 3.).

6. Ynsua claims that there was

no constitutional or legal
provision which stated that
members of the NA cannot
be contested after
confirmationof the NA.. EC
denied petitioners motion to
dismiss. Petitioner then files
a protest to the Supreme
Court (SC) questioning ECs

7. The Solicitor General (SolGen)

argues that EC is a
constitutional body which has
jurisdiction to try all contested
cases re:elections and said acts
is beyond SC. Further, Res #8
did not deprive EC of its
jurisdiction. Since EC
acquired jurisdiction over
the election protest, the
Motion to dismiss filed in EC
is not reviewable by the SC.

ISSUE(S): 1. does the SC has

jurisdiction over the ELECOM and
the controversy?
2. If it does, then has ELECOM
acted within or without jursidiction
HELD: 1. Yes
2. Within Jursidiction
RATIO: (IMPORTANT DOCTRINES
LAHAT)
-

The SC has jurisdiction over the

ELECOM: separation of powers
granted by Consti (through
separate articles for each
branch) but check and
balances maintain
coordination among the
branches. When there are
conflicts between the
boundaries of powers and
functions of each branch,

the Judiciary has the power

to review and resolve these
conflicts through Judicial
Review (referred to as Judicial
Supremacy). This however is
limited to actual cases and
controversies.
-

that judicial supremacy is but

the power 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 the
Constitution, which is the source
of all authority.

ELECOM acted within its

jurisdiction since ELECOM is
recognized as an independent
quasi-judicial body which is not an
inferior tribunal, or corporation,
board, or person, and is granted the
powers to be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of members
of the NA. The present constitution
granted the ELECOM with all the
powers exercised by the legislature
relating to the said function of
ELECOM, and this includes the
regulation of the rules and procedures
of election protests. The confirmation
of NA of its members is not required
and does not limit the ELECOM of its
power to fix dates for election protest,
or else this would undermine the
power and functions of the ELECOM.
Concurring Opinion:
Abad, J. (not relevant to the topic)

The power vested in the

Electoral Commission by the
Constitution of judging of all
contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the
members of the National
Assembly, is judicial in nature.
(Thomas vs. Loney, 134 U.S.,
372; 33 Law. ed., 949, 951.) On
the other hand, the power to
regulate the time in which
notice of a contested election
may be given, is legislative in
character. (M'Elmoyle vs.
Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; 10 Law.
ed., 177; Missouri vs. Illinois,
200 U. S. 496; 50 Law. ed.,
572.)

It has been correctly stated that the

government established by the
Constitution follows fundamentally the
theory of the separation of powers into
legislative, executive, and judicial.
Legislative power is vested in the
National Assembly. (Article VI, sec. 1.)
In the absence of any clear
constitutional provision to the
contrary, the power to regulate the
time in which notice of a contested
election may be given, must be
deemed to be included in the grant of
legislative power to the National
Assembly.

3 Tolentino vs Secretary of
Finance