SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

No. L-25716. July 28, 1966.

FERNANDO LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. GERARDO ROXAS

and PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL,
respondents.

757

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 757

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

Constitutional law; Scope of the power vested in the judicial

branch of the government.·Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution vests in the judicial branch of the government, not
merely some specified or limited judicial power, but the entirety or
„all‰ of said power, except, only, so much as the Constitution confers
upon some other agency, such as the power to „judge all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications‰ of members of
the Senate and those of the House of Representatives, which is
vested by the fundamental law solely in the Senate Electoral
Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal, respectively (Article VI,
Section 11, of the Constitution).
Same; Presidential Electoral Tribunal; Right of defeated
candidate to contest election of President-elect or Vice-Presidentelect.
·Republic Act No. 1793, creating the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal, has the effect of giving a defeated candidate the legal
right to contest judicially the election of the Presidentelect or Vice-
President-elect and to demand a recount of the votes cast for the
office involved in the litigation, as well as to secure a judgment
declaring that he, not the candidate proclaimed elected by

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 1 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

Congress, is the one elected President or Vice-President, as the case

may be, and that, as such, he is entitled to assume the duties
attached to said office.
Same; Effect of making Justices of the Supreme Court members
of Electoral Tribunal.·By providing that the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal „shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten
Members of the Supreme Court‰, Republic Act No. 1793 has
conferred upon such Court an additional original jurisdiction of an
exclusive character.
Same; Nature of jurisdiction.·Republic Act No. 1793 has not
created a new or separate court. It has merely conferred upon the
Supreme Court the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
The Presidential Electoral Tribunal is not inferior to the Supreme
Court, since it is the same Court, although the functions peculiar to
said Tribunal are more limited in scope than those of the Supreme
Court in the exercise of its. ordinary functions. The result of the
enactment of Republic Act No. 1793 may be likened to the fact that
Courts of First Instance perform the f unctions of such ordinary
Courts of First Instance, those of courts of land registration, those
of probate courts, and those of courts of juvenile and domestic
relations. It is, also, comparable to the situation obtaining when the
municipal court of a provincial capital exercises its authority,
pursuant to law, over a limited number of cases which were
previously within the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of First
Instance. In all of these instances, the court (Court of First Instance
or municipal court) is only one, although the functions may be
distinct and, even, separate.
Same; Power to decide contests relating to elections, re-

758

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

turns, and qualifications of public officers.·The power to be the

judge of contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of any public officer is essentially judicial. As such·under the very
principle of separation of powers·it belongs exclusively to the
judicial department, except only insofar as the Constitution

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 2 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

provides otherwise. This is precisely the reason why said organic

law ordains that „the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members‰ (Article VI, Section 11, of the
Constitution). In other words, the purpose of this provision was to
exclude the power to decide such contests relating to Members of
Congress·which by nature is judicial·from the operation of the
general grant of judicial power to „the Supreme Court and such
inferior courts as may be established by law‰.
Same; Power of Congress distinguished from the power of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal.·The power of Congress to declare
who, among the candidates for President and/or VicePresident, has
obtained the largest number of votes, is entirely different in nature
from and not inconsistent with the jurisdiction vested in the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal by Republic Act No. 1793. Congress
merely acts as a national board of canvassers, charged with the
ministerial and executive duty to make said declaration, on the
basis of the election returns only certified by provincial and city
boards of canvassers. (Article VII, Section 2, Constitution of the
Philippines.) Upon the other hand, the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal has the judicial power to determine whether or not said
duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or
tampered with, or reflect the true results of the elections in the
areas covered by each, and, if not, to recount the ballots cast, and,
pass upon the validity of each ballot or determine whether the same
shall be counted, and, in the affirmative, in whose favor, which
Congress has no power to do.
Same; Power of Tribunal to declare who has the better right to
office does not abridge constitutional tenure.·The authority of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal to determine whether or not the
protestant has a better right than the President and/or Vice-
President to be declared elected by Congress would not abridge the
constitutional tenure. If the evidence introduced in the election
protest shows that the person really elected President or Vice-
President is the protestant, not the person declared elected by
Congress, then the latter had legally no constitutional tenure
whatsoever, and, hence, he can claim no abridgment thereof.
Same; Effect; Imposition of new duties upon the Supreme Court.
·In imposing upon the Supreme .Court the additional duty of
performing the functions of a Presidential Electoral

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 3 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

759

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 759

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

Tribunal, Congress has not, through Republic Act No. 1793,

encroached upon the appointing power of the Executive. The
imposition of new duties constitutes, neither the creation of an
office, nor the appointment of an officer. Said law is constitutional.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Vicente Francisco for petitioner.
Sycip and Salazar for respondents.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas

were the main contenders for the Office of VicePresident of
the Philippines in the general elections held on November
9, 1965. By Resolution No. 2, approved on December 17,
1965, the two Houses of Congress, in joint session
assembled as the board charged with the duty to canvass
the votes then cast for President and Vice President of the
Philippines, proclaimed petitioner Fernando Lopez elected
to the latter office with 3,531,550 votes, or a plurality of
26,724 votes over his closest opponent, respondent Gerardo
M. Roxas, in whose favor 3,504,826 votes had been tallied,
according to said resolution. On January 5, 1966,
respondent filed, with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,
Election Protest No, 2, contesting the election of petitioner
herein as Vice-President of the Philippines, upon the
ground that it was not he, but said respondent, who had
obtained the largest number of votes for said office.
On February 22, 1966, petitioner Lopez instituted in the
Supreme Court the present original action, for prohibition
which preliminary injunction, against respondent Roxas, to
prevent the Presidential Electoral Tribunal from hearing
and deciding the aforementioned election contest, upon the
ground that Republic Act No. 1793, creating said Tribunal,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 4 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

is „unconstitutional,‰ and that, „allÊ proceedings taken by it

are a nullity.‰
PetitionerÊs contention is predicated upon the ground,
that Congress may not, by law, authorize an election
contest for President and Vice-President, the Constitution
being silent thereon; that such contest tends to nullify the
constitutional authority of Congress to proclaim the can-
760

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

didates elected for President and Vice-President; that the

recount of votes by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, as
an incident of an election contest, is inconsistent with the
exclusive power of Congress to canvass the election returns
for the President and the Vice-President; that no
amendment to the Constitution providing for an election
protest involving the office of President and Vice-President
has been adopted, despite the constitutional amendment
governing election contests for Members of Congress; that
the tenure of the President and the Vice-President is fixed
by the Constitution and cannot be abridged by an Act of
Congress, like Republic Act No. 1793; that said Act has the
effect of amending the Constitution, in that it permits the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal to review the congressional
proclamation of the president-elect and the vice-president-
elect; that the constitutional convention had rejected the
original plan to include in the Constitution a provision
authorizing election contest affecting the president-elect
and the vice-president-elect before an electoral commission;
that the people understood the Constitution to authorize
election contests only for Members of Congress, not for
President and Vice-President, and, in interpreting the
Constitution, the peopleÊs intent is paramount; that it is
illegal for Justices of the Supreme Court to sit as members
of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, since the decisions
thereof are appealable to the Supreme Court on questions
of law; that the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is a court
inferior to the Supreme Court; and that Congress cannot by

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 5 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

legislation appoint in effect the members of the

Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
Pursuant to the Constitution, „the Judicial power shall
be vested in one Supreme Court 1
and in such inferior courts
as may be established by law."
This provision vests in the judicial branch of the
government, not merely some specified or limited judicial
power, but „the‰ judicial power under our political system,
and, accordingly, the entirety or „all‰ of said power, except,
only, so much as the Constitution confers upon some other
agency, such as the power to „judge all con-

_______________

1 Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution.

761

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 761

Lopez vs, Roxas, et al.

tests relating to the election, returns and qualifications‰ of

members of the Senate and those of the House of
Representatives which is vested by the fundamental law
solely in the Senate Electoral2 Tribunal and the House
Electoral Tribunal, respectively.
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable
controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice 3
or
the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. The
proper exercise of said authority requires legislative action:
(1) defining such enforceable and demandable rights and/or
prescribing remedies for violations thereof; and (2)
determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide
said controversies or disputes, in the first instance and/or
on appeal. For this reason, the Constitution ordains that
„Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts,‰4 subject to
the limitations set forth in the fundamental law.
Prior to the approval of Republic Act No. 1793, a
defeated candidate for president or vice-president, who
believe that he was the candidate who obtained the largest

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 6 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

number of votes for either office, despite the proclamation

by Congress of another candidate as the presidentelect or
vice-president-elect, had no legal right to demand by
election protest & recount of the votes cast for the office
concerned, to establish his right thereto. As a consequence,
controversies
5
or disputes on this matter were not
justiciable.

________________

2 Article VI, Section 11, of the Constitution.

3 Black, Constitutional Law, 2nd ed. p. 82; Ruperto vs, Torres, G.R. No.
L-3785, February 27, 1957, citing 34 C.J. 1183–1184; Wheeling & Elm
Grove Railroad Co., Appt. vs. Town of Triadelphia, et al., 4 LRA (NS) pp.
321, 328–329.
4 Article VIII, Section 2.
5 Thus in Channie Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April 18, 1960,
in which this Court ruled that an action for judicial declaration of
citizenship was held not to be a justiciable controversy, because there is
no legislation authorizing the institution of such proceeding. Tan Yu Chin
vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15775, April 29, 1961; Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No.
L-16108, October 31, 1961; Santiago vs. Commissioner, G.R. No. L-
14653, January 31, 1963; Reyes vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-17642, Novem

762

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1793, which provides that:

ÂThere shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal x x x

which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the presidentelect and the vice-
president-elect of the Philippines.‰

has the effect of giving said defeated candidate the legal

right to contest judicially the election of the Presidentelect
or Vice-President-elect and to demand a recount of the
votes cast for the office involved in the litigation,
6
as well as
to secure a judgment declaring that he is the one 7
elected
president or vice-president, as the case may be, and that,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 7 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

as such, he is entitled to assume the duties attached to said

office. And by providing, further, that the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal „shall be composed of the Chief Justice
and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court,‰ said
legislation has conferred upon such Court 8an additional
original jurisdiction of an exclusive character.
Republic Act No. 1793 has not created a new or separate
court. It has merely conferred upon the Supreme Court the
functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The result of
the enactment may be likened to the fact that courts of first
instance perform
9
the functions of such ordinary courts of
first instance, those of court of

_______________

ber 27, 1964; Dy Poco vs. Commissioner of Immigration, et al., G.R.

No. L-22313, March 31, 1966. See, also, Mabanag vs. Vito, 78 Phil. 1, in
which it was held that „political questions are not within the province of
the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions
has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory
provision.‰
6 Not the candidate proclaimed elected by Congress.
7 If the evidence so establishes it.
8 See, for instance, Sec. 2, Act 496 (Land Registration Act), Sec. 14, Act
1956 (Insolvency Law), and Sec. 8, CA 473 (Revised Naturalization Law),
which confer upon courts of first instance additional original jurisdiction,
9 The Courts of .First Instance function not only as Courts of General
Jurisdiction, i.e., competent to decide all cases, civil and criminal, within
their-own jurisdiction (12 C.J.S. 20–21, I Moran xxxiii; Rep. Act 296,
Secs. 39, 44) but also as Courts of Special Jurisdiction, empowered to
decide certain specified matters, such as probate, admiralty,
naturalization, bankruptcy, cadastral and land registration cases.

763

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 763

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

10 11
land registration, those of probate courts, 12 and those of
courts of juvenile and domestic relations. It is, also,
comparable to the situation obtaining when the municipal
court of a provincial capital exercises its authority,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 8 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

pursuant to law, over a limited number of cases which were

previously13
within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts of first
instance.
In all of these instances, the court (court of first instance
or municipal court) is only one, although the functions may
be distinct and, even, separate. Thus the powers of a court
of first instance, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over
ordinary civil cases, are broader than, as well as distinct
and separate from, those of the same court acting as a court
of land registration or a probate court, or as a court of
juvenile and domestic relations. So too, the authority of the
municipal court of a provincial capital, when acting as such
municipal court, is, territorially more limited than that of
the same court when hearing the aforementioned cases
which are primary within the jurisdiction of courts of first
instance. In other words, there is only one court, although
it may perform the functions pertaining to several types of
courts, each having some characteristics different from
those of the others.

_______________

10 The powers and functions of the Court of Land Registration,

established by virtue of Act 496, Sec. 2, were subsequently conferred
„upon the Courts of First Instance and Judges thereof,‰ by authority of
Sec. 10, Act 2347.
11 Aside from performing the functions of a probate court (Sec. 44, par.
[e], Republic Act 296, as amended), courts of first instance also act as
admiralty courts (Sec. 44 [d], Republic Act 296), bankruptcy courts (Act
1956), and as courts of juvenile and domestic relations (Republic Act No.
1401, Sec. 1).
12 Except in Manila, Republic Act No. 409, Sec, 38-A, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1401.
13 See Sec. 88, Republic Act 296, as amended, pursuant to which
„municipal judges may, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, be
assigned by the respective district judge in each case to hear and
determine cadastral or Iand registration cases covering lots where there
is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of which does
not exceed ten thousand pesos, x x x.‰ Also, said municipal and city
judges, „in

764

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 9 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

14 15
Indeed, the Supreme Court, 16
the Court of Appeals and
courts of first instance, are vested with original
jurisdiction, as well as with appellate jurisdiction, in
consequence of which they are both trial courts and
appellate courts, without detracting from the fact that
there is only one Supreme Court, one Court of Appeals, and
one court of first instance, clothed with authority to
discharged said dual functions. A court of first instance,
when performing the functions of a probate court or a court
of land registration, or a court of juvenile and domestic
relations, although with powers less broad than those of a
court of first instance, hearing ordinary actions, is not
inferior to the latter, for one cannot be inferior to itself. So
too, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is not inferior to the
Supreme Court, since it is the same Court although the
functions peculiar to said Tribunal are more limited in
scope than those of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its
ordinary functions. Hence, the enactment of Republic Act
No. 1793, does not entail an assumption by Congress of the
power of appointment vested by the Constitution in the
President. It merely connotes the imposi-

________________

the absence of the District Judge from the province, may exercise
within the province like interlocutory jurisdiction as the Court of First
Instance, which shall be held to include the hearing of all motions for the
appointment of a receiver, for temporary injunctions, and for all other
orders of the court which are not final in their character and do not
involve a decision of the case on its merits, and the hearing of petitions
for a writ of habeas corpus.‰ Sec. 87, Republic Act 296 confers upon
municipal judges in the capitals of provinces and subprovinces and
judges of city courts like jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance to try
parties charged with an offense committed within their respective
jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed
prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine
not exceeding six thousand pesos or both, and in the absence of the
district judge, like jurisdiction within the province as the Court of First
Instance to hear application for bail.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 10 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

14 In addition to the original and the appellate jurisdictions conferred

upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution (Art. VIII, Sec. 2), Republic
Act 296, Sec. 17 vests it with concurrent jurisdiction with courts of first
instance.
15 Sections 29 and 30, Republic Act 296, Âas amended.
16 Sections 44 and 45, Republic Act 296, as amended.

765

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 765

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

tion of17additional duties upon the Members of the Supreme

Court.
Moreover, the power to be the „judge x x x of x x x
contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications‰ of any public officer is essentially judicial.
As such·under the very principle of separation of powers
invoked by petitioner herein·it belongs exclusively to the
judicial department, except only insofar as the
Constitution provides otherwise. This is precisely the
reason why said organic law ordains that „the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members‰ (Article VI, Section 11, of the
Constitution), In other words, the purpose of this provision
was to exclude the power to decide such contests relating
18
to
Members of Congress·which by nature is judicial ·

_______________

17 The imposition by the legislature to a constitutional body of

additional duties not inconsistent with those already prescribed by the
Constitution is a practice recognized in many jurisdiction. See. 42 Am.
Jur. Public Officers, Secs. 31. 9. pp. 902, 1949; State vs. Caldwell, 23 So.
2d 855, Terrell, J., Supreme Court of Florida; Rouse vs. Johnson, 28 S.W.
(2d) 745, 70 A.L.R. 1077, CA Kentucky (1930). Even this Court has
recognized the authority of the Legislature to add to, but not to diminish,
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In re Guariña, 24 Phil. 37; United
States vs. Limsiongco, 41 Phil. 94, 2 PAL. 309.
18 „The Constitution makes each house of Congress the judge as to the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 11 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

elections and returns of its members. This would appear on its face to be
essentially judicial function. In fact, in England and in some of the
British dominions, it is assigned to the courts. This was not the case,
however, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution and we followed
the plan then existing in that country whereby the House of Commons
passed on election contests.‰ American Constitutional System·Mathews
·p. 98.
„There are certain matters which each house determines for itself, and
in respect to which its decision is conclusive. x x x it decides upon the
election and qualifications of its own members. x x x In determining
questions concerning contested seats, the house will exercise judicial
power, but generally in

766

766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.
19
from the operation of the general grant of judicial power
to „the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be
established by law.
Instead of indicating that Congress may not enact
Republic Act No. 1793, the aforementioned provision of the
Constitution, establishing said Electoral Tribunals for
Members of Congress only, proves the exact opposite,
namely: that the 20
Constitution intended to vest Congress
with discretion to determine by law whether or not the
election of a president-elect or that of a vice-president-elect
may be contested and, if Congress should decide in the
affirmative, which court of justice shall have jurisdiction to
hear the contest. It is, even, debatable whether such
jurisdiction may be conferred, by statute, to a board,
commission or tribunal composed partly of Members of
Congress and Members of the Supreme Court, because of
its possible inconsistency with the constitutional grant of
the judicial power to „the Supreme Court and x x x such
inferior courts as may be established by law,‰ for said
board, commission 21
or tribunal would be neither „the
Supreme Court, nor, certainly, „such inferior courts as
may be established by law.‰
It follows, therefore, not only that Republic Act No. 1793
is not inconsistent with the Constitution or with the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 12 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

principle of separation of powers underlying the same, but,

also, that it is in harmony with the aforementioned grant

_______________

accordance with a course of practice which has sprung from

precedents in similar cases, and no other authority is at liberty to
interfere.‰ Cooley, Thomas M., A Treatise on the Constitutional
Limitations, Vol. 1, pp. 270–271, 1927 ed.
„Determining of existing facts and resultant and controverted rights
and duties, is a judicial function.‰ 23 W & P 147 (1965 Pocket Part)
„After primary election has been held and results have been
ascertained, question regarding qualifications of candidates becomes one
which relates to his eligibility to hold office to which he aspires and one
which requires the exercise of Âjudicial functionsÊ to decide x x x‰. State ex
rel. Tanner vs. Duncan, 10 So. 2d 507, 511, 23 W & P. 148 (1965 Pocket
Part)
19 Made in Section 1 of Art. VIII of the Constitution.
20 Which is denied thereto in connection with election contests
affecting its own members.
21 In which Members of Congress may not·under the principle of
separation of powers·sit.

767

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 767

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

of „the judicial power‰ to said courts. Indeed, when Claro

M. Recto, Chairman of the Constitutional Convention,
proposed that the original move therein to include in the
fundamental22 law a provision creating an Electoral
Commission to hear election contests against the
President-elect and the Vice-President-elect, be given up,
he expressed the view that the elimination of said provision
would have the effect of leaving in the hands of the
legislative department the power to decide what entity or
body would „look into the protests
23
for the positions of
President and Vice-President." Twenty-two (22) years
later, or on May 3, 1957 then Senator Recto reiterated this
view, when, in the course of the debates on the Bill which
later became Republic Act No. 1793, he stated:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 13 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

„x x x Mr. President, as far as I can remember, the intention of the

constitutional convention was to leave this matter to ordinary
legislation.‰
Such was, also, the impression of Dr. Jose M. Aruego, another
24
prominent Member of the Convention, who says that
„Election protests for the Presidency and the Vice-Presi-

______________

22 Consisting of members of the legislative department and members of the

Supreme Court.
23 The journal of the Convention shows that the following statements were
made on the floor thereof:

„President Recto.·Under the Executive Power, the first important amendment which the

committee recommends to be accepted is the elimination of the Electoral Commission for the

protests for the positions of President and Vice-President; and I ask that it be voted upon

without debate.

„The Acting President.·Is there any objection to this proposition? (Silence). The Chair does

not hear any. Approved.

„Delegate Saguin.·For an information. It seems that this Constitution does not contain any

provision with respect to the entity or body which will look into the protests for the positions of

President and Vice-President,

„President Recto.·Neither does the American constitution contain a provision over the

subject.

„Delegate Saguin.·But, then, who will decide these protests ?

„President Recto.·I suppose that the National Assembly will decide that.‰ (Italics ours.)

24 In his work on „The Framing of the Philippine Constitution.‰ Vol. I, p. 410,

printed in 1937.

768

768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

dency were left to be judged in a manner and by a body decided by

the National Assembly.‰ (Italics ours.)

No less than one of the main counsel for petitioner herein,

himself, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention,
evidently shared this view as late as September 30, 1965,
for the introduction to his 1965 edition of „the Revised

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 14 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

Election Code‰ states that „he will always be remembered

for x x x his famous bill creating the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal x x x‰. Indeed as a member of the Senate, on
January 3, 1950, he introduced Senate Bill No. 1 seeking to
create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal „to try, hear and
decide protests contesting the election of the President and
the Vice-President of the Philippines‰, which shall be
composed of three Justices of the Supreme Court, including
the Chief Justice, and four Senators and four Members of
the House of Representatives.
Then, again, the records of the Convention show that in
voting eventually to eliminate, from the draft of the
Constitution, the provision establishing a Presidential
Electoral Commission, the delegates were influenced by the
fact that there was no similar provision in the Federal
Constitution of the United States. Having followed the
pattern thereof, it must be assumed, therefore, 25
in the
absence of any indicium to the contrary, that the
Convention had adhered, also, to the interpretation given
to this feature of said Federal Constitution, as may be
deduced from the fact that, by an act of Congress of the
United States, approved on January 29, 1877, an Electoral
Commission was created to hear and decide certain issues
concerning the election of the President of said nation held
in 1876. It is, also worthy of notice that pursuant to said
Act, nothing therein „shall be held to impair or affect any
right now existing under the Constitution and laws to
question, by proceedings in the judicial courts of the United
States, the right or title of the person who shall be declared
elected, or who shall claim to be President or Vice- 26
President of the United States, if any such right exists".
Thus the absence of a provision in said Federal

_______________

25 And none has been brought to our attention.

26 Italics ours.

769

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 769

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 15 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

Constitution governing protests against the election of the

President and the Vice-President had been construed to be
without prejudice to the right of the defeated candidate to
file a protest before the courts of justice of the United
States, if the laws thereof permitted it. In other words, the
Federal Congress was deemed clothed with authority to
determine, by ordinary legislation, whether or not protests
against the election of said officers may properly be
entertained by the judicial department.
Needless to say, the power of Congress to declare who,
among the candidates for President and/or Vice-President,
has obtained the largest number of votes, is entirely
different in nature from and not inconsistent with the
jurisdiction vested in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal by
Republic Act No. 1793. Congress merely acts as a national
board of canvassers,
27
charged with the ministerial and
executive duty to make said declaration, on the basis of
the election returns duly 28
certified by provincial and city
boards of canvassers. Upon the other hand, the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to
determine whether or not said duly certified election
returns have been irregularly made or tampered with, or
reflect the true result of the elections in the areas covered
by each, and, if not, to recount the ballots cast, and,
incidentally thereto, pass upon the validity of each ballot or
determine whether the same shall be counted, and, in the
affirmative, in whose favor, which Congress has power to
do.
It is, likewise, patent that the aforementioned authority
of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to determine whether
or not the protestant has a better right than the President
and/or the Vice-President declared elected by Congress
would not abridge the constitutional tenure. If the evidence
introduced in the election protest shows that the person
really elected president or vice-president is the protestant,
not the person declared elected by Congress, then the latter
had legally no constitutional tenure whatsoever, and,
hence, he can claim no abridgement thereof.

_______________

27 Just like that of any municipal, city or provincial board of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 16 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

canvassers.
28 Article VII, Section 2, Constitution of the Philippines.

770

770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. Roxas, et al.

It is similarly obvious that, in imposing upon the Supreme

Court the additional duty of performing the functions of a
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, Congress has not, through
Republic Act No. 1793, encroached upon the appointing
power of the Executive. The imposition of new duties
constitutes, neither the 29creation of an office, nor the
appointment of an officer.
In view of a resolution of this Court dated July 8, 1966,
upholding the validity of Republic Act No. 1793, upon the
ground that it merely vests additional jurisdic-

_______________

29 „Imposition of new duties upon an officer already elected or

appointed does not constitute the creation of.an office or the appointment
of an officer. When new duties are thus attached to an office, a
reappointment of the officer need not be made.‰ (42 Am. Jur., Public
Officers, Sea 90, p. 949).
„In the United States, except for such offices as are created by
Constitution, the creation of public offices is primarily a legislative
function. In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not restricted
by constitutional provisions, it is supreme, and the legislature may
decide for itself what offices are suitable, necessary, or convenient. When
in the exigencies of government it is necessary to create and define new
duties, the legislative department has the discretion to determine
whether additional offices shall be created or these duties shall be
attached to and become ex officio duties of existing offices/' (42 Am. Jur.,
Public Officers, Sec. 31, p. 902; 40 ALR 1052, 1057.)
„x x x the legislature may impose additional powers and duties on
both constitutional and statutory officers so long as such duties are not
inconsistent with their duties imposed by the constitution. x x x the
legislature may make an existing officer the member of another and
different board by enlarging his duties.‰ (State vs. Caldwell, 23 So. 2d
855, Terrell, Supreme Court of Florida.)

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 17 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

„That the Legislature may annex additional duties to a constitutional

office, or confer powers upon a constitutional officer other than those
expressly prescribed by the Constitution, unless inhibited from so doing
by that instrument, is everywhere recognized and practiced in this and
other jurisdictions, x x x.‰ (Rouse vs. Johnson, 28 S.W. [2d] 745, 70 ALR.
1077, C.A. Kentucky [1930].)
„x x x Congress may create an office, it cannot appoint the officer x x x.
It cannot be doubted, x x x that Congress may increase the power and
duties of an existing office without thereby rendering it necessary that
the incumbent should be again nominated and appointed.‰ (Shoemaker
vs. United States, 37 Law ed. 170, 185.)

771

VOL. 17, JULY 28, 1966 771

People vs. Abrera, et al.

tion in the Supreme Court, petitioner has filed a motion

dated July 13, 1966, praying this Court „to clarify whether
or not‰ this „election contest should as a consequence x x x
be docketed with, and the records thereof transferred, to
this Supreme Court, and all pleadings, papers and
processes relative thereto should thence forth be filed with
it‰. The motion is, evidently, based upon the premise that
the Supreme Court is different and distinct from the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, which is erroneous, as well
as contrary to the ruling made in said resolution.
Wherefore, the petition herein is hereby dismissed and
the writs therein prayed for denied accordingly. The
aforesaid motion is, moreover, denied. With costs against
the petitioner. It Âis so ordered.

Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala,

Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro,
concur. concur.

Petition dismissed.

······

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 18 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 017 05/07/2019, 1*04 PM

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc07b1494d43735f1003600fb002c009e/p/AQM795/?username=Guest Page 19 of 19