G.R. No. L-25716 July 28, 1966.
Fernando Lopez, petitioner, vs. Gerardo Roxas and Presidential Electoral Tribunal, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernando Lopez and respondent Gerardo Roxas were candidates for Vice-President in the November 9, 1965 elections. By Resolution, Congress, acting as the board of canvassers, proclaimed Lopez as the elected Vice-President. On January 5, 1966, Roxas filed an election protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, contesting Lopez’s election. On February 22, 1966, Lopez filed an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court to prevent the Tribunal from hearing the contest, arguing that Republic Act No. 1793 , which created the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, is unconstitutional.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 1793 , creating the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and granting it jurisdiction over contests relating to the election of the President-elect and Vice-President-elect, is unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1793 . The Court ruled that the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by law. Congress has the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of courts. Prior to RA 1793, election contests for President and Vice-President were not justiciable. The Act made them justiciable by conferring upon the defeated candidate the legal right to contest the election and by vesting in the Supreme Court, acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the exclusive original jurisdiction to be the sole judge of such contests. The Tribunal is not a new or separate court inferior to the Supreme Court; it is the Supreme Court itself performing an additional function, akin to a court of first instance performing functions of a probate or land registration court. The Act does not violate the principle of separation of powers, as the power to judge election contests is essentially judicial. The constitutional provision establishing Electoral Tribunals for members of Congress indicates that Congress has the discretion to determine by law whether such contests for President and Vice-President are permissible and which court shall have jurisdiction. The Act does not constitute an amendment of the Constitution or an encroachment on congressional power to canvass votes and proclaim winners, as the Tribunal’s judgment on a contest is distinct from Congress’s ministerial canvassing duty. The imposition of these additional duties on the Members of the Supreme Court does not involve an appointment by Congress but is a valid legislative act attaching new functions to an existing constitutional office.