LOPEZ V.

ROXAS

FACTS
Fernando Lopez and Gerardo Roxas were the main contenders for the Office of the Vice-President of the
Philippines in the general elections held on November 1965. In Resolution No. 2, Fernando Lopez was
proclaimed elected by the two Houses of Congress.
 
In January 1966, Gerardo Roxas filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal an Election Protest No. 2,
contesting the election of Fernando Lopez as the Vice President upon the ground that it was not he, but
said respondent, who had obtained the largest number of votes for said office.
 
In February 1966, Fernando Lopez filed an action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against
Gerardo Roxas, to prevent the Presidential Electoral Tribunal from hearing and deciding the
aforementioned election contest upon the ground that RA 1793 – “Creating Presidential Electoral
Tribunal” is unconstitutional. 

ISSUE
Whether or not RA 1793 – “Creating Presidential Electoral Tribunal” is unconstitutional?

RULING
NO. RA 1793 is constitutional. 

RA 1793 has not created a new or separate court. It has merely conferred upon the Supreme Court the
functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. 

Not only that RA 1793 is not inconsistent with the constitution or with the principle of separation of
powers underlying the same, but, also, that it is in harmony with the aforementioned grant of “the judicial
power” to said courts. 

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 RA 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 duly certified by provincial and city boards of canvassers. On 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, 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 no power to do. 

JUDICIAL POWER
It is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and
demandable before the courts of justice 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 violation
thereof;
2. Determining the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide said controversies or disputes, in the
first instance and/or on appeal
 VILLANUEVA V. JBC

FACTS
Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva assails the policy of the Judicial and Bar Council, requiring five years of
services as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level courts, on the
ground that it is unconstitutional, and was issued with grave abuse of discretion. 

Prior to that, petitioner was appointed as the presiding judge of MCTC, Compostela Valley, which is a
first level court. On September 2013, he applied for a position in several branches in RTC. In a letter by
JBC’s Office of Recruitment, Selection and Nomination, the petitioner was informed that he was not
included in the list of candidates. For the reason, the petitioner has been a judge only for more than year.
This was contrary to the JBC’s long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second-level
courts to, among others, incumbent judges who have served in their current position for at least five
years. 

ISSUE
Whether or not the policy of JBC requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they
can qualify as applicant to second-level courts is constitutional?

RULING
YES. it is constitutional because it is not violative of the equal protection clause.

Equal protection clause: consideration of experience by JBC as one factor in choosing recommended
appointees does not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. The JBC does not discriminate
when it employs a number of years of service to screen and differentiate applicants from the competition.
The number of years of service provides a relevant basis to determine proven competence which may be
measured by experience, among other factors. The five-year stint in the Judiciary can also provide
evidence of the integrity, probity and independence of judges seeking promotion. 

Due process: JBC must comply with the publication requirement of the assailed policy requiring five
years of experience as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to the RTC and
other special guidelines. This is because these are not mere internal rules, but are rules that seeks to
implement the constitution.  

In conclusion, the adoption of the five-year requirement policy applied by JBC is necessary and incidental
to the function conferred by the constitution to the JBC.