Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32432)
Facts:
Manuel B. Imbong v. Jaime Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32432; and Raul M. Gonzales v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-32443, September 11, 1970, Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales — both members of the Bar, taxpayers and prospective candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention — filed separate petitions for declaratory relief under Section 19 of Republic Act No. 6132 attacking the constitutionality of that Act (and, in Gonzales's case, specific sections thereof). Respondents were the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), represented by its Chairman Jaime Ferrer and members Lino M. Patajo and Cesar Miraflor; the Solicitor General answered for the respondents. Hearings were held and several senators appeared as amici curiae (Senators Lorenzo Tanada, Arturo Tolentino, Jovito Salonga and Emmanuel Pelaez).
The factual and legislative background: In 1967 Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly under Art. XV of the Constitution, adopted Resolution No. 2 calling for a Constitutional Convention whose delegates were originally to be two for each representative district and to have the same qualifications as Congressmen. Congress thereafter, acting in its legislative capacity, enacted R.A. No. 4914 restating Resolution No. 2. On June 17, 1969 Congress (again as Constituent Assembly) adopted Resolution No. 4, amending Resolution No. 2 by providing for a convention of 320 delegates to be apportioned among representative districts according to population but with a minimum of two delegates per district and directing that implementing details be provided by implementing legislation. On August 24, 1970 Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. No. 6132 implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 and expressly repealing R.A. 4914.
Petitioner Gonzales assailed the validity of the entire Act and of Sections 2 (apportionment), 4 (deemed resignation of public officers upon filing candidacy), 5 (prohibition on delegates running/holding other public office during the convention), and paragraph 1 of Section 8(a) (ban on party/organization nomination and support). Petitioner Imbong attacked paragraph 1 of Section 8(a) on similar grounds. The Court noted that Sections 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 8(a) had recently been sustained in related cases (e.g., Abelardo Subido v. Comele...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May Congress, acting as a legislative body (and not as a Constituent Assembly), validly enact R.A. No. 6132 to implement Resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention?
- Does Section 2 of R.A. No. 6132 (apportionment of the 320 delegates among representative districts) violate the Constitution’s requirements as to proportional representation?
- Does Section 5 of R.A. No. 6132 (temporary disqualification of elected delegates from running for or assuming other public office until final adjournment of the Convention) offend due process or equal protection?
- Does paragraph 1, Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 (prohibition on any political party or other organization from nominating, intervening in, or giving aid/support to a candidate for delegate) violate due process, eq...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)