Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32436)
Facts:
Abelardo Subido, Commissioner of Civil Service, petitioner, In re: Validity of Section 4 and Section 8(a), Paragraph 2, Republic Act 6132; Hon. Guardson Lood, Judge, CFI Pasig, Rizal, et al., petitioners, G.R. Nos. L-32436 & L-32439. September 09, 1970, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are government officials and employees who challenged the validity of provisions in the implementing law for the Constitutional Convention call. The petitions, filed pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 6132, sought declaratory relief attacking (a) Section 4 of RA 6132, which treats any person holding public office as resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy for Delegate (with a proviso allowing elected officials who do not yet qualify for retirement to count the candidacy period as service), and (b) the second paragraph of Section 8(a) of RA 6132, which bars heads of executive departments and appointive officers from intervening in nominations or otherwise aiding or opposing candidates.
The antecedent legislative acts and resolutions were narrated to show the context. On March 16, 1967 Congress in joint session adopted Resolution No. 2 calling a Constitutional Convention and included Section 3 declaring that “the office of Delegate shall be honorary and shall be compatible with any other public office,” with provisos on per diem and travel. On June 17, 1969 Congress passed Resolution No. 4, amending prior provisions and adding that implementing legislation should be enacted “Provided, That it shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution.” The implementing statute, Republic Act No. 6132 (approved August 24, 1970), contained the contested Sections 4 and 8(a).
Petitioners argued that Sections 4 and 8(a)(2) were inconsistent with Section 3 of Constituent Resolution No. 2 and therefore invalid because Congress, sitting only as a legislative body, could not alter what it had adopted as a constituent assembly; they also contended that Section 4 amounted to impermissible class legislation denying equal protection by singling out public servants. The Solicitor General answered; hearings were held before the Court with oral arguments by parties and amici curiae (notably Senators Lorenzo Tanada, Arturo Tolentino, Jovit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are Sections 4 and 8(a), paragraph 2, of Republic Act No. 6132 inconsistent with Section 3 of Constituent Resolution No. 2 (and therefore invalid because the implementing legislation cannot amend a constituent resolution)?
- Does Section 4 of RA 6132 constitute impermissible class legislation that violates the Equal Protection Clause?
- Is Section 4 of RA 6132 inconsistent with Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution (the prohibition on civil servants engaging in partisan political activi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)