Title
Imbong vs. Ferrer
Case
G.R. No. L-32432
Decision Date
Sep 11, 1970
Petitioners challenged R.A. No. 6132's constitutionality, questioning delegate apportionment, public officer resignation, and political party bans; Court upheld the law, affirming Congress's authority and reasonable restrictions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32432)

Section 4: Resignation Requirement

RA 6132 § 4 deems all public officers and employees—including AFP members and government corporate officers—resigned upon filing certificates of candidacy. Supreme Court upheld this as consistent with Art. XII § 2’s prohibition on holding office while a candidate, and not violative of due process or equal protection.

Section 2: Apportionment of Delegates

RA 6132 § 2 apportions 320 delegates among representative districts by population, with minimum two per district, based on 1970 preliminary census and formula submitted by Bureau of Census. Constitution does not compel exact proportionality for convention delegates as it does for legislative districts. The apportionment scheme is reasonable, substantially proportional, and implements Res. 4’s directive.

Section 5: Temporary Office Disqualification

RA 6132 § 5 disqualifies elected convention delegates from seeking or assuming any public office (elective or appointive) until final adjournment of the Convention (not to exceed one year). Court held:
• No vested right to public office; qualifications and disqualifications are legislative.
• Temporary ban ensures undivided dedication to drafting the Constitution, prevents bargaining or coercion by appointing authorities, and parallels analogous provision barring congressional members from post-election appointment (Art. VI § 16, 1935 Constitution).
• Classification is reasonable, germane to object, applies equally to all delegates, and thus consistent with due process and equal protection.

Section 8(a)(1): Ban on Party or Organizational Support

RA 6132 § 8(a)(1) prohibits any candidate from declaring or allowing representation as candidate of any political party or organization, and bars parties/groups from intervening in nomination or campaigning for delegate candidates. Court applied “clear and present danger” test under state police power:
• Fundamental rights of expression, assembly, and association are not absolute and may be limited to protect public interests.
• Debasement of electoral process and inequality of chances constitute substantive evils.
• Total ban narrow in scope: candidates retain family and minimal campaign staff support; individuals may speak or assemble; organizations may advocate constitutional issues but not party-style campaigning for delegates.
• Restriction promotes independent delegate status, equalizing resource disparities, and ensures delegates represent national rather than narrow sectional interests.
Conclusion: § 8(a)(1) is a valid, constitutional limitation on political and organizational support.

Concurring and Dissenting Views

• Justice Fernando (with Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice Villamor): Dissent as to § 8(a)(1). Emphasizes explicit constitutional guarantee to fo


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.