8/12/2019 Imbong Versus Comelec

1/2

IMBONG VERSUS COMELECG.R. No. L-32432 September 11, 1970RELATED LAWS:Resolution No 2 (1967) Calls for Constitutional Convention to be composed of 2 delegates from each representative district who shall be elected in November, 1970.RA 4919 implementation of Resolution No 2Resolution 4 (1969) amended Resolution 2: ConCon shall be composed of 320 delegates proportioned among existing representative districts according to the population. Provided that each district shall be entitled to 2 delegates.RA 6132Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented Res No. 2 & 4.Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees as resigned when they file theircandidacySec 2: apportionment of delegatesSec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in the election or from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adjournment of the ConCon.Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups from giving support/representing a delegate to the convention.

FACTS: This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2 separate but related petitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the validity of RA 6132.

Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and validity of entire law

Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8ISSUE: Whether the Congress has a right to call for ConCon and whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.HOLDING: The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Conventionas a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as constitutional.WHEREFORE, the prayers in both petitions are hereby denied and R.A. No. 6132 including Secs. 2, 4, 5, and 8(a), paragraph 1, thereof, cannot be declared unconstitutional. Without costs.RATIO:

Sec 4 RA 6132 (considers all public officers/employees as resigned when they file their candidacy)

it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of ConstitutionConstitutionality of enactment of RA 6132: Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were attained by Res 2 and 4

Sec 2 RA 6132: (apportionment of delegates )it is a mere implementation of Res 4 and is enough that the basis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonsales is not reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to the number of delegates I other provinces with more population.

Sec 5: (Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in the election or from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adjournment of the ConCon.)

State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Concon.

Par 1 Sec 8: (ban against all political parties/organized groups from giving support/representing a delegate to the convention)

this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it applies to all organizations.

8/12/2019 Imbong Versus Comelec

2/2

*the guarantees of due process, equal protection of the laws, peaceful assembly, free expression, and the right of association are neither absolute nor illimitable rights; they are always subject to the pervasive and dormant police power of the State and may be lawfully abridged to serve appropriate and important public interests* So that the purpose for calling the Constitutional Convention will not be deflated or frustrated, it is necessary that the delegatee thereto be independent, beholden to no one but to God, country and conscience.*The evil therefore, which the law seeks to prevent lies in the election of delegates who, because they have been chosen with the aid and resources of organizations, cannot be expected to be sufficiently representative of the people. Such delegates could very well be the spokesmen of narrow political, religious or economic interest and not of the great majority of the people.*We likewise concur with the Solicitor General that the equal protection of thelaws is not unduly subverted in par. I of Sec. 8(a); because it does not createany hostile discrimination against any party or group nor does it confer undue favor or privilege on an individual as heretofore stated. The discrimination applies to all organizations, whether political parties or social, civic, religious, or professional associations. The ban is germane to the objectives of the law,which are to avert the debasement of the electoral process, and to attain real equality of chances among individual candidates and thereby make real the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.