Imbong VS COMELEC

G.R. No. L-32432 September 11, 1970

MANUEL B. IMBONG, petitioner,

vs.
JAIME FERRER, as Chairman of the Comelec, LINO M. PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR, as
members thereof, respondents.

G.R. No. L-32443 September 11, 1970

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE

VALIDITY OF R.A. No. 6132, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION ACT OF 1970. RAUL M. GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
COMELEC, respondent.

Facts:
This is a consolidated petition of Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, members of the Bar,
taxpayers, interested in running as delegates to the Constitutional Convention, who seeks a
declaratory relief from the Supreme Court pursuant to Sec 19 of RA 6132. Both impugn the
constitutionality of RA 6132 claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates.
(Amici Curiae, Se. Lorenzo Tañada, Sen. Arturo Tolentino, Se. Jovito Salonga, Se. Emmanuel
Pelaez)

The Congress, acting as a Constituent assembly pursuant to Art 15 of the Constitution

passed Resolution No. 2, which called for a Constitutional Convention to propose
amendments to be composed of 2 delegates from each representative district, who shall
have the same qualifications as congressmen, to be elected on the 2nd Tuesday of november
1970.

The Congress acting as a legislative body, enacted RA 4914 implementing Reso 2 (restated)

The Congress, acting as a Constitutent Body, passed Reso. 4 amending Reso 2, providing
that the convention shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing
representative districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants. Provided
that each rep. district shall be entitled to at least 2 delegates.

Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted RA 6132, implementing res 2 and 4, and
repelaing RA 4914

Raul Gonzales, assails the constitutionality of Sec 8(1) par 1

Issue:
1. W/N RA 6132 is constitutional
2. W/n Sec 2 is not in accordance with proportional representation and thus
unconstitutional
3. W/n sec 5 is an undue deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

(Sec 5 disqualifies any elected delegate from running any public office in any
election/assuming any position in any branch of the government until after the
adjournment of the Constitutional Convention )

4. W/n Sec 8(a) violates the due process clause and equal protection clause, freedom
of expression/ assembly/association

(Section 8(a) prohibits: Any candidate/delegate to the convention from (a)

representing (b) allowing himself to be represented as being candidate of any
political party/other organization; AND any political party, political group, political
nominee, civic, religious, professional, or other organizations or organizaed group of
whatever nature from (a) intervening in the nomination of such any candidate or in
the filing of his certificate (b) from giving aid or support directly or indirectly,
material or otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for election. )

Ruling:
1. Yes. Congress acting as a constituent assemby has full authority to propose
constitutional amendments and call a convention for that purpose. Reso. No 2 and 4
calling for a convention were passed by the required ¾ vote. As a consitutent Body,
they also have the power to fix qualifications, number, apportionment,
compensation, etc. In the same manner, Congress acting as a legislative body, may
provide for the necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps.

2. No. Sec 2 is in accordance with the proportional representation due to the facts that
records show that the apportionment was made by virtue of official preliminary
population census taken by the bureau of census and statistics, that on the basis of
which they have computed the distribution of delegates to the Constitutional
Convention. The basis employed is reasonable and the resulting apportionment is
substantially proportional.

3. No. Sec 5 is not an undue deprivation of liberty without due process of law and
denies equal protection of the laws. The distinction is substantial for it is based on a
substantial distinction, to those who are running for office, germane to the purposes
of the law, in order ro prevent selishness, reed, and corruption, and applies to all
members of the same class, all those who are running as delegates.

4. No. Section 8(a) is not violative of the aforestated constitutional guarantees. The ban
is only confined to party or organization support or assistance. It permits the
candidate to campaign with the help of members of its family, within the 4th civil
degree or affinity, and a campaign staff of not more than 1 for every 10 precincts in
his district. It allows the full exercise of his freedom of expression and right to
peaceful assembly. The very party or organization that he is in, is guaranteed the
right to disseminate information about, or to arouse public interest therein, or to
advocate for constitutional reforms, programs/ or constitional proposals for
amendments.

The purpose of this section is to assure the candidates of the equal protection of
laws, more specifically to put the candidates in equal footing. Political parties and
other organixations have built-in advantages compared to independent candidates
who do not have similar support.

The freedom of association is also not prohibited because the ban is to assure equal
chances to a candidate with talent imbued with patriotism.