Post

Imbong v. Ferrer; Gonzales v. Comelec

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Imbong v. Ferrer; Gonzales v. Comelec

Case Title and Citation

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-32432; G.R. No. L-32443, September 11, 1970. Manila EN BANC. Ponente: Makasiar, J.

Facts

  • Two petitions for declaratory relief were filed under Section 19 of Republic Act No. 6132 by Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers, and interested in running as delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
  • The petitions challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6132, which implements Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a Constitutional Convention to be composed of 320 delegates elected in November 1970, with apportionment rules and implementing details to be provided by law; RA 6132 expressly repealed RA 4914.
  • The legislative history included: Resolution No. 2 (March 16, 1967) calling for a constitutional convention; RA 4914 implementing Resolution No. 2; Resolution No. 4 (June 17, 1969) amending Resolution No. 2 to provide 320 delegates apportioned among existing representative districts with a minimum of two delegates per district, and stating that further details would be embodied in implementing legislation; RA 6132 (August 24, 1970) implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 and repealing RA 4914.
  • Petitioners argued that divers provisions of RA 6132, particularly Secs. 2, 4, 5, and Sec. 8(a) paragraph 1, infringe constitutional protections or due process.
  • The Court held hearings with arguments by petitioners and amici curiae, including Senators Tañada, Tolentino, Salonga, and Pelaez.
  • The decision discusses, among other points, that the validity of Sec. 4 (resignation by public officers upon filing candidacy) had recently been sustained in related cases, and that Sec. 5 (temporary disqualification of delegates from holding public office until final adjournment of the Convention) is a permissible use of the State police power to insulate delegates from conflicts of interest.
  • The Court addressed apportionment under Sec. 2, noting that absolute proportionality is not required and that substantial proportionality is sufficient, given constitutional and practical constraints.
  • The Court analyzed Sec. 8(a), para. 1, which bans intervention or support from parties or organizations in the nomination and campaign of delegates, holding that the restriction is a valid limitation on freedom of association and expression aimed at preventing debasement of the electoral process and ensuring equal opportunity among candidates.

Issues

  1. Is Republic Act No. 6132, including Sections 2, 4, 5, and Section 8(a), paragraph 1, constitutional as enacted by Congress acting as legislative body?
  2. Is Section 4, RA 6132 (dealing with resignations upon filing candidacy) valid and not violative of due process or equal protection?
  3. Is Section 2 (apportionment of delegates) constitutional in light of proportional representation requirements?
  4. Is Section 5 (temporary disqualification of delegates from holding public office until final adjournment) a valid exercise of state police power and not a due process violation?
  5. Is Section 8(a), paragraph 1 (ban on party/organizational involvement in nominating or supporting candidates) a valid restriction on freedom of speech, assembly, and association?

Ruling

  1. Yes — RA 6132 is a valid exercise of congressional authority when acting as a legislative body; implementing details issued under the act do not conflict with the Constitution, and gaps left by Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 may be filled by subsequent implementing legislation. The President’s veto does not preclude Congress from enacting necessary implementing measures, and Congress may reconvene as a Constituent Assembly if needed.
  2. Yes — Section 4’s resignations by public officers upon filing candidacy are constitutional as an application of the relevant constitutional framework and do not infringe due process or equal protection.
  3. Yes — Section 2’s delegate apportionment is constitutional; proportional representation need not be absolute, and substantial proportionality is achieved under the affirmed methodology, considering district minimums and practical census limitations.
  4. Yes — Section 5’s temporary disqualification of delegates from holding elective or appointive office until the convention’s final adjournment is a valid police power measure to ensure delegates devote full-time service to the convention and to prevent manipulation by external officeholders.
  5. Yes — Section 8(a), paragraph 1’s ban on party or organizational involvement in nomination or campaign activities is a constitutionally permissible restriction, narrowly tailored to prevent debasement of the electoral process and to promote equal opportunity, while preserving individual rights to speech, assembly, and association in other contexts.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • On the validity of RA 6132 and implementing provisions: The Court reasoned that Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly under Article XV, has plenary authority to propose constitutional amendments and to call a convention; Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 validly called for the convention and established the framework. Implementing details are within the legislative power, and as long as they do not clash with the Constitution, they are valid. If Congress omits implementing details, it may enact them through ordinary legislation; Presidential veto is not fatal so long as Congress can override or reconvene as needed.
  • On apportionment (Sec. 2): The Constitution does not require absolute proportionality based on population; the Court emphasized that “as nearly as may be according to their respective inhabitants” allows reasonable approximation. RA 6132’s apportionment gave two delegates to each district minimum and allocated 320 delegates overall, using population data and a reasonable formula supported by records from the Senate and the Bureau of Census. The Court distinguished prior Macias cases, noting that Batanes’ two-delegate allocation was not unconstitutional given proportional considerations and the impracticality of perfect proportionality.
  • On Sec. 4 (resignations): The decision cited prior rulings upholding Sec. 4 as consistent with Art. XII, Sec. 2, of the Constitution as it applies to public officers resigning when running for delegate candidates, balancing public interests and due process concerns.
  • On Sec. 5 (temporary disqualification): The Court treated the provision as a reasonable restriction under the police power to ensure independence and prevent self-dealing by delegates. It analogized the temporary nature of the disqualification to similar restrictions on other public offices under constitutional mandates, emphasizing the objective to maintain the integrity of the convention.
  • On Sec. 8(a) (ban on party/organizational support): The Court acknowledged the potential impact on freedom of association and speech but found the restriction narrow and justified by the state’s interest in preventing electoral corruption and ensuring equal opportunity among candidates. The provision targets organized groups’ influence while allowing individual support, including family involvement and limited staff, and preserving the right to campaign publicly within reasonable bounds.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Congress, acting as a legislative body, may enact implementing legislation to fill gaps in constitutional calls for a convention; such implementing power complements but does not require exclusive action by Congress as a Constituent Assembly.
  • Absolute proportional representation is not required for apportionment when constitutional text contemplates proportionality “as nearly as may be …” and practical census considerations permit reasonable approximations.
  • Temporary disqualification from holding public office can be a valid exercise of the police power to preserve the integrity and independence of a constitutional convention.
  • Restrictions on political party or organizational involvement in nomination and campaigning may be constitutionally permissible if narrowly tailored to prevent electoral debasement and to assure equal opportunity, provided fundamental rights are not unduly infringed.

Disposition

  • The prayers in both petitions are denied; Republic Act No. 6132, including Sections 2, 4, 5, and Section 8(a), paragraph 1, cannot be declared unconstitutional. The Act stands as valid law, and the procedures for the Constitutional Convention proceed under its framework.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurring & Dissenting Opinions by Justices Fernando and Barredo, among others, are noted as part of the decision. Teehankee, J., was on leave at the time.

Significance / Notes

  • Establishes that implementing details for constitutional processes can be legislated by Congress when acting as a legislative body, preserving a functional process for constitutional reform.
  • Reaffirms that not every aspect of constitutional convention apportionment must be perfectly proportional; substantial proportionality suffices under the constitutional framework.
  • Endorses targeted restrictions on organizational political activity to safeguard the integrity and inclusivity of the constitutional drafting process.
  • Influences future debates on the balance between civil liberties and public interests in contexts involving constitutional reform and electoral integrity.
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.