Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
COMELEC
Constitutional Law. Political Law. Constitutional Convention 1971.
IMBONG VS COMELEC
G.R. No. L-32432; G.R. No. L-32443; September 11, 1970
Ponente: Makasiar, J.
FACTS:
Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, filing separate cases and both interested in
running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, question
the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as
such candidates. On March 16, 1967, the Congress, acting as a Constituent
Assembly, passed Res. No. 2 which called for a Constitutional Convention which
shall have two delegates from each representative district. On June 17, 1969, the
Congress passed Resolution No. 4 amending Resolution No. 2 by providing that
the convention shall be composed of 320 delegates with at least two delegates
from each representative district. On August 24, 1970, the Congress, acting as a
legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing Res Nos. 2 and 4 and expressly
repealing R.A 4914 which previously implemented Res. No. 2. Gonzales assails the
validity of Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a), and the entire law, while Imbong
questions the constitutionality of par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. 6132.
ISSUES:
1. Does the Congress have the right to call for a constitutional convention and
set the parameters of such convention?
2. Are the provisions of R.A. 6132 constitutional?
HELD:
1. The Congress has authority to call a constitutional convention as the
constituent assembly. The Congress also has the authority to enact implementing
details, contained in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 and R.A. 6132, since such details are within
the competence of the Congress in exercise of its legislative power.
2. The provisions are constitutional. Sec. 4 of R.A. 6132 is merely in application
with Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and does not constitute a denial of due
process or equal protection of the law. Sec. 2 also merely obeyed the intent of the
Congress in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 regarding the apportionment of delegates. The
challenged disqualification of an elected delegate from running for any public
office in Sec. 5 is a valid limitation as it is reasonable and not arbitrary. Lastly, par.
1 of Sec. 8(a) which is both contested by the petitioners is still valid as the
restriction contained in the section is so narrow that basic constitutional rights
remain substantially intact and inviolate thus the limitation is a valid infringement
of the constitutional guarantees invoked by the petitioners.
Arturo Tolentino vs
Commission on Elections
(1971)
41 SCRA 702 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Doctrine of Proper
Submission
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite
concerning only the proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This was even
before the rest of the draft of the Constitution (then under revision) had been
approved. Arturo Tolentino then filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.
HELD: Yes. If the advance plebiscite will be allowed, there will be an improper
submission to the people. Such is not allowed.
The proposed amendments shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast at an
election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for ratification.
Election here is singular which meant that the entire constitution must be
submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not
given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision because they had
at the time no idea yet of what the rest of the revised Constitution would
ultimately be and therefore would be unable to assess the proposed amendment
in the light of the entire document. This is the Doctrine of Submission which
means that all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented
to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, NOT piecemeal.
***Note that this ruling has been reversed on November 20, 2006 when ten
justices of the SC ruled that RA 6735 is adequate enough to enable such initiative.
HOWEVER, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in part:
Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various
opinions already given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic
Act No. 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution thru a peoples
initiative.