Case Digest - Imbong v. Comelec
For class discussions. Constitutional Law 1...
MANUEL IMBONG V. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-32432, September 11, 1970 35 SCRA 28 (1970)
Nature: Petition for Declaratory Relief Ponente: J. Makasiar Background: •
16 March 1967 — Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 2 calling for a Constitutional Convention to propose constitutional amendments to be composed of 2 delegates from each representative district who shall have the same qualifications as those of Congressmen.
Congress, acting as a Legislative body, enacted Republic Act No. 4914, implementing Res. No. 2
17 June 1969 — Congress, as a Constitutional Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4, amending Res. No. 2, by providing that the convention “shall be composed of 320 delegates aproportioned among existing representative districts according to the population, Provided that each district shall be entitled to 2 delegates
24 August 1970 — Congress, as a Legislative body, enacted Republic Act No. 6132, aka “The 1971 Constitutional Convention Act,” implementing Res. Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing RA No. 4914).
Sec. 2: apportionment of delegates
Sec. 4: consideres all public officers/employees as resigned when they file their candidacy
Sec. 5: disqualifies and elected delegate from running for any public office in the election or from assuming any appointive office/ position until the final adjournment of the Const-Convention.
Par. 1, Sec. 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups from giving support/representing a delegate to the convention.
These are two separate but related petitions, filed by petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, who are running as candidates for the  Constitutional Convention. Both parties are questioning the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, (Gonzales assails the validity of the entire
law, as well as the particular provisions embodied in Sections 2, 4, 5, and Par. 1 of 8; while Imbong impugns only Par. 1 of Sec. 8), alleging that it prejudices
their rights as candidates for the Constitutional Convention .
Constitutional Law I
2015 | MANALO
Issue/s: • •
Whether the rights of the petitioners to run for candidates for the Const-Convention are prejudiced by RA No. 6312 Whether RA No. 6312 is unconstitutional
Held: No. Prayers of both petitioners are denied, provisions assailed by petitioners are constitutional. Ratio Decidendi: •
Sec. 2: The Court held that the apportionment provided cannot conflict with its own intent expressed therein, because it merely obeyed and implemented the intent of the Congress, as a Constituent Assembly, in Res. No. 4
Sec. 4: The Court held this provision’s validity since it is merely an application of, and in consonance with the prohibition in Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution, and that it does not constitute a denial of due process or of the equal protection of the law.
Sec. 5: The Court held that the State has the right to create office and the parameters to qualify or disqualify its members. It further reasoned that the function of a delegate is far-reaching and has a more enduring effect than that of any ordinary legislator —shaping the fundamental law of the land, which makes the classifications repugnant to the sense of justice.
Par. 1, Sec. 8: The Court held that the ban against political parties / organizational groups is constitutional because, as also discussed by the amica curiae, it serves as an appropriate response to the clear and present danger of the debasement of the electoral process. It provides for the equal protection of the laws, wherein the candidates must depend on their individual merits and not the support of their political parties or organizations.
The Court sustains the constitutionality of the enactment of RA No. 6312 by the Congress, as a Legislative body, exercising its broad lawmaking authority.
Constitutional Law I
2015 | MANALO