Imbong vs. Comelec Digest

Petitioner: Manuel B. Imbong Vs. Respondents: JAIME FERRER, as Chairman of the Comelec, LINO M. PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR, as members Ponente: Makiasar J. Facts:

On August 24, 1970, Congress, Co ngress, acting as a legislative body, enacted Re public Act No. 6132, implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. No. 4914. Pe titioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Both impugn the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights as such candidates. Petitioner Raul M. 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(a). Petitioner Manuel B. Imbong impugns the constitutionality of only par. I of Sec. 8 (a) of said R.A. No. 6132 practically on the same gr ounds advanced by petitioner Gonzales. Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales asserts that Sec. 2 on the apportionment of delegates is not in accordance with proportional representation and therefore violates the Constitution and the intent of the law itself, without pinpointing any specific provision of the Constitution with which it collides. Issue:

Whether or not Republic Act No. 6132 is constitutional. Held:

Yes, Republic Act No. 6132 is constitutional. 1. SEC. 4 is valid in accordance w ith Constitutional prohibition on public employees/officials running for election. It does not deny them of due process or equal protect ion. 2. Law was enacted in Congress capacity as a legislative body exercising its broad law making authority. They can grant powers and fix the qualifications and other requirements needed such as in the case of the Con Con delegates. 3. Congress has right to apportion the number of delegates per district. They can limit it if there are economic restraints. In this case, case , they were correct in using the preliminary population census taken by the Bureau of Ce nsus & Statistics. This method is fair. Though only provisional, it is still credible. We can’t really effect an absolutely proportional representation. representation.

Parts of the statute being assailed: Paragraph 1 of Sec. 8(a), R.A. No. 6132 prohibits: 1. Any candidate for delegate to t he convention

(a) From representing, or (b) Allowing himself to be represented as being a candidate of any political party or any other organization; and 2. Any political party, political group, political committee, civic, religious, professional or other organizations or organized group of whatever nature from (a) Intervening in the nomination of any such candidate or in the filing of his certificate, or (b) From giving aid or support directly or indirectly, mate rial or otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for e lection. Sec. 2: apportionment of delegates: constitutional convention should be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing representative districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants. Provided that each district is entitled to at least two delegates. Sec. 4: all public officers & employees are considered resigned upon filing certificates of candidacy. Sec. 5: disqualifies any elected delegate from running for a public office while Con Con is ongoing. Sec. 8: prohibits political parties or other organizations from helping Con Con delegates during campaign period.

Mardy S. Gonzales MATSS Advanced Constitution