Imbong v.

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.

Alex Almario vs Manuel Alba

127 SCRA 69 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Political Question
In January 1984, a plebiscite was to be held to allow the voters to either approve
or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Batasang Pambansa.
The proposed amendments are embodied in four (4) separate questions to be
answered by simple YES or NO answers.
Alex Almario and some other concerned groups seek to enjoin the submission in
the said plebiscite of Questions No. 3 (grant as an additional mode of acquiring
lands belonging to the public domain) and 4 (the undertaking by the government
of a land reform program and a social reform program) to the people for
ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no fair and proper
submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC.
However, unlike in the case of Tolentino vs COMELEC, Almario et al do not seek to
prohibit the holding of the plebiscite but only ask for more time for the people to
study the meaning and implications of the said questions/proposals until the
nature and effect of the proposals are fairly and properly submitted to the
electorate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a
later date.
HELD: No. This is a political question. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of
the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate.
Precisely, whether or not grant of public land and urban land reform are
unwise or improvident or whether or not the proposed amendments are
unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. The questions are
presented for their determination.
Assuming that a member or some members of the Supreme Court may find
undesirable any additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land
reform program, the remedy is to vote NO in the plebiscite but not to substitute
his or their aversion to the proposed amendments by denying to the millions of
voters an opportunity to express their own likes or dislikes.
Further, Almario et al have failed to make out a case that the average voter does
not know the meaning of grant of public land or of urban land reform.

Miriam Defensor Santiago

et al vs COMELEC
March/June 1997
Amendment to the Constitution
On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the
Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by Peoples Initiative The
COMELEC then, upon its approval, a.) set the time and dates for signature
gathering all over the country, b.) caused the necessary publication of the said
petition in papers of general circulation, and c.) instructed local election registrars
to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations. On 18 Dec
1996, MD Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the
Delfin Petition. Santiago argues that 1.) the constitutional provision on peoples
initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed
by Congress and no such law has yet been passed by Congress, 2.) RA 6735
indeed provides for three systems of initiative namely, initiative on the
Constitution, on statues and on local legislation. The two latter forms of initiative
were specifically provided for in Subtitles II and III thereof but no provisions were
specifically made for initiatives on the Constitution. This omission indicates that
the matter of peoples initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future
law as pointed out by former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on
amendments to the constitution and if so whether the act, as worded, adequately
covers such initiative.
HELD: RA 6735 is intended to include the system of initiative on amendments to
the constitution but is unfortunately inadequate to cover that system. Sec 2 of
Article 17 of the Constitution provides: Amendments to this constitution may
likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least there per centum of the
registered voters therein. . . The Congress shall provide for the implementation of
the exercise of this right This provision is obviously not self-executory as it needs
an enabling law to be passed by Congress. Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986
Con-Con stated without implementing legislation Section 2, Art 17 cannot
operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the constitution is a mode of
amendment which bypasses Congressional action in the last analysis is still
dependent on Congressional action. Bluntly stated, the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of inititative
would remain entombed in the cold niche of the constitution until Congress
provides for its implementation. The people cannot exercise such right, though
constitutionally guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not provide for
its implementation.

***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.