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).

Facts:

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 [1971] 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 provisions 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