Gonzales vs.

Hechanova 9 SCRA 230

Facts:

Respondent executive secretary authorized importation of 67,000 tons of foreign rice to be purchased
from private sources. Ramon A. Gonzales, a rice planter and president of Iloilo palay and corn planters
association, filed and averring that in making or attempting to make importation of foreign rice are
acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction because RA 2207, explicitly prohibits the
importation of rice and corn by Rice and Corn Administration or any government agency.

Issue:

Whether or not an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts?

Held:

The power of judicial review is vested with the Supreme Court in consonance to section 2 Art. VIII of
the Constitution. The alleged consummation of the contracts with Vietnam and Burma does not render
this case academic. RA 2207, enjoins our government not from entering contracts for the purchase of
rice, but from entering rice, except under conditions prescribed in said act.

A judicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation would not compel our government to
default in the performance of such obligations as it mat have contracted with the sellers of rice in
question because aside from the fact that said obligations may be complied without importing the said
commodity into the phils., the proposed importation may still be legalized by complying with the
provisions of the aforementioned law.

No. L-24761 September 7, 1985

Leon G. Maquera, petitioner vs.
 Juan Borra, Cesar Miraflor, and Gregorio Santayana, in their respective capacities as
chairman and members of the Commission in Elections, and The Commission in Elections,
respondent.

No. L-24828 September 7, 1965

Felipe N. Aurea and Melecio Malabanan, petitioner vs.
The Commission on Elections, respondent.

Facts:

A question of constitutionality of Republic Act 4421 was filed by Leon G. Maquera.

Republic Act No. 4421 requires a candidate to post surety bond equivalent to one-year salary
of position to which he is a candidate, which bond shall be forfeited in favor of the government, if the
candidate, except when declared winner, fails to obtain at lest 10% of the votes cast for the office,
there being not more than four candidates for the same office.

Issue:

Whether or not Republic Act No. 4421 constitutional?

Ruling:

The court resolved without prejudice to rendering an extended decision to declare that said
Republic Act No. 4421 is unconstitutional and hence null and void.

The said property qualifications are inconsistent with the nature and essence of the Republican
System ordained in our constitution and principle of social justice underlying the same, for said
political system is premised upon the tenet that sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them, and this, in turn, implies necessarily that the right to vote and to be
voted for shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual concerned, whereas social justice
presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike and that accordingly, no person shall, by
reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public office. The bond required in Republic
Act No. 4421 and the confiscation of said bond are not predicated upon the necessity of defraying
certain expenses or of compensating services given in connection with elections, and is therefore,
arbitrary and oppressive.
The Constitution only sets forth only age, citizenship, voting and residence qualification, it
does not require property qualification to hold public office. Therefore, R.A 4421 goes against the
provision of our constitution, thus, unconstitutional.