Imbong vs COMELEC G.R. No.

L-32432 September 11, 1970

RAUL M. GONZALES vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-32443 September 11, 1970

Ponente: Makasiar

Facts:

These two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to Sec. 19
of R.A. No. 6132 by petitioners 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.

On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the
Constitution, passed Resolution No. 2 which among others called for a Constitutional
Convention to propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two delegates from
each representative district who shall have the same qualifications as those of
Congressmen, to be elected on the second Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with
the Revised Election Code. On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent
Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid Resolution No. 2 of March 16,
1967 by providing that the convention “shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned
among the existing representative districts according to the number of their respective
inhabitants: Provided, that a representative district shall be entitled to at least two
delegates, who shall have the same qualifications as those required of members of the
House of Representatives,” 1 “and that any other details relating to the specific
apportionment of delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of, the Constitutional
Convention shall be embodied in an implementing legislation: Provided, that it shall not be
inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution.” 2

On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted Republic Act No.
6132, implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. No. 4914.

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 grounds advanced by petitioner Gonzales.

Issue:

1. Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention;

2. Whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.

Decision:

The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent
Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as
constitutional.

Ratio:

– Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution

-Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:

Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call
for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were attained by Resolution 2 and
4

– Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the basis
employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is not
reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less population and
vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to the number of delegates I other provinces with
more population.

– Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members
thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism to
prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to
the Constituional Convention.

– Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure
candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits,
and not the support of political parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards
any particular party/group, it applies to all organizations.

Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Fernando “ I find it difficult to reconcile the decision reached insofar as the aforesaid
ban on political parties and civic, professional and other organizations is concerned with the
explicit provision that the freedom to form associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged. 2 The right of an individual to join others of a like
persuasion to pursue common objectives and to engage in activities is embraced within if
not actually encouraged by the regime of liberty ordained by the Constitution. This particular
freedom has an indigenous cast, its origin being traceable to the Malolos Constitution.

Santiago vs COMELEC G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997

Ponente: Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.

Facts:

On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the
Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by People’s Initiative” The COMELEC
then, upon its approval

1. set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country,

2. caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general circulation,
and

3. instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing

signing stations.

On 18 Dec 1996, Miriam Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the
Delfin Petition. Also, Raul Roco filed with the COMELEC a motion to dismiss the Delfin
petition, the petition having been untenable due to the foregoing. Santiago argues among
others that the People’s Initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution NOT a
revision thereof. The extension or the lifting of the term limits of those in power (particularly
the President) constitutes revision and is therefore beyond the power of people’s initiative.
The respondents argued that the petition filed by Roco is pending under the COMELEC
hence the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of it.
Issue:

1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to call for People’s Initiative to amend
the constitution specifically to lift term limits of elected officials.

2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the case

Decision:

COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.

The COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise
of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative.

Ratio:

Under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC’s power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-
C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those
promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b)
a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the “completeness”
and the “sufficient standard” tests.

Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Puno does not share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 are legally defective and cannot implement the people’s initiative to amend the
Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the Pedrosas has no leg to
stand on and should be dismissed.

Significantly, the majority decision concedes that “. . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.” It ought to be so for this intent is
crystal clear from the history of the law which was a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 3
and Senate Bill No. 17. 4 Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled “An Act Providing for a System of
Initiative and Referendum and the Exception Therefrom, Whereby People in Local
Government Units Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve
or Reject any Ordinance or Resolution Passed by the Local Legislative Body.” Beyond
doubt, Senate Bill No. 17 did not include people’s initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution. In checkered contrast, House Bill No. 21505 5 expressly included people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution.