This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
174153 October 25, 2006
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. DECISION
CARPIO, J.: The Case These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") denying due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution. Antecedent Facts On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups1 and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735"). The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals. The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 17 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification:
the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative. On the other hand.R. the Solicitor General joined causes with the petitioners.7 The Ruling of the COMELEC On 31 August 2006. 174299.12 (4) the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2. the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections8 declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.R. The supporting intervenors10 uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. Article XVII of the . Alternatively. urging the Court to grant the petition despite the Santiago ruling. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent. petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court require respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification of signatures and for "entertaining" the Lambino Group's petition despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. the opposing intervenors11 hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition. and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the "will of the sovereign people. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and its implementing rules "as temporary devises to implement the system of initiative. (3) the Lambino Group's compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2. CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERALPARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. The Court treated the Binay Group's petition as an opposition-in-intervention. the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only the parties to that case. filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group's petition. In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition. No." Various groups and individuals sought intervention." In G. (2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process. AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? On 30 August 2006. 174153.DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. No.9 In G. Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition.
For following the Court's ruling in Santiago. 2. Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution." . The Issues The petitions raise the following issues: 1. 2. Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's initiative. x x x x (Emphasis supplied) The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete. The Ruling of the Court There is no merit to the petition. Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People Section 2. Thus. The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September 2006. inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people's initiative.1987 Constitution. and (5) the Lambino Group's compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject. 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 three per centum of the registered voters therein. This section states: Sec. as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2. 1. After receiving the parties' memoranda. the Court considered the case submitted for resolution. and 3. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition. there is even no need to revisit Santiago. no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.
6132. and Solicitors Raul I. and Senator Emmanuel Pelaez argued orally. respondents. . 1970 IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF R. GONZALES.A. Vicente A. JAIME FERRER.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. Arturo Tolentino. RAUL M. No. 6132. 6132 by petitioners Manuel B. both members of the Bar. Senator Jovito Salonga. de Leon. Both impugn the constitutionality of R. Nakar for respondents. COMELEC. namely Senator Lorenzo Tañada.A. Jr. 19 of R. Torres and Guillermo C. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ACT OF 1970. hearings were held at which the petitioners and the amici curiae. Rosalio A. Lorenzo Tañada. MAKASIAR.R. as Chairman of the Comelec. petitioner. vs.R. Goco. LINO M. No. Jovito Salonga and Emmanuel Pelaez as amici curiae. No. J. No. Imbong in his own behalf. PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR. Raul M. as members thereof. Gonzales. respondent. Imbong and Raul M. Pronove. claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights as such candidates. taxpayers and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Senator Arturo Tolentino. Gonzales in his own behalf. Acting Assistant Solicitor General Ricardo L. After the Solicitor General had filed answers in behalf the respondents. IMBONG. Pardo. Manuel B. 1970 MANUEL B. Antonio.. vs. Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. L-32432 September 11.: These two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to Sec.A. G. No. petitioner. Bernardo P. L-32443 September 11.
implementing Resolutions Nos. that the same is merely an application of and in consonance with the prohibition in Sec. 8(a) of said R. 5. as well as officers and employees of corporations or enterprises of the government. the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of Sec. 1970. was recently sustained by this Court. 2 in 1967 but before the November elections of that year. No.It will be recalled that on March 16. 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. 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election Code. 4. No. inter alia. all public officers and employees." 1 "and that any other details relating to the specific apportionment of delegates. 3 Petitioner Raul M. 4914 implementing the aforesaid Resolution No. acting as a legislative body. 6132 practically on the same grounds advanced by petitioner Gonzales. 1969. No. 2 and 4. XII of the Constitution and that it does not constitute a denial of due process or of the equal protection of the law. 4914. including members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. XV of the Constitution. On June 17. and par. also acting as a Constituent Assembly. No. to be elected on the second Tuesday of November. 2. 1967. Congress. and expressly repealing R. that it shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution. election of delegates to.A. enacted Republic Act No.A. I The validity of Sec. 6132. No." 2 On August 24. the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing legislation: Provided. whether elective or appointive. acting as a legislative body. acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art.A. passed Resolution No. 2 and practically restating in toto the provisions of said Resolution No. Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law as well as the particular provisions embodied in Sections 2. as resigned from the date of the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Congress. 6132. 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. 6132 was upheld. that a representative district shall be entitled to at least two delegates. After the adoption of said Res. who shall have the same qualifications as those required of members of the House of Representatives. Likewise. on the grounds. 2 of March 16. which considers. 4 II . 1 of 8(a). Petitioner Manuel B. passed Resolution No. Imbong impugns the constitutionality of only par. I of Sec. enacted Republic Act No. Congress. 4 of R. Congress. 4 amending the aforesaid Resolution No.A. 2 of Art. 8(a) of R. and the holding of.
A. 6132 by Congress acting as a legislative body in the exercise of its broad law-making authority. by a three-fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but voting separately.Without first considering the validity of its specific provisions. acting as a legislative body. 6132. 2. which power encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action. and not as a Constituent Assembly. 8 of Res No. Resolutions Nos. While the authority to call a constitutional convention is vested by the present Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. 4. which authority is expressly recognized in Sec. all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal power granted. Consequently. 2 and 4 calling for a constitutional convention were passed by the required three-fourths vote. 3. III Petitioner Raul M. Such implementing details are matters within the competence of Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power. sitting as a Constituent . by virtue of the doctrine of necessary implication. we sustain the constitutionality of the enactment of R. And as lone as such statutory details do not clash with any specific provision of the constitution. such as the power to fix the qualifications. 5. when Congress. which are now contained in Resolutions Nos. Congress. The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly of such plenary authority to call a constitutional convention includes. does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. acting as a Constituent Assembly. apportionment. number. No.A. Resolutions Nos. No. the Constitution does not expressly or impliedly require such apportionment of delegates to the convention on the basis of population in each congressional district. as well as all other implementing details indispensable to a fruitful convention. XV of the Constitution. the power to enact the implementing details. 2 and 4 already embody the above-mentioned details. No. they are valid. The fact that a bill providing for such implementing details may be vetoed by the President is no argument against conceding such power in Congress as a legislative body nor present any difficulty. omits to provide for such implementing details after calling a constitutional convention. 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. 4. without pinpointing any specific provision of the Constitution with which it collides. Unlike in the apportionment of representative districts. because — 1. 2 as amended by Res. and compensation of the delegates as well as appropriation of funds to meet the expenses for the election of delegates and for the operation of the Constitutional Convention itself. Congress. has full and plenary authority to propose Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for the purpose. when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. can enact the necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps. Congress. for it is not irremediable as Congress can override the Presidential veto or Congress can reconvene as a Constituent Assembly and adopt a resolution prescribing the required implementing details. 2 and 4 as well as in R. except the appropriation of funds. Gonzales asserts that Sec.
6132 despite the fact that it has a population very much less than several other congressional districts. The records of the proceedings on Senate Bill No. No. If the framers of the present Constitution wanted the apportionment of delegates to the convention to be based on the number of inhabitants in each representative district. the same could still be a valid basis for such apportionment. 4. for such apportionment was presented to Congress. The Director of the Bureau of Census and Statistics himself. 1970.Assembly. No. 3 line 12) which is a fair and an equitable method of distributing the delegates pursuant to the provisions of the joint Resolution of both Houses No. 77 sponsored by Senator Pelaez which is now R. submitted to this Tribunal by the amici curiae. each congressional district or for each province. Absolute proportional apportionment is not required and is not possible when based on the number of inhabitants. we are submitting herewith the results of the computation on the basis of the above-stated method. The presumption is that the factual predicate. for it merely obeyed and implemented the intent of Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly expressed in Sec. may be over-represented. aggravated by the constant movement of population. Resolution No. as amended. because it is allotted two delegates by R. 2 lines 5 to 32 and p. 6132 cannot possibly conflict with its own intent expressed therein. show that it based its apportionment of the delegates on the 1970 official preliminary population census taken by the Bureau of Census and Statistics from May 6 to June 30. No. 1976." Even if such latest census were a preliminary census. but fixing a minimum of at least two delegates for a representative district. may constitutionally allocate one delegate for. each of which is also allotted only two delegates. the latest available official population census. and therefore under-represented. . No. they would have done so in so many words as they did in relation to the apportionment of the representative districts. vis-a-vis Batanes alone. stated that "on the basis of the preliminary count of the population.A. 5 The apportionment provided for in Sec. for the population census cannot be accurate nor complete. It is enough that the basis employed is reasonable and the resulting apportionment is substantially proportional. in a letter to Senator Pelaez dated July 30. 6132. 4 fixed a minimum of two delegates for a congressional district. 1 of Res. we have computed the distribution of delegates to the Constitutional Convention based on Senate Bill 77 (p. which.A. dependent as it is on the diligence of the census takers. accordingly employed a formula for the necessary computation to effect the desired proportional representation. and that Congress adopted the formula to effect a reasonable apportionment of delegates.A. which provides that the 320 delegates should be apportioned among the existing representative districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants. Upon your request at the session of the Senate-House Conference Committee meeting last night. does not vitiate the apportionment as not effecting proportional representation. 2. 2 of R. as well as daily death and birth. for reasons of economy and to avoid having an unwieldy convention. 6 The fact that the lone and small congressional district of Batanes.
In the Macias case. emphasis supplied). can create an office and define the qualifications and disqualifications therefor as well as impose inhibitions on a public officer. Such is not the case here. Congress for proportional representation as. Art. 5 disqualifies any elected delegate from running "for any public office in any election" or from assuming "any appointive office or position in any branch of the government government until after the final adjournment of the Constitutional Convention. vs.A. No. Said Sec. the delegate will not utilize his position as a bargaining leverage for concessions in the form of an elective or appointive office as long as the convention has not finally adjourned. The present petitions therefore do not present facts which fit the mould of the doctrine in the case of Macias et al. 5 of R. 5.A. Phil. No. Const.. the apportionment law." That the citizen does not have any inherent nor natural right to a public office. directed in Res. 6132 is attacked on the ground that it is an undue deprivation of liberty without due process of law and denies the equal protection of the laws. which may endure for generations and which cannot easily be changed like an ordinary statute. which number is equal to the number of delegates accorded other provinces with more population.While there may be other formulas for a reasonable apportionment considering the evidence submitted to Congress by the Bureau of Census and Statistics. Comelec. only those with qualifications and who do not fall under any constitutional or statutory inhibition can be validly elected or appointed to a public office. With the disqualification embodied in Sec. The employment of the phrase "as nearly as may be according to their respective inhabitants" emphasizes the fact that the human mind can only approximate a reasonable apportionment but cannot effect an absolutely proportional representation with mathematical precision or exactitude. entice votes for his own . relied on by petitioner Gonzales. which was nullified as unconstitutional. party interest or vested interest and to insure that he dedicates all his time to performing solely in the interest of the nation his high and well nigh sacred function of formulating the supreme law of the land. 2 of R. The appointing authority may. is axiomatic under our constitutional system. by his appointing power. The impossibility of absolute proportional representation is recognized by the Constitution itself when it directs that the apportionment of congressional districts among the various provinces shall be "as nearly as may be according to their respective inhabitants. IV Sec. 5.A. VI. is to immunize the delegates from the perverting influence of self-interest. 4 is unreasonable and that the apportionment provided in R. No. granted more representatives to a province with less population than the provinces with more inhabitants. supra. Consequently. but each province shall have at least one member" (Sec. we are not prepared to rule that the computation formula adopted by. where under Sec. The obvious reason for the questioned inhibition. The State through its Constitution or legislative body. 6132 does not constitute a substantially proportional representation. 6132 Batanes is allotted only two delegates.
constitutional amendments cannot be changed in one or two years. the overriding objective of the challenged disqualification. No. The classification. therefore.A.) As observed by the Solicitor General in his Answer. No other public officer possesses such a power. (Sec. not even the members of Congress unless they themselves. is neither whimsical nor repugnant to the sense of justice of the community. but love for country must always motivate his actuations as delegate. defines the liberties of the people. from being appointed to any civil office which may have been created or the emolument whereof shall have been increased while he was a member of the Congress.proposals. The convention that framed the present Constitution finished its task in approximately seven months — from July 30. pursuant to their representation and commitment to the people. Phil." (p. during the time for which he was elected. and applies to all members of the same class. which is to insure that the proposed amendments are meaningful to the masses of our people and not designed for the enhancement of selfishness. Unlike ordinary statutes. propose constitutional amendments when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. corruption. Answer in L-32443. XV of the Constitution. 5 against delegates to the Constitutional Convention is likewise constitutional. this inhibition finds analogy in the constitutional provision prohibiting a member of Congress. It should be stressed that the disqualification is not permanent but only temporary only to continue until the final adjournment of the convention which may not extend beyond one year. Not love for self. 1934 to February 8. Art. Also it is a brake on the appointing power. 7 The function of a delegate is more far-reaching and its effect more enduring than that of any ordinary legislator or any other public officer. 6132 is a valid limitation on the right to public office pursuant to state police power as it is reasonable and not arbitrary.) Thus the challenged disqualification prescribed in Sec. subversive of the welfare of the general citizenry. its basic organization and powers. to curtail the latter's desire to 'raid' the convention of "talents" or attempt to control the convention. is germane to the purposes of the law. 16. A delegate shapes the fundamental law of the land which delineates the essential nature of the government. otherwise the several provisions of the new Constitution may only satisfy individual or special interests. 10. otherwise. As heretofore intimated. 5 of R. or injustice. and controls all other laws. is to compel the elected delegates to serve in full their term as such and to devote all their time to the convention. temporary in nature. his seat in the convention will be vacant and his constituents will be deprived of a voice in the convention. As admitted by petitioner Gonzales. 1935. The discrimination under Sec. . greed. The inhibition is likewise "designed to prevent popular political figures from controlling elections or positions. the inhibition is relevant to the object of the law. VI. Constitution. for it is based on a substantial distinction which makes for real differences.
9 Paragraph 1 of Sec. equal protection of the laws. civic. 8(a).A. any political party. 8 In said Gonzalez vs. No. 1970. R. and the right of association are neither absolute nor illimitable rights. and 2. peaceful assembly. The right of a member of any political party or association to support him or oppose his opponent is preserved as long as such member acts individually. Comelec case the Court applied the clear and present danger test to determine whether a statute which trenches upon the aforesaid Constitutional guarantees. or (b) allowing himself to be represented as being a candidate of any political party or any other organization. favorable to or against his campaign for election. or (b) from giving aid or support directly or indirectly. The very party or organization to which he may belong or which may be in sympathy with his . 6132 prohibits: 1. equal protection of the laws. 8(a). whether material. freedom of assembly and freedom of association. free expression. moral. 1 of Sec. material or otherwise. V Paragraph 1. the disqualification applies to all the delegates to the convention who will be elected on the second Tuesday of November. religious. because he cannot be denied any permit to hold a public meeting on the pretext that the provision of said section may or will be violated. is a legitimate exercise of police power. political group. they are always subject to the pervasive and dormant police power of the State and may be lawfully abridged to serve appropriate and important public interests. 8(a) in its provisos permits the candidate to utilize in his campaign the help of the members of his family within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.A. No. political committee. is confined to party or organization support or assistance. 8(a) of R. any candidate for delegate to the convention (a) from representing. freedom of expressions. emotional or otherwise.Lastly. and a campaign staff composed of not more than one for every ten precincts in his district. The very Sec. Sec. 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. The ban against all political parties or organized groups of whatever nature contained in par. This Court ruled last year that the guarantees of due process. It allows the full exercise of his freedom of expression and his right to peaceful assembly. 6132 is impugned by both petitioners as violative of the constitutional guarantees of due process.
not merely in danger of happening. Their scope of legitimate activities. We sustain its validity. supra. clubs. as to render meaningless such a basic right. and for any other elective public office earlier than ninety days immediately preceding an election. or to advocate for constitutional reforms. but not for such a purpose. 4880. supra. meetings. 50-B. this Court in said case of Gonzales vs. thus: The prohibition of too early nomination of candidates presents a question that is not too formidable in character. The right of association is affected. this Court unanimously sustained the validity of the limitation on the period for nomination of candidates in Sec. the legislative declaration that its enactment was in response to a serious substantive evil affecting the electoral process. To assert otherwise would be to close one's eyes to the reality of the situation. is guaranteed the right to disseminate information about. Comelec case.. policies or constitutional proposals for amendments. however. According to the act: "It shall be unlawful for any political party. Likewise. And it is therefore a valid infringement of the aforesaid constitutional guarantees invoked by petitioners. parades or other similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate or party. is not unduly narrowed. the debasement of the electoral process." 12. No. 4880).A. (b) holding political conventions. soliciting. 50-A of R. but actually in existence. the curtailment is not such." 11 Even if the partisan activity consists of (a) forming organizations.. failed to muster the required eight votes to declare as unconstitutional . and likely to continue unless curbed or remedied. Comelec. We do so unanimously. and (c) giving. which could not "ignore . conferences. rallies. the abridgment was still affirmed as constitutional by six members of this Court. this Court likewise held that the period for the conduct of an election campaign or partisan political activity may be limited without offending the aforementioned constitutional guarantees as the same is designed also to prevent a "clear and present danger of a substantive evil. because four members dissented. It is therefore patent that the restriction contained in Sec.A. political committee. (a). (Sec. (b). or to arouse public interest in. and (c). pars. caucuses. or receiving contributions for election campaign either directly or indirectly. 8(a) is so narrow that the basic constitutional rights themselves remain substantially intact and inviolate. associations. programs. R. Political parties have less freedom as to the time during which they may nominate candidates. save this one. In said Gonzales vs.cause or program of reforms. In the aforesaid case of Gonzales vs. They 10 can do so. Comelec. Neither is there infringement of their freedom to assemble. committees or other group of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a party or candidate. or political group to nominate candidates for any elective public office voted for at large earlier than one hundred and fifty days immediately preceding an election.
as conceded by Senator Pelaez. In the said Gonzales vs. pars. No. financial and otherwise. who appeared as amicus curiae.A. Sen. the poor candidate has an even chance as against the rich candidate.A. finds support in our recent political history and experience. "that such provisions were deemed by the legislative body to be part and parcel of the necessary and appropriate response not merely to a clear and present danger but to the actual existence of a grave and substantive evil of excessive partisanship. the sponsor of the Puyat-Tolentino amendment embodied in par. to justify such ban. V. unless clearly repugnant to fundamental rights. 8(a) of R. 4880. is to assure the candidates equal protection of the laws by according them equality of chances. and if possible. No. Art. Lorenzo Tañada.the limitation on the period for (a) making speeches. and equality before the law enunciated by Mr. 13 The debasement of the electoral process as a substantive evil exists today and is one of the major compelling interests that moved Congress into prescribing the total ban contained in par. No. 1 of Sec. (b) publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials. Senator Tolentino and Senator Salonga emphasized that under this provision. (c). because such a conclusion. This position is further strengthened by the principle that the guarantee of social justice under Sec. II of the Constitution. the electoral process. 1 of Sec. Justice Tuazon in the case Guido vs. on the legislature primarily rests the responsibility. He did invite our attention likewise to the well-settled doctrine that in the choice of remedies for an admitted malady requiring governmental action. 50-B. One such act is the ." 15 But aside from the clear and imminent danger of the debasement of the electoral process.A. be ignored or disregarded. and (e) directly or indirectly soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate or party specified in Sec. dishonesty and corruption as well as violence that of late has marred election campaigns and partisan political activities in this country. equality of political rights. includes the guarantee of equal opportunity. Nor should the cure prescribed by it. render spotless. predicated as it is on empirical logic. the denial of the equal protection of the laws.A." 14 impressed as it was by the explanation made by the author of R. 16 The primary purpose of the prohibition then is also to avert the clear and present danger of another substantive evil. this Court gave "due recognition to the legislative concern to cleanse. is a rare phenomenon in this country and the victory of an independent candidate mainly rests on his ability to match the resources. of the political parties or organizations supporting his opponent. 4880. Both Senators stressed that the independent candidate who wins in the election against a candidate of the major political parties. 6132. 17 While it may be true that a party's support of a candidate is not wrong per se it is equally true that Congress in the exercise of its broad law-making authority can declare certain acts as mala prohibita when justified by the exigencies of the times. 8(a) of R. 6132. announcements or commentaries or holding interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for public office. Comelec case. The candidates must depend on their individual merits and not on the support of political parties or organizations. according to Senate Majority Floor Leader Senator Arturo Tolentino. Rural Progress Administration. (d) & (e) of R. We are not prepared to disagree with them. the basic motivation.
. For the constitutional system means. Chairman of the Senate Committee on Codes and Constitutional Amendments. not to favor one group at the expense or disadvantage of the candidates — but to encompass all the interests that exist within our society and to blend them into one harmonious and balanced whole. civic or professional in character. and to attain real equality of chances among individual candidates and thereby make real the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. political. social and political problems besetting the country. or professional associations. or of a particular class or group of people. 19 In the apt words of the Solicitor General: It is to be noted that right now the nation is on the threshold of rewriting its Constitution in a hopeful endeavor to find a solution to the grave economic. Senator Tolentino emphasized that "equality of chances may be better attained by banning all organization support. 8(a). We likewise concur with the Solicitor General that the equal protection of the laws is not unduly subverted in par. Instead of directly proposing the amendments Congress has chosen to call a Constitutional Convention which shall have the task of fashioning a document that shall embody the aspirations and ideals of the people. religious or economic interest and not of the great 20 majority of the people." 18 The questioned par.which ban is a valid limitation on the freedom of association as well as expression. but the harmonious balancing thereof. not the predominance of interests. it is necessary that the delegatee thereto be independent. civic. Senator Pelaez. it is indispensable that the Constitutional Convention be composed of delegates truly representative of the people's will.party or organization support proscribed in Sec. xxx xxx xxx The evil therefore. The ban is germane to the objectives of the law. which the law seeks to prevent lies in the election of delegates who. be they religious. beholden to no one but to God. country and conscience. eloquently stated that "the function of a constitution is not to represent anyone in interest or set of interests. Because what is to be amended is the fundamental law of the land. 8(a). cannot be expected to be sufficiently representative of the people. Such delegates could very well be the spokesmen of narrow political. religious. for the reasons aforestated. I of Sec. because it does not create any hostile discrimination against any party or group nor does it confer undue favor or privilege on an individual as heretofore stated. which are to avert the debasement of the electoral process." So that the purpose for calling the Constitutional Convention will not be deflated or frustrated. Public welfare demands that the delegates should speak for the entire nation. because they have been chosen with the aid and resources of organizations. 8 (a) likewise can easily pass the balancing-of-interest test. whether political parties or social. The discrimination applies to all organizations. 1 of Sec. and their voices be not those of a particular segment of the citizenry.
because then by such exemption they would be free to utilize the facilities of the campaign machineries which they are denying to the political parties. but with their joining with the LP's they "could have presented a solid front with very bright chances of capturing all seats. Moreover. religious. as much as the candidate whose candidacy does not evoke sympathy from any political party or organized group. these civic religious and professional organization may band together to support common candidates. who advocates the reforms that these organizations champion and believe are imperative. No. despite the fact that the Constitution and by laws of such civic. because it still has that much built-in advantage as against the individual candidate without similar support. Impressed as We are by the eloquent and masterly exposition of Senator Tañada for the invalidation of par. Whenever all organization engages in a political activity. which. or professional associations usually prohibit the association from engaging in partisan political activity or supporting any candidate for an elective office. this ban is to assure equal chances to a candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as well as nobility of purpose. as in this campaign for election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The freedom of association also implies the liberty not to associate or join with others or join any existing organization. must be afforded equal chances. This is admitted by petitioner Gonzales thru the letter of Senator Ganzon dated August 17. wherein the Senator stated that his own "Timawa" group had agreed with the Liberal Party in Iloilo to support petitioner Gonzales and two others as their candidates for the convention. 6132.". etc. they must likewise respect the ban. As emphasized by Senators Tolentino and Salonga. Hence." The civic associations other than political parties cannot with reason insist that they should be exempted from the ban.The political parties and the other organized groups have built-in advantages because of their machinery and other facilities. 1970 attached to his petition as Annex "D". demonstrating once again his deep concern for the preservation of our civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We are not persuaded to entertain the belief that the challenged ban transcends the limits of constitutional invasion of such cherished immunities. does not vary the situation. the area commanders. And he.A. Senator Ganzon stressed that "without the group moving and working in joint collective effort" they cannot "exercise effective control and supervision over our leaders — the Women's League. The fact that the other civic of religious organizations cannot have a campaign machinery as efficient as that of a political party. the individual candidate who is without any organization support. 1 of Sec. does not have. which organized support is nullified by the questioned ban. so that the country can utilize their services if elected. to that extent it partakes of the nature of a political organization. A person may run independently on his own merits without need of catering to a political party or any other association for support. . 8(a) of R. This.
thereof.A. 6132 including Secs. paragraph 1. the prayers in both petitions are hereby denied and R. 2.WHEREFORE. Without costs. . 5. No. and 8(a). 4. cannot be declared unconstitutional.
and note preliminary issues to be researched. For example.  3 SCR 925 were . You may need to do some background reading in textbooks or encyclopedias (See Stage #2). ascertain the subject matter. Key facts are those that will determine the application of the legal issues. it may be difficult to initially know what the issues are. A narrow issue statement will only result in a narrow list of similar cases. you need to spend time "brainstorming" the problem. you may have to begin your research using some key facts from the problem. There may be several legal issues raised by the problem. What is it that you have been asked to determine? Although you will constantly refine this statement as you develop your research and analysis. Prepare a Preliminary Issue Statement The first step in preparing an outline of research and analysis is to prepare a preliminary issue statement. DFG. If one can persuade the judge to conceptualize or characterize the facts as a specific type of legal issue. If you are unfamiliar with the area of law. Think of synonyms or alternative words for both the facts and legal concepts. Read the facts. defence raised. At this stage. Under what jurisdiction does a the problem fall? Is the question governed by federal or provincial law? Is the problem governed by legislation (statutes or regulations) or by common law (case law)? Doth both apply? State the issue in general and narrow terms. Try to think of alternate ways to conceptualize the issues. The legal concept refers to cause of action. the preliminary statement will focus your initial research. The legal concept and key facts are integrated into a statement of the legal issue. relief or remedy sought. then precedent will provide the desired outcome. In this case.Steps in Legal Research Develop An Outline Stage #1: Framing Issues and Identifying Keywords Stage #2: Initial Research Stage #3: Preliminary Integration of Research and Analysis Stage #4: Intensive Case Research and Analysis Stage #5: Statute/Regulation Research Stage #6: Synthesize Arguments and Prepare Detailed Outline Stage #7: Final Writing Stage #1: Framing the Legal Issues and Identifying the Keywords PREPARE A RESEARCH PLAN Brainstorming Before beginning research. and procedure involved. the issues in Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. Often the facts may be characterized in a number of different ways. it is important not to state the issues too narrowly or in only one way.
you can then start to revise the list into a more logical order. whether an unborn child is a legal person. an entire class or being kicked out of school. third. parens patriae. eHow Contributor Plagiarism is the act of presenting someone else's work as your own. Having done that. Rules of Plagiarism By Hallie Engel. whether on purpose or by accident. All the issues may only be determined after an extensive research and analysis process.conceptualized differently by the judges hearing the case: definition of mental disorder under the Mental Health Act. plagiarism is rarely necessary. speaker or creator due credit. How will the court logically organize the issues? Are there preliminary questions the court will consider first? What will the court need to decide second. Through the use of quotes and references. it is useful to create one comprehensive list of everything you think needs to be included. and might entail failing a paper. The consequences of plagiarism can be severe. as it's possible to borrow from the work of others while not breaking the rules. and so on? It may be impossible to identify all the issues in your Preliminary Issue Statement. . To get your preliminary statement of issues started. Your issues statement will be constantly revised as you develop your research and analysis. Focusing on only one of these ways to conceptualize the facts would be inadequate. whether a mother has a duty of care to protect an unborn child. simply by giving the original author.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.