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.