Imbong vs COMELEC G.R. No.

L-32432

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:

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

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.