Case 03: Imbong v. Ferrer - G.R. No.

L-32432, September 11, 1970

Imbong, petitioner v. Ferrer, respondent

G.R. No. L-32432, September 11, 1970, Supreme Court, EN BANC, MAKASIAR, J.:

DOCTRINE:

NATURE:

FACTS:

Petitioners Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, both interested in running as candidates in the 1971
Constitutional Convention, filed separate petitions for declaratory relief, impugning the constitutionality
of RA 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates.

Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No.2, which called for the Constitutional
Convention to propose Constitutional amendments. After its adoption, Congress, acting as a legislative
body, enacted R.A. 4914 implementing said resolution, restating entirely the provisions of said
resolution.

Thereafter, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the
Resolution No. 2 by providing that ―xxx 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 xxx.

Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and
expressly repealing R.A. 4914.

ISSUE:

1. May Congress in acting as a legislative body enact R.A.6132 to implement the resolution
passed by it in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly?

RULING:

YES. The Court declared that while the authority to call a Constitutional Convention is vested by the
Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a constitutional assembly, the power to enact
the implementing details or specifics of the general law does not exclusively pertain to Congress, the
Congress in exercising its comprehensive legislative power (not as a Constitutional Assembly) may pass
the necessary implementing law providing for the details of the Constitutional Conventions, such as the
number, qualification, and compensation of its member.

The reasons cited by the Court in upholding the constitutionality of the enactment of R.A. 6132 are as
follows:

Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV of the Constitution has authority to
propose constitutional amendments or call a convention for the purpose by ¾ votes of each house in
joint session assembled but voting separately.
Such grant includes all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal power by
necessary implication.
Implementing details are within the authority of the Congress not only as a Constituent Assembly but
also in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power which encompasses all matters not expressly
or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative
action so long as it does not contravene any provision of the Constitution; and
Congress as a legislative body may thus enact necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps,
which Congress as a Constituent Assembly has omitted.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the prayers in both petitions are hereby denied and R.A. No. 6132 including
Secs. 2,4, 5, and 8(a), paragraph 1, thereof, cannot be declared unconstitutional. Without costs. [How
the Supreme Court EN BANC resolved the case]