Imbong vs COMELEC

MANUEL B. IMBONG, petitioner,
vs.
JAIME FERRER, as Chairman of the Comelec, LINO M. PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR, as members thereof, respondents.

G.R. No. L-32432
September 11, 1970

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF R.A. No. 6132, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ACT OF 1970. RAUL M. GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
COMELEC, respondent.

G.R. No. L-32443
September 11, 1970

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:

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?

HELD:

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.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.