UPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Constituent Assembly, may constitutionally allocate one delegate for each

Imbong vs. Ferrer congressional district or for each province, for reasons of economy and to
avoid having an unwieldy convention.
No. L-32432. September 11, 1970. Same: Same: Same; Discrimination which is based on substantial
MANUEL B. IMBONG, petitioner, vs. JAIME FERRER,as Chairman distinction and germane to the purposes of the law is constitutional.—The
of the Comelec, LINO M. PATAJO and CESAR MIRAFLOR, as discrimination under Sec. 5 against delegates to the Constitutional
members thereof, respondents. Convention is likewise constitutional; for it is based on a substantial
distinction which makes for real differences, is germane to the purposes of
No. L-32443. September 11, 1970. the law, and applies to all members of the same class.
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF R.A. NO. 6132, FERNANDO,J., concurring and dissenting:
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION ACT OF 1970, RAUL M. GONZALES, Constitutional Law; Statutes; Constitutional Convention Law;Freedom
petitioner, vs. COMELEC,respondent. to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not
be abridged.—The right of an individual to join others of a like persuasion to
Constitutional Law; Statutes; Constitutional Convention Law; Due pursue common objectives and to engage in activities is embraced within if
Process of Law; Equal Protection of the Law; Sec. 4 not actually encouraged by the regime of liberty ordained by the
29 Constitution. This particular freedom has an indigenous case, its origin being
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 29 traceable to the Malolos Constitution.
Same; Same; Same; Prohibition in the challenged provision is an
Imbong vs. Ferrer invasion of vital constitutional safeguards to freedom Imbong vs. Ferrer
of R.A. 6132 not denial of due process and equal protection clause.— 30
Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6132 is merely an application of and in consonance with
the prohibition in Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and that it does not 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
constitute a denial of due process or of the equal protection of the law. Imbong vs. Ferrer
Same; Same; Same; Competence of Congress acting as Constituent of belief, expression and association.—The challenged provision in
Assembly.—While the authority to call a constitutional convention is vested these two petitions, however, goes much farther. Political parties or any other
by the present Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a organization or organized group are precluded from selecting and supporting
Constituent Assembly, the power to enact the implementing details, which candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. This is to enter a
are now contained in Resolution Nos. 2 and 4 as well as in R.A. No. 6132, forbidden domain, Congress trespassing on a field hitherto rightfully
does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. assumed to be within the sphere of liberty. Thus, it may not be concluded that
Such implementing details are matters within the competence of Congress in the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Gonzales vs. Commission on
the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which power Elections which already was indicative of the cautious and hesitant judicial
encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn approach to lending its approval to what otherwise are invasions of vital
or removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action. And as constitutional safeguards to freedoms of belief, of expression, and of
long as such statutory details do not clash with any specific provision of the association lends support to the decision reached by the majority insofar as
Constitution, they are valid. this challenged provision is concerned.
Same; Same; Same; Apportionment of Delegates; Discretion of
Congress as Constituent Assembly to apportion delegates.—Unlike in the BARREDO, J., concurring and dissenting:
apportionment of representative districts, the Constitution does not expressly
or impliedly require such apportionment of delegates to the convention on Constitutional Law; Statutes; Constitutional Convention Law;Right to
the basis of population in each congressional district. Congress, sitting as a farm association for purpose not contrary to law, inviolable.—With respect
to Section 8(a), it was held that the considerations which make the restraint Tolentino, Senator Jovito Salonga, and Senator Emmanuel Pelaez
on the freedoms of association, assembly and speech involved in the ban on argued orally.
political parties to nominate and support their own candidates, reasonable It will be recalled that on March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a
and within the limits of the Constitution do not obtain when it comes to civic Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, passed
or non-political organizations. The said ban, insofar as civic or non-political Resolution No. 2 which among others called for a Constitutional
organizations are concerned, is a deceptive device to preserve the built-in
Convention to propose constitutional amendments to be composed of
advantages of political parties while at the same time crippling completely
the other kinds of associations. two delegates from each representative district who shall have the
Same; Same; Same; Right of suffrage is meaningless when the right to same qualifications as those of Congressmen, to be elected on the
campaign is curtailed.—The right of suffrage which is the cornerstone of any second Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised
democracy is meaningless when the right to campaign in any election therein Election Code.
is unreasonable and unnecessarily curtailed, restrained or hampered, as is After the adoption of said Res. No. 2 in 1967 but before the
being done under the statute in dispute. November elections of that year, Congress, acting as a legislative
body, unacted Republic Act No. 4914 implementing the aforesaid
ORIGINAL PETITIONS in the Supreme Court. Declaratory relief. Resolution No. 2 and practically restating in toto the provisions of said
Resolution No. 2.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting as a Constituent Assembly,
     Manuel B. Imbong in his own behalf. passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid Resolution No. 2 of
     Raul M. Gonzales in his own behalf. March 16, 1967 by providing that the convention “shall be composed
     Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting Assistant Solicitor of 320 delegates apportioned among the existing representative
General Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr., and Solicitors Raul I. districts according to the number of their respective
Goco,  Bernardo P. Pardo, Rosalio A. de Leon, Vicente A. inhabitants: Provided, That a representative district shall be entitled to
Torres and Guillermo C. Nakar for respondents. at least two delegates, who shall have the same qualifications as those
     Lorenzo Tañada,  Arturo Tolentino, Jovito required of members of the House of Representatives,"  “and that any
1

Salongaand Emmanuel Pelaez as amici curiae. other details relating to the specific apportionment of delegates,
31
election of delegates to, and the holding of, the
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 31 _______________
Imbong vs. Ferrer
1
 Sec. 1 of Res. No. 4.
MAKASIAR, J.: 32
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
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 vs. Ferrer
Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing
and interested in running as candidates for delegates to the legislation: Provided, that it shall not be inconsistent with the
Constitutional Convention. Both impugn the constitutionality of R.A. provisions of this Resolution." 2

No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted
rights as such candidates. After the Solicitor General had filed answers Republic Act No. 6132, implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and
in behalf the respondents, hearings were held at which the petitioners expressly repealing R.A. No. 4914. 3

and the amici curiae, namely Senator Lorenzo Tañada, Senator Arturo
 Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law as 2. The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly of such plenary
well as the particular provisions embodied in Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. authority to call a constitutional convention includes, by virtue of the
1 of 8(a). Petitioner Manuel B. Imbong impugns the constitutionality doctrine of necessary implication, all other powers essential to the
of only par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. No. 6132 practically on the effective exercise of the principal power granted, such as the power to
same grounds advanced by petitioner Gonzales. fix the qualifications, number, apportionment, and compensation of the
I delegates as well as appropriation of funds to meet the expenses for the
The validity of Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6132, which considers all public election of delegates and for the operation of the Constitutional
officers and employees, whether elective or appointive, including Convention itself, as well as all other implementing details
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as well as officers indispensable to a fruitful convention. Resolutions Nos. 2 and
and employees of corporations or enterprises of the government, as 4 already embody the above-mentioned details, except the
resigned from the date of the filing of their certificates of candidacy, appropriation of funds.
was recently sustained by this Court, on the grounds, inter alia, that the 3. While the authority to call a constitutional convention is vested
same is merely an application of and in consonance with the by the present Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting
prohibition in Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and that it does not as a Constituent Assembly, the power to enact the implementing
constitute a denial of due process or of the equal protection of the law. details, which are now contained in Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 as well
Likewise, the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. as in R.A. No. 6132, does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as
6132 was upheld. 4 a Constituent Assembly. Such implementing details are matters within
II the competence of Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive
Without first considering the validity of its specific provisions, we legislative power, which power encompasses all matters not expressly
sustain the constitutionality of the enactment of R.A. No. 6132 by or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution
Congress acting as a legislative body in the exercise of its broad from the ambit of legislative action. And as long as such statutory
lawmaking authority, and not as a Constituent Assembly, because— details do not clash with any specific provision of the Constitution,
_______________ they are valid.
4. Consequently, when Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly,
2
 Sec. 3, Res. No. 4.
3
 Sec. 22, R.A. No. 6132.
omits to provide for such implementing details after calling a
4
 Abelardo Subido vs. Comelec, in re validity of Sec. 4 and Sec. 8(a) par. 2, R.A. constitutional convention, Congress, acting as a legislative body, can
6132, G.R. No. L-32436, and In the matter of the petition for declaratory relief re validity enact the necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps, which
and constitutionality of Sec. 4, R.A. 6132, Hon. Guardson Lood, Judge, CFI, Pasig, Rizal, authority is expressly recognized in Sec. 8 of Res. No. 2 as amended
et al., petitioners, G.R. No. L-32439, Sept. 9, 1970.
by Res. No. 4.
33 5. The fact that a bill providing for such implementing details may
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 33 be vetoed bv the President is no argument against conceding such
Imbong vs. Ferrer power in Congress as a legislative body nor present any difficulty; for
1. Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. it is not irremediable as Congress can override the Presidential veto or
XV of the Constitution, has full and plenary authority to propose Congress can reconvene as a Constituent Assembly and adopt a
Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for the purpose, by resolution prescribing the required implementing details.
a three-fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but III
voting separately. Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a constitutional Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales asserts that Sec. 2 on the
convention were passed by the required three-fourths vote. 34
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 Imbong vs. Ferrer that Congress adopted the formula to effect a reasonable
apportionment of delegates is not in accordance with proportional apportionment of delegates. The Director of the Bureau of Census and
representation and therefore violates the Constitution and the intent of Statistics himself, in a letter to Senator Pelaez dated July 30, 1970,
the law itself, without pinpointing any specific provision of the stated that “on the basis of the preliminary count of the population, we
Constitution with which it collides. have computed the distribution of delegates to the Constitutional
Unlike in the apportionment of representative districts, the Convention based on Senate Bill 77 (p. 2 lines 5 to 32 and p. 3 line
Constitution does not expressly or impliedly require such 12), which is a fair and an equitable method of distributing the
apportionment of delegates to the convention on the basis of delegates pursuant to the provisions of the joint Resolution of both
population in each congressional district. Congress, sitting as a Houses No. 2, as amended. Upon your request at the session of the
Constituent Assembly, may constitutionally allocate one delegate for Senate-House Conference Committee meeting last night, we are
each congressional district or for each province, for reasons of submitting herewith the results of the computation on the basis of the
economy and to avoid having an unwieldy convention. If the framers above-stated method.”
of the present Constitution wanted the apportionment of delegates to Even if such latest census were a preliminary census, the same
the convention to be based on the number of inhabitants in each could still be a valid basis for such apportionment.  The fact that the
6

representative district, they would have done so in so many words as lone and small congressional district of Batanes, may be over-
they did in relation to the apportionment of the representative districts.
5 represented, because it is allotted two delegates by R.A. No. 6132
The apportionment provided for in Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 6132 cannot despite the fact that it has a population very much less than several
possibly conflict with its own intent expressed therein; for it merely other congressional districts, each of which is also allotted only two
obeyed and implemented the intent of Congress acting as a Constituent delegates, and therefore under-represented vis-a-vis Batanes alone,
Assembly expressed in Sec. 1 of Res. No. 4, which provides that the does not vitiate the apportionment as not effecting proportional
820 delegates should be apportioned among the existing representative representation. Absolute proportional apportionment is not required
districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants, but and is not possible when based on the number of inhabitants, for the
fixing a minimum of at least two delegates for a representative district. population census cannot be accurate nor complete, dependent as it is
The presumption is that the factual predicate, the latest available on the diligence of the census takers, aggravated by the constant
official population census, for such apportionment was presented to movement of population, as well as daily death and birth. It is enough
Congress, which, accordingly employed a formula for the necessary that the basis employed is reasonable and the resulting apportionment
computation to effect the desired proportional representation. is substantially proportional. Resolution No. 4 fixed a minimum of two
The records of the proceedings on Senate Bill No. 77 sponsored by delegates for a congressional district.
Senator Pelaez which is now R.A. No. 6132, submitted to this Tribunal While there may be other formulas for a reasonable apportionment,
by the amici curiae, show that it based its apportionment of the considering the evidence submitted to Congress by the Bureau of
delegates on the 1970 official preliminary population census taken by Census and Statistics, we are not prepared to rule that the computation
the Bureau of Census and Statistics from May 6 to June 30, 1970; and formula adopted by Congress for proportional representation as
_______________ directed in Res.
_______________
5
 Sec. 5, Art. VI, Constitution.
6
 Macias, et al. vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-18684, Sept. 14, 1961.
35
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 35 36
Imbong vs. Ferrer 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 Imbong vs. Ferrer do not fall under any constitutional or statutory inhibition can be
No. 4 is unreasonable and that the apportionment provided in R.A. No. validly elected or appointed to a public office. The obvious reason for
6132 does not constitute a substantially proportional representation. the questioned inhibition, is to immunize the delegates from the
In the Macias case, relied on by petitioner Gonzales, the perverting influence of self-interest, party interest or vested interest
apportionment law, which was nullified as unconstitutional, granted and to insure that he dedicates all his time to performing solely in the
more representatives to a province with less population than the interest of the nation his high and well-nigh sacred function of
provinces with more inhabitants. Such is not the case here, where formulating the supreme law of the land, which may endure for
under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 6132 Batanes is allotted only two delegates, generations and which cannot easily be changed like an ordinary
which number is equal to the number of delegates accorded other statute. With the disqualification embodied in Sec. 5, the delegate will
provinces with more population. The present petitions therefore do not not utilize his position as a bargaining leverage for concessions in the
present facts which fit the mould of the doctrine in the case of Macias, form of an elective or appointive office as long as the convention has
et al. vs. Comelec, supra. not finally adjourned. The appointing authority may, by his appointing
The impossibility of absolute proportional representation is power, entice votes for his own proposals. Not love for self, but love
recognized by the Constitution itself when it directs that the for country must always motivate his actuations as delegate; otherwise
apportionment of congressional districts among the various provinces the several provisions of the new Constitution may only satisfy
shall be “as nearly as may be according to their respective individual or special interests, subversive of the welfare of the general
inhabitants, but each province shall have at least one member” (Sec. 5, citizenry. It should be stressed that the disqualification is not
Art. VI, Phil. Const., italics supplied). The employment of the phrase permanent but only temporary—only to continue until the final
“as nearly as may be according to their respective inhabitants” adjournment of the convention which may not extend beyond one year.
emphasizes the fact that the human mind can only approximate a The convention that framed the present Constitution finished its task in
reasonable apportionment but cannot effect an absolutely proportional approximately seven months—from July 30, 1934 to February 8, 1935.
representation with mathematical precision or exactitude. As admitted by petitioner Gonzales, this inhibition finds analogy in
IV the constitutional provision prohibiting a member of Congress, during
Sec. 5 of R.A. 6132 is attacked on the ground that it is an undue the time for which he was elected, from being appointed to any civil
deprivation of liberty without due process of law and denies the equal office which may have been created or the emolument whereof shall
protection of the laws. Said Sec. 5 disqualifies any elected delegate have been increased while he was a member of the Congress. (Sec. 16,
from running “for any public office in any election” or from assuming Art. VI, Phil. Constitution.)
“any appointive office or position in any branch of the government As observed by the Solicitor General in his Answer, the overriding
until after the final adjournment of the Constitutional Convention.” objective of the challenged disqualification, temporary in nature, is to
That the citizen does not have any inherent nor natural right to a compel the elected delegates to serve in full their term as such and to
public office, is axiomatic under our constitutional system. The State devote all their time to the convention, pursuant to their representation
through its Constitution or legislative body, can create an office and and com-
38
define the quali-
37 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 37 Imbong vs. Ferrer
Imbong vs. Ferrer mitment to the people; otherwise, his seat in the convention will be
fications and disqualifications therefor as well as impose inhibitions on vacant and his constituents will be deprived of a voice in the
a public officer. Consequently, only those with qualifications and who convention. The inhibition is likewise “designed to prevent popular
political figures from controlling elections or positions. Also it is a
brake on the appointing power, to curtail the latter’s desire to ‘raid’ the equal protection of the laws, freedom of expression, freedom of
convention of ‘talents’ or attempt to control the convention.” (p. 10, assembly and freedom of association.
Answer in L-32443.) This Court ruled last year that the guarantees of due process, equal
Thus the challenged disqualification prescribed in Sec. 5 of R.A. protection of the laws, peaceful assembly, free expression, and the
No. 6132 is a valid limitation on the right to public office pursuant to right of association are neither absolute nor illimitable rights; they are
state police power as it is reasonable and not arbitrary. always subject to the pervasive and dominant police power of the State
The discrimination under Sec. 5 against delegates to the and may be lawfully abridged to serve appropriate and important
Constitutional Convention is likewise constitutional; for it is based on public interests. 8

a substantial distinction which makes for real differences, is germane In said Gonzales vs. Comelec case, the Court applied the clear and
to the purposes of the law, and applies to all members of the same present danger test to determine whether a statute which trenches upon
class.  The function of a delegate is more far-reaching and its effect
7
the aforesaid constitutional guarantees, is a legitimate exercise of
more enduring than that of any ordinary legislator or any other public police power. 9

officer. A delegate shapes the fundamental law of the land which Paragraph 1 of Sec. 8(a), R.A. No. 6132 prohibits:
delineates the essential nature of the government, its basic organization
and powers, defines the liberties of the people, and controls all other 1. 1.any candidate for delegate to the convention
laws. Unlike ordinary statutes, constitutional amendments cannot be
changed in one or two years. No other public officer possesses such a 1. (a)from representing, or
power, not even the members of Congress unless they themselves 2. (b)allowing himself to be represented as being a candidate of
propose constitutional amendments when acting as a Constituent any political party or any other organization; and
Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution. The classification,
therefore, is neither whimsical nor repugnant to the sense of justice of 1. 2.any political party, political group, political committee, civic,
the community. religious, professional or other organizations or organized
As heretofore intimated, the inhibition is relevant to the object of group of whatever nature from
the law, which is to insure that the proposed amendments are
meaningful to the masses of our people and not designed for the 1. (a)intervening in the nomination of any such candidate or in the
enhancement of selfishness, greed, corruption, or injustice. filing of his certificate, or
Lastly, the disqualification applies to all the delegates to the 2. (b)from giving aid or support directly or indirectly, material or
convention who will be elected on the second Tuesday of November, otherwise, favorable to or against his campaign for election.
1970.
_______________ The ban against all political parties or organized groups of whatever
7
 People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56; People vs. Solon, G.R. No. L-14864, Nov. 23, 1960.
nature contained in par. 1 of Sec. 8(a), is confined to party or
organization support or assistance, whether material, moral, emotional
39 or otherwise. The very
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 39 _______________
Imbong vs. Ferrer 8
 See Gonzales vs. Comelec, L-27833, April 18, 1969; Vol. 27, SCRA, p. 835, 858 et
V seq.; Justice Douglas in Elfbrandt v. Russel, 384 U.S. 11, 18–19, 1966.
Paragraph 1, Sec. 8 (a) of R.A. No. 6132 is impugned by both 9
 27 SCRA, pp. 860–861.
petitioners as violative of the constitutional guarantees of due process, 40
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED can do so, but not for such a purpose. We sustain its validity. We do so
Imbong vs. Ferrer unanimously." 10

Sec. 8 (a) in its provisos permits the candidate to utilise in his In said Gonzales vs. Comelec case, this Court likewise held that the
campaign the help of the members of his family within the fourth civil period for the conduct of an election campaign or partisan political
degree of consanguinity or affinity, and a campaign staff composed of activity may be limited without offending the aforementioned
not more than one for every ten precincts in his district. It allows the constitutional guarantees as the same is designed also to prevent a
full exercise of his freedom of expression and his right to peaceful “clear and present danger of a substantive evil, the debasement of the
assembly, because he cannot be denied any permit to hold a public electoral pro-cess." 11

meeting on the pretext that the provision of said section may or will be Even if the partisan activity consists of (a) forming organizations,
violated. The right of a member of any political party or association to associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the
support him or oppose his opponent is preserved as long as such purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or
member acts individually. The very party or organization to which he propaganda for or against a party or candidate; (b) holding political
may belong or which may be in sympathy with his cause or program of conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other
reforms, is guaranteed the right to disseminate information about, or to similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
arouse public interest in, or to advocate for constitutional reforms, undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against any candidate
programs, policies or constitutional proposals for amendments. or party; and (c) giving, soliciting, or receiving contributions for
It is therefore patent that the restriction contained in Sec. 8(a) is so election campaign either directly or indirectly, (Sec. 50-B, pars, [a],
narrow that the basic constitutional rights themselves remain [b], and [c], R.A. 4880), the abridgment was still affirmed as
substantially intact and inviolate. And it is therefore a valid constitutional by six members of this Court, which could not “ignore x
infringement of the aforesaid constitutional guarantees invoked by x x the legislative declaration that its enactment was in response to a
petitioners. serious substantive evil affecting the electoral process, not merely in
In the aforesaid case of Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra,this Court danger of happening, but actually in existence, and likely to continue
unanimously sustained the validity of the limitation on the period for unless curbed or remedied. To assert otherwise would be to close one’s
nomination of candidates in Sec. 50-A of R.A. No. 4880, thus: eyes to the reality of the situation." 12

“The prohibition of too early nomination of candidates presents a question Likewise, because four members dissented, this Court in said case
that is not too formidable in character. According to the act: ‘It shall be of Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra, failed to muster the required eight
unlawful for any political party, political committee, or political group to votes to declare as unconstitutional the limitation on the period for (a)
nominate candidates for any elective public office voted for at large earlier
making speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding
than one hundred and fifty days immediately preceding an election, and for
any other elective public office earlier than ninety days immediately interviews for or against the election of any party or candidate for
preceding an election. public office; (b) publishing or distributing campaign literature or
“The right of association is affected. Political parties have less freedom as materials; and (c) directly or indirectly soliciting votes and/or
to the time during which they may nominate candidates; the curtailment is undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or
not such, however, as to render meaningless such a basic right. Their scope _______________
of legitimate activities, save this one, is not unduly narrowed. Neither is there 10
 27 SCRA, p. 865.
infringement of their freedom to assemble. They 11
 27 SCRA, p. 869.
41
12
 27 SCRA, pp. 864–865, 868.
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 41 42
Imbong vs. Ferrer 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 Imbong vs. Ferrer VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 43
against any candidate or party specified in Sec. 50-B, pars. (c), (d) & Imbong vs. Ferrer
(e) of R.A, 4880. 13
Senator Tolentino and Senator Salonga emphasized that under this
The debasement of the electoral process as a substantive evil exists provision, the poor candidate has an even chance as against the rich
today and is one of the major compelling interests that moved candidate. We are not prepared to disagree with them, because such a
Congress into prescribing the total ban contained in par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) conclusion, predicated as it is on empirical logic, finds support in our
of R.A. No. 6132, to justify such ban. In the said Gonzales vs. recent political history and experience. Both Senators stressed that the
Comelec case, this Court gave “due recognition to the legislative independent candidate who wins in the election against a candidate of
concern to cleanse, and if possible, render spotless, the electoral the major political parties, is a rare phenomenon in this country and the
process,"  impressed as it was by the explanation made by the author
14
victory of an independent candidate mainly rests on his ability to
of R.A. No. 4880, Sen. Lorenzo Tañada, who appeared as amicus match the resources, financial and otherwise, of the political parties or
curiae, “that such provisions were deemed by the legislative body to be organizations supporting his opponent. This position is further
part and parcel of the necessary and appropriate response not merely to strengthened by the principle that the guarantee of social justice under
a clear and present danger but to the actual existence of a grave and Sec. V, Art. II of the Constitution, includes the guarantee of equal
substantive evil of excessive partisanship, dishonesty and corruption as opportunity, equality of political rights, and equality before the law
well as violence that of late has marred, election campaigns and enunciated by Mr. Justice Tuazon in the case Guido vs. Rural Progress
partisan political activities in this country. He did invite our attention Administration. 17

likewise to the well-settled doctrine that in the choice of remedies for While it may be true that a party’s support of a candidate is not
an admitted malady requiring governmental action, on the legislature wrong per se, it is equally true that Congress in the exercise of its
primarily rests the responsibility. Nor should the cure prescribed by it, broad law-making authority can declare certain acts as mala prohibita
unless clearly repugnant to fundamental rights, be ignored or when justified by the exigencies of the times. One such act is the party
disregarded." 15
or organization support proscribed in Sec. 8(a), which ban is a valid
But aside from the clear and imminent danger of the debasement of limitation on the freedom of association as well as expression, for the
the electoral process, as conceded by Senator Pelaez, the basic reasons aforestated.
motivation, according to Senate Majority Floor Leader Senator Arturo Senator Tolentino emphasized that “equality of chances may be
Tolentino, the sponsor of the Puyat-Tolentino amendment embodied in better attained by banning all organization support." 18

par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132, is to assure the candidates equal The questioned par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) likewise can easily pass the
protection of the laws bv according them equality of chances.  The 16
balancing-of-interest test. 19

primary purpose of the prohibition then is also to avert the clear and In the apt words of the Solicitor General:
present danger of another substantive evil, the denial of the equal “It is to be noted that right now the nation is on the threshold of rewriting its
protection of the laws. The candidates must depend on their individual Constitution in a hopeful endeavor to
merits and not on the support of political parties or organizations. _______________
_______________ 17
 84 Phil. 847, 852.
18
 See his sponsorship speech on July 20, 1970.
13
 27 SCRA, pp. 869–870. 19
 See Justice Castro’s separate opinion in Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra, 27 SCRA, pp.
14
 27 SCRA, p. 878. 898–899 citing American Communications Association vs. Douds, 339 U.S. 383, 94 L. Ed.,
15
 27 SCRA, p. 872. 925, 9437.
16
 See his sponsorship speech of July 20, 1970.
44
43
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 Imbong vs. Ferrer VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 45
find a solution to the grave economic, social and political problems besetting Imbong vs. Ferrer
the country. Instead of directly proposing the amendments, Congress has individual candidates and thereby make real the guarantee of equal
chosen to call a Constitutional Convention which shall have the task of protection of the laws.
fashioning a document that shall embody the aspirations and ideals of the The political parties and the other organized groups have built-in
people. Because what is to be amended is the fundamental law of the land, it
advantages because of their machinery and other facilities, which, the
is indispensable that the Constitutional Convention be composed of delegates
truly representative of the people’s will. Public welfare demands that the individual candidate who is without any organization support, does not
delegates should speak for the entire nation, and their voices be not those of a have. The fact that the other civic or religious organizations cannot
particular segment of the citizenry, or of a particular class or group of people, have a campaign machinery as efficient as that of a political party,
be they religious, political, civic or professional in character. Senator Pelaez, does not vary the situation; because it still has that much built-in
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Codes and Constitutional advantage as against the individual candidate without similar support.
Amendments, eloquently stated that ‘the function of a constitution is not to Moreover, these civic, religious and professional organization may
represent any one interest or set of interests, not to favor one group at the band together to support common candidates, who advocate the
expense or disadvantage of the candidates—but to encompass all the interests reforms that these organizations champion and believe are imperative.
that exist within our society and to blend them into one harmonious and This is admitted by petitioner Gonzales thru the letter of Senator
balanced whole. For the constitutional system means, not the predominance Ganzon dated August 17, 1970 attached to his petition as Annex “D,"
of interests, but the harmonious balancing thereof.’
wherein the Senator stated that his own “Timawa” group had agreed
“So that the purpose for calling the Constitutional Convention will not be
defeated or frustrated, it is necessary that the delegates thereto be with the Liberal Party in Iloilo to support petitioner Gonzales and two
independent, beholden to no one but to God, country and conscience.” others as their candidates for the convention, which organized support
XXX      XXX      XXX      XXX is nullified by the questioned ban. Senator Ganzon stressed that
“The evil, therefore, which the law seeks to prevent lies in the election of “without the group moving and working in joint collective effort” they
delegates who, because they have been chosen with the aid and resources of cannot “exercise effective control and supervision over our leaders—
organizations, cannot be expected to be sufficiently representative of the the Women’s League, the area commanders, etc.”; but with their
people. Such delegates could very well be the spokesmen of narrow political, joining with the LP’s they “could have presented a solid front with
religious or economic interest and not of the great majority of the people." 20
very bright chances of capturing all seats.”
We likewise concur with the Solicitor General that the equal protection The civic associations other than political parties cannot with
of the laws is not unduly subverted in par. 1 of Sec. 8(a); because it reason insist that they should be exempted from the ban; because then
does not create any hostile discrimination against any party or group by such exemption they would be free to utilize the facilities of the
nor does it confer undue favor or privilege on an individual as campaign machineries which they are denying to the political parties.
heretofore stated. The discrimination applies to all organizations, Whenever an organization engages in a political activity, as in this
whether political parties or social, civic, religious, or professional campaign for election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, to
associations. The ban is germane to the objectives of the law, which that extent it partakes of the nature of a political organization. This,
are to avert the debasement of the electoral process and to attain real despite the fact that the Constitution and bylaws of such civic,
equality of chances among religious or professional associations usually prohibit the association
_______________ from engaging in partisan political activity or supporting any candidate
for an elective office. Hence, they must likewise respect the ban.
20
 Pp. 4–5, 12, Answer in L-32432. 46
45 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 Imbong vs. Ferrer CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
The freedom of association also implies the liberty not to associate or
join with others or join any existing organization. A person may run FERNANDO, J., concurring and dissenting:
independently on his own merits without need of catering to a political
party or any other association for support. And he, as much as the The opinion of Justice Makasiar speaking for the Court,
candidate whose candidacy does not evoke sympathy from any comprehensive in scope, persuasive in character and lucid in
political party or organized group, must be afforded equal chances. As expression, has much to recommend it. On the whole, I concur. I find
emphasized by Senators Tolentino and Salonga, this ban is to assure difficulty, however, in accepting the conclusion that there is no basis
equal chances to a candidate with talent and imbued with patriotism as for the challenge hurled against the validity of this provision: “No
well as nobility of purpose, so that the country can utilize their services candidate for delegate to the Convention shall represent or allow
if elected. himself to be represented as being a candidate of any political party or
Impressed as We are by the eloquent and masterly exposition of any other organization, and no political party, political group, political
Senator Tañada for the invalidation of par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. committee, civic, religious, professional, or other organization or
6132, demonstrating once again his deep concern for the preservation organized group of whatever nature shall intervene in the nomination
off our civil liberties enshrined m the Bill of Rights, We are not of any such candidate or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or
persuaded to entertain the belief that the challenged ban transcends the give aid or support directly or indirectly, material or otherwise,
limits of constitutional invasion of such cherished immunities. favorable to or against his campaign for election; * * *."  It is with 1

WHEREFORE, the prayers in both petitions are hereby denied and regret then that I dissent from that portion of the decision.
R.A. No. 6132 including Secs. 2, 4, 5, and 8(a), paragraph 1, thereof, 1. I find it difficult to reconcile the decision reached insofar as the
cannot be declared unconstitutional. Without costs. aforesaid ban on political parties and civic, professional and other
     Reyes,  J.B.L., and Castro, JJ., concur. organizations is concerned with the explicit provision that the freedom
     Concepcion, C.J., concurred with Mr. Justice Fernando as to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall
certified by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes. not be abridged.  The right of an individual to join others of a like
2

     Dizon, J., voted in favor of the opinion of Mr. Justice persuasion to pursue common objectives and to engage in activities is
Makasiar as certified by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes. embraced within if not actually encouraged by the regime of liberty
     Makalintal, J., concurs in the result. ordained by the Constitution. This
_______________
     Zaldivar, J., concurs with the separate opinion of Mr. Justice
Fernando in so far as it relates to Sec. 8(a), par. 1 of Republic Act  Sec. 8(a), Republic Act No. 6132 (1970).
1

6132 and reserves his vote in so far as other questions raised in the two  The Constitution provides: “The right to form associations or societies for purposes
2

cases are concerned. not contrary to law shall not be abridged.” Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 6.
     Fernando, J., concurs and dissents in a separate opinion. 48
47 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 47 Imbong vs. Ferrer
Imbong vs. Ferrer particular freedom has an indigenous cast, its origin being traceable to
     Barredo, J., dissents in a separate opinion. the Malolos Constitution.
     Villamor, J., concurs with the separate opinion of Mr. Justice In the United States, in the absence of an explicit provision of such
Fernando. character, it is the view of Justice Douglas, in a 1963 article, that it is
     Teehankee, J., is on official leave. primarily the First Amendment of her Constitution, which safeguards
freedom of speech and of the press, of assembly and of petition ''that political party or any other organization as well as of such political
provides [associations] with the protection they need if they are to party, political group, political committee, civic, religious, professional
remain viable and continue to contribute to our Free Society."  Such is 3
or other organization or organized group intervening in his
indeed the case, for five years earlier the American Supreme Court had nomination, in the filing of his certificate of candidacy, or giving aid
already declared: “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in or support, directly or indirectly, material or otherwise, favorable to or
association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable against his campaign for election as such delegate. I find the
aspect of the ‘liberty’ [embraced in] freedom of speech." 4
conclusion inescapable, therefore, that what the constitutional
Not long after, in 1965, Justice Douglas as spokesman for the provisions in question allow more specifically the right to form
American Supreme Court could elaborate further on the scope of the associations, is prohibited. The infirmity of this ban is thus apparent on
right of association as including “the right to express one’s attitudes or its face.
philosophies by membership in a group or by affiliation with it or by There is, to my mind, another avenue of approach that leads to the
other lawful means, Association in that context is a form of expression same conclusion. The final proviso in the same section of the Act
of opinion; and while it is not expressly included in the First forbids any construction that would in any wise “impair or abridge the
Amendment its existence is necessary in making the express freedom of civic, political, religious, professional, trade organizations
guarantees fully meaningful."  Thus is further vitalized freedom of
5
or organized groups of whatever nature to disseminate information
expression which, for Justice Laurel, is at once the instrument “and the about, or arouse public interest in, the forthcoming Constitutional
guarantee and the bright con- Convention, or to advocate constitutional reforms, programs, policies
_______________ or proposals for amendment of the present Constitution, and no
prohibition contained herein shall limit or curtail the right of their
3
 Douglas, The Right of Association, 63 Col. Law Rev. 1363 (1963).
4
 NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 US 449, 460 (1958) per Harlan, J. Cf. members, as long as they act individually, to support or oppose any
Bates v. Little Rock, 361 US 516 (1960); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 US candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention." It is 8

479 (1960) ; Louisiana ex rel. Gremillon v. NAACP, 366 US 293(1961) ; Communist regrettable that such an explicit recognition of what cannot be
Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 US 1 (1961); Scales v. United forbidden consistently with the constitutional guarantees of freedom
States, 367 US 203 (1961); NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415 (1963) ; Gibson v. Florida
_______________
Legislative Investigation Comra., 372 US 539 (1963) ; Brotherhood v. Virginia ex
rel State Bar. 377 US 1(1964); NAACP v. Alabama, 377 US 288 (1964). 6
 Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62 (1939), Justice Laurel quoting Wendell Philipps.
5
 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 483 (1965). In Elfbrandt v. Russel, 384 US 7
 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 323 (1937).
11, 18 (1966) he spoke of this right as a “cherished freedom.” Cf. Keyishan v. Board of 8
 Section 8(a), Republic Act No. 6132 (1970).
Regents, 385 US 589 (1967).
50
49
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 49 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Imbong vs. Ferrer Imbong vs. Ferrer
summate flower of all liberty"  and, for Justice Cardozo, “the matrix,
6
of expression and freedom of association falls short of according full
the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." 7
respect to what is thus commanded by the fundamental law, as they are
2. It is in the light of the above fundamental postulates that I find precluded by the very same Act from giving aid or support precisely to
merit in the plea of petitioners to annul the challenged provision. There the very individuals who can carry out whatever constitutional
is much to be said for the point emphatically stressed by Senator reforms, programs, policies or proposals for amendment they might
Lorenzo M. Tañada, as amicus curiae, to the effect that there is advocate. As thus viewed, the conviction I entertain as to its lack of
nothing unlawful in a candidate for delegate to the Convention validity is further strengthened and fortified.
representing or allowing himself to be represented as such of any
 3. It would be a different matter, of course, if there is a clear and play its dominant role in the political life of the nation. The thought is
present danger of a substantive evil that would justify a limitation on entertained that otherwise, we will not have a Convention truly
such cherished freedoms. Reference has been made to Gonzales v. responsive to the needs of the hour and of the future insofar as they
Commission on Elections.  As repression is permissible only when the
9
may be anticipated.
danger of substantive evil is present is explained by Justice Brandeis To my mind, this is to lose sight of the fact that in the national
thus: the evil apprehended is to imminent that it may befall before elections of 1946, 1953, 1961 and 1965, the presidency was won by
there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose the opposition candidate. Moreover, in national elections for senators
through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the alone, that of 1951, to mention only one instance, saw a complete
processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not sweep of the field by the then minority party. It would be unjustifiable,
enforced silence.’ For him the apprehended evil must be ‘relatively so I am led to believe, to assume that inevitably the prevailing
serious.’ For '[prohibition] of free speech and assembly is a measure so dominant political party would continue its ascendancy in the coming
stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a Convention.
relatively trivial harm to society.’ Justice Black would go further. He Then, too, the result of the plebiscite in the two proposed
would require that the substantive evil be ‘extremely serious.’ Only amendments in 1967 indicate unmistakably that the people can, if so
thus may there be a realization of the ideal envisioned by Cardozo: minded, make their wishes prevail. There is thus no assurance that the
‘There shall be no compromise of the freedom to think one’s thoughts mere identification with party labels would automatically insure the
and speak them, except at those extreme borders where thought merges success of a candidacy. Even if it be assumed that to guard against the
into action.’ It received its original formulation from Holmes. Thus: evils of party spirit carried to excess, such a ban is called for, still no
‘The question in every case is whether the words used in such such danger is presented by allowing civil, professional or any other
circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and present organization or organized group of whatever nature to field its own
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress candidates or give aid or support, directly or indirectly material or
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.'"  The
10
otherwise, to anyone running for the Convention. From such a source,
majority of the Court would find the existence of a clear and present no such misgivings or apprehension need arise. Nor is the fear that
danger of debasing the electoral process. With due respect, I find organizations could hastily be assembled or put up to camouflage their
myself unable to share such a view. true colors as satellites of the political parties be valid. The electorate
_______________ can see through such schemes and can emphatically register its
reaction. There is, moreover, the further safeguard that whatever work
9
 L-27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835.
10
 Ibid., pp. 859–860. the Convention may propose is ultimately subject to popular
ratification.
51 52
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 51 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Imbong vs. Ferrer Imbong vs. Ferrer
The assumption would appear to be that there is a clear and present For me then the danger of a substantive evil is neither clear nor
danger of a grave substantive evil of partisanship running not unless present. What causes me grave concern is that to guard against such
political parties are thus restrained. There would be a sacrifice then of undesirable eventuality, which may not even come to pass, a flagrant
the national interest involved. The Convention might not be able to disregard of what the Constitution ordains is minimized. A desirable
live up to the high hopes entertained for an improvement of the end cannot be coerced by unconstitutional means.
fundamental law. It would appear though that what prompted such a 4. It is not easy to yield assent to the proposition that on a matter so
ban is to assure that the present majority party would not continue to essentially political as the amendment or revision of an existing
Constitution, political parties or political groups are to be denied the as amicus curiae, that the political leaders of stature, in their individual
opportunity of launching the candidacy of their choice. Well has it capacity, could continue to assert their influence. It could very well
been said by Chief Justice Hughes: “The greater the importance of happen, then, in not a few cases, assuming the strength of political
safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our parties, that a candidate thus favored is sure of emerging the victor.
institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to What is thus sought to be accomplished to guard against the evil of
preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press party spirit prevailing could very well be doomed to futility. The high
and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political hopes entertained by the articulate and vocal groups of young people,
discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of intellectuals and workers, may not be realized. The result would be
the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful that this unorthodox and novel provision could assume the character of
means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of a tease, an illusion like a munificent be-quest in a pauper’s will.
constitutional government."  It is to carry this essential process one
11
If such an appraisal is not unjustifiably tinged with pessimism,
step farther to recognize and to implement the right of every political then, to my mind, a radical approach to a problem possibly tainted
party or group to select the candidates who, by their election, could with constitutional infirmity cannot hurdle the judicial test as to its
translate into actuality their hopes for the fundamental law that the validity. It is one thing to encourage a fresh and untried solution to a
times demand. Moreover, is it not in keeping with the rights to problem of gravity when the probability of its success may be
intellectual freedom so sedulously safeguarded by the Constitution to assumed. It is an entirely different matter to cut down the exercise of
remove all obstacles to organized civic groups making their influence what otherwise are undeniable constitutional rights when, as in this
felt in the task of constitution framing, the result of which has case, the outcome might belie expectations. Considering the well-
momentuous implications for the nation? What is decisive of this settled principle that even though the governmental process be
aspect of the matter is not the character of the association or organized legitimate and substantial, they cannot be pursued by means that
group as such but the essentially political activity thus carried out. broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties, if the end can be
This is not to deny the wide latitude as to the choice of means narrowly achieved, I am far from being persuaded that to preclude
vested in Congress to attain a desirable goal. Nor can it be successfully political parties or other groups or associations from lending aid and
argued that the judiciary should display reluctance in extending support to the candidates of men in whom they can repose their trust is
sympathy and understanding to such legislative determination. This is consistent with the constitutional rights of freedom of association and
merely to stress freedom of expression. Here, the danger of overbreadth, so clear and
_______________ manifest as
54
11
 De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 US 353, 365 (1937).
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
53 Imbong vs. Ferrer
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 53 to be offensive to constitutional standards, magnified by the
Imbong vs. Ferrer probability that the result would be the failure and not success of the
must still be paid deference. Moreover, it may not be altogether statutory scheme, cautions against the affixing of the imprimatur of
unrealistic to consider the practical effects of the ban as thus worded as judicial approval to the challenged provision.
not lacking in effectivity insofar as civic, religious, professional or 5. Necessarily then, from this mode of viewing the matter, it would
other organization or organized group is concerned, but not necessarily follow that the holding of this Court in Gonzales v. Comelec  does not
12

so in the case of political party, political group or political committee. compel the conclusion reached by the majority sustaining the validity
There is the commendable admission by Senator Tolentino, appearing of this challenged provision. What survived the test of constitutional
validity in that case, with the Court unanimous in its opinion, is the
prohibition for any political party, political committee or political by this Court as not violative of the constitutional freedoms of speech,
group to nominate candidates for any elective public office voted for at of press, of assembly and of association.
large earlier than 150 days immediately preceding election and for any The challenged provision in these two petitions, however, goes
other public office earlier than 90 days immediately preceding such much farther. Political parties or any other organization or organized
election.  A corollary to the above limitation, the provision making it
13
group are precluded from selecting and supporting candidates for
unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any delegates to the Constitutional Convention. To my mind, this is to
group or association of persons, whether or not a political party or enter a forbidden domain, Congress trespassing on a field hitherto
political committee, to engage in an election campaign or partisan rightfully assumed to be within the sphere of liberty. Thus, I am unable
political activity except during the above periods successfully hurdled to conclude that our previous decision in Gonzales v. Commission on
the constitutional test, although the restrictions as to the making of Elections which already was indicative of the cautious and hesitant
speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding interviews for or judicial approach to lending its approval to what otherwise are
against the election of any party or candidate for public office or the invasions of vital constitutional safeguards to freedoms of belief, of
publishing or distributing of campaign literature or materials or the expression, and of association lends support to the decision reached by
solicitation or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against the majority insofar as this challenged provision is concerned.
any candidate or party, directly or indirectly, survived by the narrow Hence my inability to subscribe in its entirety to the opinion of the
margin of one vote, four members of this Court unable to discern any Court. I am authorized to state that the Chief Justice is in agreement
constitutional infirmity as against the free speech guarantee, thus with the views herein expressed.
resulting in failing to muster the necessary two-thirds majority for a
declaration of invalidity. Insofar as election campaign or partisan BARREDO, J.,: concurring and dissenting:
political activity would limit or restrict the formation of organizations,
associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the Without prejudice to a more extended opinion, I vote, in concurrence
purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking any campaign or propaganda with the majority, to sustain the validity of the provisions of Republic
for or against a party or Act 6132 impugned by petitioners in these cases, except Section 4 and
_______________ the portion of Section 8 (a) referring to political parties. As regards
Section 4, I reiterate my separate opinion in the cases of Subido and
12
 L-27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835. others. (G.R. Nos. L-32436 and L-32439) With respect to Section 8(a),
13
 Sec. 50(a) of Republic Act 4880 (1967).
I hold that the considerations which
55 56
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 55 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Imbong vs. Ferrer Imbong vs. Ferrer
candidate or the giving, soliciting, or receiving a contribution for and speech involved in the ban on political parties to nominate and
election campaign purposes, either directly or indirectly as well as the support their own candidates, reasonable and within the limits of the
holding of political conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, Constitution do not obtain when it comes to civic or non-political
rallies, parades or other similar assemblies, with a similar end in view, organizations. As I see it, the said ban, insofar as civic or non-political
only five members of this Court, a minority thereof voted for their organizations are concerned, is a deceptive device to preserve the
unconstitutionally. What emerges clearly, then, is that definite acts built-in advantages of political parties while at the same time crippling
short of preventing the political parties from the choice of their completely the other kinds of associations. The only way to
candidates and thereafter working for them in effect were considered accomplish the purported objective of the law of equalizing the forces
that will campaign on behalf of the candidates to the constitutional
convention is to maintain said ban only as against political parties, for Consistently with my separate opinion in the case of Gonzales and
after all, only the activities and manners of operation of these parties Cabigao vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969 and for the
and/or some of their members have made necessary the imposition reasons therein stated. I maintain that the right of suffrage which is the
thereof. Under the resulting set up embodied in the provision in cornerstone of any democracy like ours is meaningless when the right
question, the individual candidates who have never had any political to campaign in any election therein is unreasonably and unnecessarily
party connections or very little of it would be at an obvious curtailed, restrained or hampered, as is being done under the statute in
disadvantage unless they are allowed to seek and use the aid of civic dispute.
organizations. Neither the elaborate provisions of Republic Act 6132 It is, of course, understood that this opinion is based on my
regarding methods of campaign nor its other provisions intended to considered view, contrary to that of the majority, that as Section 8(a)
minimize the participation of political parties in the electoral processes stands and taking into account its genesis, the ban against political
of voting, counting of the votes and canvassing of the results can parties is separable from that against other associations within the
overcome the advantages of candidates more or less connected with contemplation of Section 21 of the Act which expressly refers to the
political parties, particularly the major and established ones, as long as separability of the application thereof to any “persons, groups or
the right to form other associations and the right of these associations circumstances.”
to campaign for their candidates are denied, considering particularly I reserve my right to expand this explanation of my vote in the next
the shortness of the time that is left between now and election day. few days.
The issues involved in the coming elections are grave and Petitions denied.
fundamental ones that are bound to affect the lives, rights and liberties A N N O T A T I O N 
of all the people of this country most effectively, pervasively and DO THE APPORTIONMENT OF DELEGATES TO A
permanently. The only insurance of the people against political parties CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND THE PASSAGE OF
which may be inclined towards the Establishment and the status quo is LEGISLATION GOVERNING THEIR ELEC
to organize themselves to gain much needed strength and effectivity. 58
To deny them this right is to stifle the people’s only opportunity for 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
change. Imbong vs. Ferrer
57
TION REQUIRE CONGRESS TO MEET AS A CONSTITUENT
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 57 BODY?
Imbong vs. Ferrer In view of the foregoing decision, it may be asked whether the
It is axiomatic that issues, no matter how valid, if not related to apportionment of delegates to a constitutional convention and the
particular candidates in an organized way, similarly as in the use of passage of legislation to govern their election are part of the power to
platforms by political parties, cannot have any chance of support and call a convention and, therefore, require Congress to meet as a
final adoption. Both men and issues are important, but unrelated to constituent body in accordance with Article XV of the Constitution.
each other, each of them alone is insignificant, and the only way to May not these acts be considered mere matters of detail within the
relate them is by organization. Precisely because the issues in this contemplation of the foregoing decision which Congress may execute
election of candidates are of paramount importance second to none, it under its general legislative power? The decision, doubtless because of
is imperative that all of the freedoms enshrined in the constitution the time pressure under which it was prepared, fails to throw light on
should have the ampliest recognition for those who are minded to this problem, which had been the subject of controversy both within
actively battle for them and any attempt to curtail them would and outside the halls of Congress. This annotation attempts to provide
endanger the very purposes for which a new constitutional convention an answer.
has been conceived.
 It is settled that except where limitations have been imposed by the O.G. 615). This is specially true when we are dealing with a
Constitution, the power of Congress as a legislative (as distinguished constitution, which is adopted by and primarily addressed to the
from a constituent)organ is unlimited and practically absolute people. As commonly understood, the word “call” means nothing more
(Bayville Village Corporation vs. Boothbay Harbor, 86 Atl. than to summon, to notify, or to convoke, or to proclaim (Bouvier’s
300; Lommen vs. Minneapolis Gas Light Co., 33 LRA 437; Long vs. Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, 646; 6 Words and Phrases,
State, 127 S.W. 208). It covers the whole range of legitimate 15–16; Webster’s International Dictionary). It does not convey to the
legislation (Beach vs. Bradstreet, 82 Atl. 1030; Sharplen vs. mind, especially of the common man, the apportionment of delegates
Philadelphia, 59 Am. Dec. 759), and the rule is that if limitations upon and the enactment of a law to govern their election.
its exercise are not found in the Constitution, they do not exist (Green To construe Article XV of the Constitution as including the
vs. Biddle, 8 Wheat, 1, 5 U.S. [L. Ed.] 547). apportionment of delegates and the making of legislation for their
The scope of a legislature’s power as a legislativemachinery is such election is to disregard the principles stated above. And, without a
that it has been held to include that of calling a constitutional clear warrant being found in the Constitution, it would unnecessarily
convention, even though the Constitution does not specifically so make it cumbersome for Congress to exercise a power which it can
provide (Bessemer vs. Birmingham, 40 So. 2d 193). As stated in one exercise as a legislative body even if not specifically granted by the
case: Constitution (See Bessemer vs. Birmingham Electric Co.,
“Long-established usage has settled the principle that a general grant of supra, stating that, having plenary power to call a constitutional
legislative power carries with it the authority to call conventions for the convention, the legislature has power to provide for the election of
purpose of amendment or revision of the Constitution; and even where the delegates).
only method provided in the Constitution for its amendment is by legislative Indeed, there are provisions in the Constitution itself which in
submission of amendments, the better doctrine seems to be that such effect gainsay that the apportionment of delegates and legislation
provision, unless in terms restrictive, is permissive only, and does not
governing their election require compliance with Article XV. First, the
preclude the calling of a constitutional convention un-
Constitution vests in Congress
59 60
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 59 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Imbong vs. Ferrer Imbong vs. Ferrer
der the implied powers of the legislative department” (Ellingham vs. Dye, 99 as a legislative body the power to apportion the members of its lower
NE 1). and more representative chamber. In no other instance does the
Article XV of the Constitution, requiring a joint session and a three- Constitution speak of apportionment, and if its intention were to
fourths vote, therefore, does nothing more than set a limitation on an provide a different manner of apportionment for constitutional
inherent prerogative of Congress. As such its terms should be conventions, it could easily have so provided. Secondly, Congress as a
construed restrictively and should not be given interpretation beyond legislative body also possesses the power to appropriate funds. Since
their plain meaning. This is in consonance not only with the principle the apportionment of delegates and their election require the
that limitations of power furnish a strong argument in favor of that disbursement of funds, the determination of how many delegates and
power (Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 16 U.S. [L. Ed.] 23; People vs. their distribution as well as their elections—factors which must be
Hutchinson, 50 N.E. 599; State vs. Cunningham, 53 N.W. 35), but also taken into consideration in making appropriations for the convention—
with the rule that when words are not defined in the document wherein should also be exercised by Congress under its general legislative
they are used they must be taken in their ordinary and commonly power.—ATTY. ESTEBAN B. BAUTISTA
accepted meaning (Song Kiat Chocolate Factory vs. Central Bank, 54 Notes.—(a) Legislative power to prescribe qualifications or
conditions of eligibility to constitutional office.—Subject to
constitutional restrictions, the Congress may determine the eligibility comfort, health and prosperity of the State (Calalang vs. Williams, 70
and qualifications of officers and provide the methods for filling Phil. 410; People vs. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440).
offices (People vs. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535; see also the annotation in 34 For its proper exercise, however, it must appear (1) that
ALR 2d 155). 61
(b) Police power, nature and propriety of exercise.—Rights are not
VOL. 35, SEPTEMBER 24, 1970 61
absolute even where recognized by the Constitution, but limited by the
rights of others and of the State itself, all of which are to be protected In re Arafiles
and may be protected in the exercise of police power (Liwanag vs. the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from a particular
Menghraj, 72 Phil. 410). class, require such interference, and (2) that the means are reasonably
Police power is the power inherent in government to enact laws or necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
prescribe regulations to promote the order, peace, safety, health, oppressive of individuals (U.S. vs. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85; U.S. vs.
morals, education, and general welfare of society (People vs. Reyes, 67 Villareal, 28 Phil. 390; Fabie vs. City of Manila, 21 Phil. 186; Inchong
Phil. 187). By virtue of it, the State, in order to promote the above vs. Hernandez, L-7995, May 31, 1957).
objectives, may interfere with personal liberty, with property and with
______________
business and occupations—may subject persons and property to all
kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general good,