G.R. No. L-32432 and L-32443, September 11, 1970
MANUEL B. IMBONG, petitioner, vs. JAIME FERRER, as Chairman of the Comelec, LINO M. PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR, as members thereof, respondents.

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.

FACTS

Two consolidated petitions were filed challenging the validity of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 6132, the Constitutional Convention Act of 1970. The specific provisions impugned are not detailed in the provided text, but the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Barredo focuses on Section 4 and Section 8(a) of the Act. Section 8(a) contains a ban on political parties nominating and supporting their own candidates for the Constitutional Convention, and the opinion indicates this ban was also extended to “civic or non-political organizations.”

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in Justice Barredo’s opinion is the validity of the ban in Section 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132 as it applies to civic or non-political organizations.

RULING

Justice Barredo, in a concurring and dissenting opinion, voted to sustain the validity of most provisions of R.A. No. 6132 challenged by the petitioners, except for Section 4 and the portion of Section 8(a) referring to political parties as applied to civic or non-political organizations.
1. On Section 8(a) and Civic Organizations: Justice Barredo held that the ban on political parties nominating and supporting candidates, while reasonable and constitutional, does not validly extend to civic or non-political organizations. He argued that applying the ban to such organizations is a “deceptive device” that preserves the advantages of political parties while crippling other associations. This creates an unfair disadvantage for individual candidates without strong political party connections, as they would be denied the opportunity to seek organized support from civic groups. The objective of equalizing campaign forces for the Constitutional Convention election, according to Barredo, can be accomplished by maintaining the ban only against political parties, whose activities necessitated the restriction.
2. On the Importance of Freedoms: The opinion emphasizes that the issues in the Constitutional Convention election are grave and fundamental. Denying people the right to organize through civic associations to campaign for candidates and issues stifles their opportunity for change and weakens the democratic process. The right to campaign is essential for a meaningful right of suffrage.
3. On Separability: Justice Barredo based his partial dissent on the view that, under the Act’s separability clause (Section 21), the ban against political parties is separable from the ban against other associations. Therefore, the provision could be invalidated as to civic organizations while remaining effective as to political parties.
4. On Section 4: Justice Barredo reiterated his separate opinion from other cases (G.R. Nos. L-32436 and L-32439) regarding his dissent on Section 4, without elaborating its content in this text.