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.

RAUL M. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. COMELEC, respondent.

FACTS

Two separate petitions for declaratory relief were filed by Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both lawyers, taxpayers, and prospective candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention, challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6132 (the Constitutional Convention Act of 1970). The law was enacted by Congress as a legislative body to implement Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, which were passed by Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly calling for a Constitutional Convention. Petitioner Gonzales assailed the validity of the entire law and specific provisions (Sections 2, 4, 5, and paragraph 1 of Section 8(a)). Petitioner Imbong challenged only paragraph 1 of Section 8(a), which prohibits political parties, religious organizations, and certain other groups from nominating, supporting, or opposing any candidate for convention delegate.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Congress, acting as a legislative body, had the authority to enact R.A. No. 6132 to implement the resolutions of the Constituent Assembly; (2) Whether the apportionment of delegates under Section 2 violated the constitutional requirement of proportional representation; (3) Whether paragraph 1 of Section 8(a), which restricts certain groups from political activity related to the election of delegates, constituted an invalid infringement on the freedoms of speech, assembly, and association.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132 , including the challenged provisions.
1. Congress, acting as a legislative body, had the authority to enact the implementing details for the Constitutional Convention. While the exclusive power to call a convention resides in Congress as a Constituent Assembly, the power to enact implementing legislation, such as apportionment, qualifications, and election details, falls within Congress’s broad legislative power, provided such details do not conflict with the Constitution. The Court noted that if the President vetoes such a bill, Congress can override the veto or reconvene as a Constituent Assembly to adopt the details by resolution.
2. The apportionment of delegates under Section 2 was constitutional. The Constitution does not require apportionment of convention delegates to be based strictly on population, unlike the apportionment of legislative districts. The apportionment in R.A. No. 6132 , based on a preliminary 1970 population census and providing a minimum of two delegates per district, was deemed a reasonable and substantially proportional representation as directed by the Constituent Assembly’s Resolution No. 4.
3. Paragraph 1 of Section 8(a) was a valid regulation and not an unconstitutional abridgment of freedoms. The restriction was designed to ensure a free, clean, honest, and orderly election by preventing partisan political machinery and massive resources from influencing the election of delegates. The Court ruled it was a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power to safeguard the integrity of the election process and to allow candidates to compete on an equal footing based on their individual merits. The ban was viewed as applying to the acts of the organizations themselves, not to the individual rights of their members to express personal views or support candidates.