G.R. No. L-32436 September 9, 1970.
ABELARDO SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service, petitioner. In re: Validity of Section 4 and Section 8(a), paragraph 2, Republic Act 6132. G.R. No. L-32439 September 9, 1970. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATORY RELIEF RE: VALIDITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY REPUBLIC ACT 6132, HON. GUARDSON LOOD Judge, CFI Pasig, Rizal, et al., petitioners.

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve petitions concerning the validity and constitutionality of Republic Act 6132. Abelardo Subido, the Commissioner of Civil Service, is a petitioner in one case, while Judge Guardson Lood and others are petitioners in a related petition for declaratory relief. The proceedings include the participation of amici curiae. The resolution includes a concurring opinion by Justice Castro, which references Congressional Resolutions (Nos. 1, 2, and 3) passed by Congress sitting as a constituent assembly on March 16, 1967. The amendments proposed by Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 were submitted to and rejected by the people in a plebiscite on November 14, 1967. Resolution No. 2, which called for a Constitutional Convention, contained a provision (Section 3) stating that the office of Delegate was honorary and compatible with any other public office, with provisions for per diem and expenses. This provision appears to conflict with Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits civil service officers and employees from engaging in partisan political activities.

ISSUE

The central legal issue addressed in the concurring opinion is the nature and legal effect of Section 3 of Resolution No. 2 (the call for the Constitutional Convention), specifically whether it constitutes a mandatory rule of conduct or a mere declaratory provision, given its apparent conflict with a constitutional prohibition.

RULING

Justice Castro, in his concurring opinion, fully agrees with the majority resolution. He adds the fundamental observation that since Congress, as a constituent assembly, passed Resolutions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 on the same date and submitted the proposed amendments in Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 to the people for ratification, its deliberate decision not to submit Section 3 of Resolution No. 2 for ratification reinforces the view that said section is not a constitutional amendment. Therefore, it is to be regarded as, at best, a mere declaration and not a mandatory rule of conduct that would conflict with Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution. Justices Makalintal and Fernando concurred with this opinion.