G.R. No. L-32476 October 20, 1970
SIMEON G. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. UBALDO CARBONELL, JAIME N. FERRER, LINO PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Simeon G. del Rosario filed a petition for declaratory relief pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act No. 6132 against the National Treasurer and the Chairman and members of the Commission on Elections, praying that the entire R.A. No. 6132 be declared unconstitutional. The petitioner, alleging he was a temporary staff writer and a permanent international Research Officer on home leave, challenged specific provisions as oppressive and contested the appropriation of twenty-nine million pesos as a waste of public funds, arguing the Constitutional Convention could degenerate into a “Debating Club, Unlimited” with no time limit. The Solicitor General filed an answer on behalf of the respondents. The Court noted the petition lacked sufficient averments regarding the petitioner’s particular rights affected by the law but sustained his interest as a taxpayer to contest the validity of the law based on the appropriation of public funds.

ISSUE

The primary issue is the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6132 , which implements congressional resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention, including challenges to Congress’s power to call a convention, the necessity for amendments, the scope of changes the convention may propose, the validity of specific sections previously upheld by the Court, and the sufficiency of the law’s title.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132 .
1. Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly under Article XV of the Constitution , has the sole discretion to choose between proposing amendments itself or calling a convention. This choice is a political question beyond judicial review.
2. The necessity for amending the Constitution is a matter addressed to the judgment of Congress, with which the Court cannot interfere.
3. Whether the Constitutional Convention proposes amendments or an entirely new constitution is immaterial, as any proposal must be ratified by the people, and once ratified, its validity is beyond debate.
4. The term “amendment” includes revision or total overhaul of the Constitution. The inclusion of a candidate’s statement of constitutional reforms in the law does not invalidate it.
5. The Court had previously sustained the validity of Sections 2, 5, and 8(a), paragraph one of R.A. No. 6132 in Imbong vs. Ferrer, et al. and Gonzales vs. Ferrer, et al. (G.R. Nos. L-32432 and L-32443), and the validity of Section 4 and the second paragraph of Section 8(a) in other decisions.
6. The title of R.A. No. 6132 is not unconstitutional for embracing more than one subject. The phrase “to propose amendments to the Constitution” is superfluous as the title expressly states it implements congressional resolutions which themselves contain that phrase. The title fairly indicates the general subject and covers all provisions of the act without misleading Congress or the public.