G.R. No. L-32546 October 17, 1970
ANACLETO D. BADOY, JR., petitioner, vs. JAIME N. FERRER, Chairman, CESAR MIRAFLOR, and LINO M. PATAJO, Members, Commission on Elections, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of a law enacted by Congress. The specific law in question pertains to the process of amending or framing a new Constitution and regulates the election of delegates for that task. The law is described as a departure from traditional electoral systems, aiming to address perceived evils in the political field such as the hegemony of wealth, entrenched political organizations and dynasties, terrorist groups, and government patronage. The petitioner, Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., assails the statute as an unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights and liberties.

ISSUE

Whether the challenged statute, which regulates the election of delegates for the task of amending or framing a new Constitution and imposes more stringent regulations on certain individual rights, is unconstitutional for unjustifiably abridging individual rights and liberties.

RULING

The concurring opinion of Justice Makalintal, with which Acting Chief Justice Reyes and Justice Castro concur, upholds the constitutionality of the challenged law. The opinion states that while the constitutional principles of individual rights and liberties are fundamental, their traditional and orthodox application as seen in American authorities should not necessarily be binding in the Philippines under all circumstances. The opinion notes the failure of traditional electoral processes in the Philippines to curb political evils. The law is characterized as a pragmatic and empirical experiment initiated by Congress under its powers to address a vital and permanent task concerning the nation’s life. The purpose of the law is to allow the people the freest possible choice of delegates, who represent ideas and theories of government, untrammeled by advantages derived from wealth or logistics for political campaigns. The opinion concludes that the regulation imposed by the statute is within permissible limits and does not unjustifiably abridge individual rights and liberties, thereby refusing to hinder the congressional effort.