Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Imbong V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Coreine Valledor-Sarraga
    This case involved two petitions challenging the validity of sections of RA 6132, which implemented the call for a 1970 Constitutional Convention in the Philippines. The first petitioner challenged sections 2, 4, 5 and part of section 8, while the second petitioner challenged part of section 8. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. It found that Congress has the authority to call a Constitutional Convention. It also found that the apportionment of delegates and restrictions on elected delegates running for office or joining political parties were reasonable measures to ensure an independent convention.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Imbong V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Coreine Valledor-Sarraga
    109 views2 pages
    This case involved two petitions challenging the validity of sections of RA 6132, which implemented the call for a 1970 Constitutional Convention in the Philippines. The first petitioner challenged sections 2, 4, 5 and part of section 8, while the second petitioner challenged part of section 8. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. It found that Congress has the authority to call a Constitutional Convention. It also found that the apportionment of delegates and restrictions on elected delegates running for office or joining political parties were reasonable measures to ensure an independent convention.

    Original Title

    Imbong v Comelec

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved two petitions challenging the validity of sections of RA 6132, which implemented the call for a 1970 Constitutional Convention in the Philippines. The first petitioner challenged sections 2, 4, 5 and part of section 8, while the second petitioner challenged part of section 8. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. It found that Congress has the authority to call a Constitutional Convention. It also found that the apportionment of delegates and restrictions on elected delegates running for office or joining political parties were reasonable measures to ensure an independent convention.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    109 views2 pages

    Imbong V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Coreine Valledor-Sarraga
    This case involved two petitions challenging the validity of sections of RA 6132, which implemented the call for a 1970 Constitutional Convention in the Philippines. The first petitioner challenged sections 2, 4, 5 and part of section 8, while the second petitioner challenged part of section 8. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. It found that Congress has the authority to call a Constitutional Convention. It also found that the apportionment of delegates and restrictions on elected delegates running for office or joining political parties were reasonable measures to ensure an independent convention.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Imbong v Comelec September 11, 1970RA 6132: delegates in ConCon (Contitutional Law 1) Petitioner : Imbong Respondents : Ferrer (Comelec

    Chair), Patajo, Miraflor (Comelec Members) Petitioner : Gonzales Respondent : Comelec Ponente : Makasiar RELATED LAWS:Resolution No 2 (1967) Calls for Constitutional Convention to be composed of 2delegates from each representative district who shall be elected in November, 1970. RA 4919 implementation of Resolution No 2 Resolution 4 (1969) amended Resolution 2: ConCon shall be composed of 320delegates approportioned among existing representative districts according to thepopulation. Provided that each district shall be entitled to 2 deledates. RA 6132 Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented Res No. 2 & 4.Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees as resigned when they file theircandicacySec 2: apportionment of delegatesSec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in theelection or from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adournment of the ConCon.Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups from givingsupport/representing a delegate to the convention. FACTS:This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2 separate but relatedpetitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Conventionassailing the validity of RA 6132.Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and validity of entire lawImbong: Par 1 Sec 8 ISSUE: Whether the Congress has a right to call for ConCon and whether theparameters set by such a call is constitutional. HOLDING: The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention asa Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitionersare deemed as constitutional. RATIO: Y Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution Y Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132: O Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to proposeamendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes andthese votes were attained by Res 2 and 4

    Y Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Res 4 and is enough that thebasis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied byGonsales is not reasonable for that case granted more representatives toprovinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equalto the number of delegates I other provinces with more population. Y Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualifymembers thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. Thisis a safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling electionsand to allow them to devote more time to the Concon. Y Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also toassure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend ontheir individual merits, and not the support of political parties. Thisprovision does not create discrimination towards any particularparty/group, it applies to all organizations.

    You might also like