Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 574 views

    Imbong Vs Ferrer

    Uploaded by

    DivineDionne
    IMBONG vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-32432 - Petitioner Manuel Imbong challenged the constitutionality of RA 6132, which implemented resolutions calling for a constitutional convention. - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 6132, ruling that while Congress acts as a constituent assembly to propose amendments or call conventions, it acts legislatively to enact implementation details for those proposals and conventions. GOMEZ vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-28196 - Petitioner Ramon Gonzales challenged resolutions that both proposed amendments and called a convention. - The Supreme Court ruled Congress cannot do both at once, as Article XV states

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Imbong Vs Ferrer

    Uploaded by

    DivineDionne
    574 views4 pages
    IMBONG vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-32432 - Petitioner Manuel Imbong challenged the constitutionality of RA 6132, which implemented resolutions calling for a constitutional convention. - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 6132, ruling that while Congress acts as a constituent assembly to propose amendments or call conventions, it acts legislatively to enact implementation details for those proposals and conventions. GOMEZ vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-28196 - Petitioner Ramon Gonzales challenged resolutions that both proposed amendments and called a convention. - The Supreme Court ruled Congress cannot do both at once, as Article XV states

    Original Title

    imbong vs ferrer

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    IMBONG vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-32432 - Petitioner Manuel Imbong challenged the constitutionality of RA 6132, which implemented resolutions calling for a constitutional convention. - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 6132, ruling that while Congress acts as a constituent assembly to propose amendments or call conventions, it acts legislatively to enact implementation details for those proposals and conventions. GOMEZ vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-28196 - Petitioner Ramon Gonzales challenged resolutions that both proposed amendments and called a convention. - The Supreme Court ruled Congress cannot do both at once, as Article XV states

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    574 views4 pages

    Imbong Vs Ferrer

    Uploaded by

    DivineDionne
    IMBONG vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-32432 - Petitioner Manuel Imbong challenged the constitutionality of RA 6132, which implemented resolutions calling for a constitutional convention. - The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 6132, ruling that while Congress acts as a constituent assembly to propose amendments or call conventions, it acts legislatively to enact implementation details for those proposals and conventions. GOMEZ vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-28196 - Petitioner Ramon Gonzales challenged resolutions that both proposed amendments and called a convention. - The Supreme Court ruled Congress cannot do both at once, as Article XV states

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    CASE DIGEST

    IMBONG vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-32432

    TRAC Method
    Yes. The enactment of R.A. no. 6132 by Congress acting as a legislative body in exercise of its broad-law
    making authority, and not as a Constituent Assembly is constitutional.

    According to Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution, Congress may propose amendments of the Constitution
    or call a convention for that purpose.

    In the case at bar, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Res No. 2 and Res No. 4 which
    called for the amendments to the Constitution and contained the details regarding the Constitutional
    Convention. Which is within the scope of powers Congress as a Constituent Assembly, to create the
    implementing details indispensable to a fruitful convention. Congress now acting as the legislative body,
    enacted the implementing details found in Res No. 2 and 4 through RA no. 6132. All in accordance with
    Article XV of the 1935 Constitution and the exercise of Congress’ legislative powers. As long as it does
    not clash with the specific provision of the constitution, they are valid.

    Thus, the enactment of RA no. 6132 by Congress acting as a legislative body is constitutional.

    Facts (essentials, chronological order. Include the names of the appellee/appellant)


    Petitioner: Manuel Imbong
    Respondents: Jaime Ferrer (Charmain of COMELEC) et. al.

     Petitioner filed for a declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of RA no. 6132.
     March 16, 1967: Congress (as Constituent Assembly) pursuant of Art. XV of the Constitution
    passed Resolution no. 2 which called for a Constitutional Convention to propose constitutional
    amendments to be composed of two delegates from each representative district with the same
    qualifications of Congressmen to be elected on the second Tuesday of November 1970.
     After the adoption of Res No. 2 but before November elections: Congress (as legislative body)
    enacted Republic Act no. 4914 in implementing Res No. 2.
     June 17, 1969: Congress (as Constituent Assembly) passed Resolution no. 4 to amend the Res.
    No. 2.

    August 24, 1970: Congress (as legislative body) enacted RA no. 6132 and implemented Res no. 2 & 4 and
    repelled R.A. no. 4914.

    Issues (Relevant with the topic, check the syllabus)


    Whether or not the enactment of R.A. no. 6132 by Congress acting as a legislative body in exercise of its
    broad-law making authority, and not as a Constituent Assembly is constitutional.

    Ruling

    RA 6132 is constitutional due to the following reasons as provided by the Supreme Court;
    - Congress when acting as a Constituent Assembly has full and plenary authority to propose
    Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for the purpose
    - The power to enact the implementing details (found in Resolutions no. 2 and 4 and RA 6132) does not
    pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly but rather Congress as a legislative body.
    - When Congress omits the implementing details after calling for a constitutional convention, Congress
    as a legislative body fills in the gap with the authority described in Sec 8 of Res No. 2 and amended by
    Res no. 4

    Held

    Petition was denied and RA 6132 cannot be declared unconstitutional.

    GOMEZ vs. COMELEC G.R. no. L-28196

    TRAC Method

    No. Congress can’t propose amendments to the Constitution and call a convention at the same time.

    According to the Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution as amended, “Congress in joint session
    assembled by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
    Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention…”

    In the case at bar, with the presence of the coordinating conjunction “or” it’s plainly written that
    Congress can only do one of each and not both at the same time.

    Thus, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution and call a convention at the same time.

    Facts (essentials, chronological order. Include the names of the appellee/appellant)


    Petitioner: Ramon A. Gonzales
    Respondent: COMELEC

     Petitioner files prohibition with preliminary injunction for RA no. 4913 for the constitutional
    amendments in Joint Resolutions No. 1 and 3.
     RBH (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1: increase the membership of the House of
    Representatives from a maximum of 120 as provided in the present Constitution to 180.
     RBH (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 2: calling for a convention to propose amendments to said
    Constitution to be composed of two elective delegates from each representative district.
     RBH (Resolution of Both House) No. 3: authorize Senators and members of the House of
    Representatives to become the delegates in the aforementioned constitutional convention
    without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
     RA. No 4913 was passed providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
    aforementioned RBH nos. 1 and 3 be submitted and approved by the President and to be
    submitted for approval to the people on November 14, 1967.

    Issues (Relevant with the topic, check the syllabus)

    Whether or not Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution and call a convention at the
    same time.

    Ruling
    No, Congress can’t propose amendments and call a convention at the same time due to the following
    reasons provided by the Supreme Court:
    - Congress may adopt either one of the two alternatives propose—amendments or call a
    convention therefore but may not avail of both—that is to say, propose amendment and call a
    convention—at the same time.
    - Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that Congress may either propose amendments
    to the Constitution or call a convention for that purpose but it cannot do both at the same time.
    - RBH nos. 1 and 3 propose amendments but it will be submitted for ratification on 1967
    - RBH nos. 2 calls for a convention in 1971.

    Held

    Petition was dismissed pertaining if Republic Act 4193 and RBH no. 1 and 3 are constitutional.

    LOZANO vs. NOGRALES GR no. 187883

    TRAC Method

    No. The petition for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 is not valid.

    According to Article XVII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, Congress may call a constitutional
    convention with a vote of two-thirds or majority of all of its Members.

    In the case at the bar, House Resolution No. 1109 states that the purpose to convene to consider
    proposals to amend or revise the Constitution which is within their scope of powers as stated in Article
    XVII Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution.

    Thus, the petition for the nullification of the House Resolution no. 1109 is not valid.

    Facts (essentials, chronological order. Include the names of the appellee/appellant)


    Petitioner: Oliver O. Lozano et. al.
    Respondent: Speaker Prospero C. Nograles

    - Petitioners prayed for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A Resolution
    Calling upon the Members of Congress to Convene for the Purpose of Considering Proposals to
    Amend or Revise the Constitution, Upon a Three-fourths Vote of All of the Members of
    Congress”
    - Petitions ask to trigger a justiciable controversy that would warrant a definitive interpretation by
    this Court of Section 1, Article XVII, which provides for the procedure of amending or revising
    the Constitution.

    Issues (Relevant with the topic, check the syllabus)

    Whether or not the petition for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 is valid.

    Ruling

    No. The petition for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 is not valid for the reasons provided
    by the Supreme Court:
    - No actual convention has yet transpired and no rules of procedure have yet been adopted.
    More importantly, no proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of power or gross
    of abuse of discretion has yet taken place. In short, House Resolution no. 1109 involves a
    quintessential example of an uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as
    anticipated, or indeed my not occur at all.
    - The House has not yet performed a positive act that would warrant an intervention from this
    Court.

    Held

    Petitions are dismissed.

    You might also like