9/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 20, 1970 367

Del Rosario vs. Carbonell

No. L-32476. October 20, 1970.

SIMEON G. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. UBALDO CARBONELL, JAIME N. FERRER,LINO

PATAJO and CESAR MIRAFLOR, respondents.

Constitutional Law;  Congress sitting as a constituent Assembly has the sole power either to propose
amendments or to

368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Del Rosario vs. Carbonell

call a convention for the purpose.—The charge of petitioner that Congress abdicated its power as a
constituent body to propose amendments in favor of the Constitutional Convention, is refuted by Art. XV of
the Constitution which authorizes Congress sitting as a Constituent Assembly either to propose
amendments or to call a convention for the purpose. The choice of either alternative is solely committed to
Congress, which cannot be inquired into nor interfered with by this Tribunal, the same being purely a
political question.
Same; Title of the bill unrest express the subject embraced in said bill; Purpose.—It is not required that
the title of the bill be an index to the body of the act or be comprehensive in matters of detail. It is enough
that it fairly indicates the general subject and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act so as not to
mislead Congress or the people.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Declaratory relief.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Simeon G. del Rosario in his own behalf.
     Solicitor General for respondents.

MAKASIAR, J.:

This petition for declaratory relief was filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 6132 by petitioner
Simeon G. del Rosario against the National Treasurer as well as the Chairman and members of
the Commission on Elections, praying that the entire R.A. No. 6132 be declared unconstitutional.
The Solicitor General filed his answer to the petition in behalf of respondents.
The petition does not contain sufficient averments as to the particular right of the petitioner
that may be affected by any provision of the law. Assuming as true his allegation—which
respondents specifically deny—that he is a temporary staff writer of the Weekly Nation
Magazine, a permanent international Research Officer of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization
since October 5, 1957 and as such is on home leave and awaiting recall and re-instatement to his
post in Bangkok, Thailand by the Department

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174490e03a1d17815b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
9/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

369

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 20, 1970 369

Del Rosario vs. Carbonell

of Foreign Affairs, the same does not indicate that he is a prospective candidate or is a member of
any political party or any civic, religious, professional, or labor organization whose rights may be
impaired by Sec. 6(A), par. 5 and Sec. 8(a) of R.A. No. 6132, which he challenges as oppressive.
Because he assails the appropriation of twenty-nine million pesos in Sec. 21 of the law as
simply a waste of public funds, because there is no time limit for the duration of the
Constitutional Convention, which may dissipate its time in pointless discussion without reaching
any consensus or conclusion and thus degenerate into a “Debating Club, Unlimited,” his interest
as a taxpayer on this score to contest the validity of the law may be sustained.
1. The charge of petitioner that Congress abdicated its power as a constituent body to propose
amendments in favor of the Constitutional Convention, is refuted by Art. XV of the Constitution
which authorizes Congress sitting as a Constituent Assembly either to propose amendments or to
call a convention for the purpose. The choice of either alternative is solely committed to Congress,
which cannot be 1inquired into nor interfered with by this Tribunal the same being purely a
political question.
2. Likewise, whether there is necessity for amending the Constitution is also addressed to the
wise judgment of Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly, against which the Court cannot pit
its own judgment.
3. And whether the Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to the
Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirely new
Constitution based on an ideology foreign to the democratic system, is of no moment; because the
same will be submitted to the people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there
can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution.
4. The fact that the present Constitution may be revised and replaced with a new one by the
Constitutional

_______________
1 Tañada, et al. vs. Cuenco, et al., L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957.

370

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Del Rosario vs. Carbonell

Convention called in Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, respectively, of 1967 and 1969, because under Sec.
6(A), par. 5, of the law, a candidate may include a concise statement of his principal
constitutional reforms, programs or policies, is no argument against the validity of the law
because “amendment” includes the “revision” or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any
rate, whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally changed would
become immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign people.
5. This Court, in a decision dated September 11, 1970 in the cases of Imbong vs. Ferrer, et al.
and Gonzales vs. Ferrer, et al., G.R. Nos. L-32432 and L-32443, held that neither R.A. No. 6132
nor its Sections 2, 5 and 8(a), paragraph one, can be declared unconstitutional.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174490e03a1d17815b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/4
9/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

6. This Court also sustained the validity of Sec.

2
4 and the second paragraph of Sec. 8(a) of R.A.
No. 6132 in a decision dated September 3, 1970.
7. Petitioner impugns the constitutionality of the title of R.A. No. 6132 as embracing more
than one subject and is therefore violative of paragraph 1, Sec. 21 of Art. VI of the Constitution,
simply because it failed to include the phrase “TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES."
The title of the law reads “An Act Implementing Resolution of Both Houses Numbered Two as
Amended by Resolution of Both Houses Numbered Four of the Congress of the Philippines
Calling for a Constitutional Convention, Providing for Proportional Representation Therein and
Other Details Relating to the Election of Delegates to and the Holding of the Constitutional
Convention, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fourteen, and
for Other Purposes.”

_______________
2 Subido, et al., petitioner, in re Validity of Sec. 4 and Sec. 8(a) par. 2, R.A. 6132, G.R. No. L-32436 and In the matter of

the petition for Declaratory Relief re: Validity and Constitutionality of Sec. 4, R.A. 6132, Hon. Guardson Lood, Judge, CFI,
Pasig, Rizal, petitioner, G.R. No. L-32439.

371

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 20, 1970 371

Del Rosario vs. Carbonell

It is patent from the aforequoted title that the inclusion of the phrase “To propose amendments to
the Constitution of the Philippines” is superfluous and therefore unnecessary; because the very
title expressly states that the act implements Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 2 and 4,
respectively of 1967 and 1969, and both Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 likewise categorically state in
their titles that the Constitutional Convention called for therein is “to propose amendments to
the Constitution of the Philippines,” which phrase is reiterated in Sec. 1 of both Resolutions.
Moreover, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution is implicit in the call for the
convention itself, whose raison d’etre is to revise the present Constitution. Consequently, there is
no fraud or surprise that is perpetrated by the questioned title on the legislature and the public,
which is sought to be avoided by the constitutional requirement that only one subject shall be
embraced in the bill which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
Furthermore, it is not required that the title of the bill be an index to the body of the act or be
comprehensive in matters of detail. It is enough that it fairly indicates the general subject 3
and
reasonably covers all the provisions of the act so as not to mislead Congress or the people.  All the
details provided for in R.A. No. 6132 are germane to and are comprehended by its title.
WHEREFORE, the prayer in the petition is hereby denied and R.A. No. 6132 is not
unconstitutional. Without costs.

     Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., Dizon, Makalintal and Castro, JJ., concur.

     Zaldivar, J., reserves his vote.
     Fernando, J., concurs and dissents in accordance with his separate opinion in Imbong v.
Comelec, L-32432and Gonzalez v. Comelec, L-32443.

_______________
3 Cordero, et al. vs. Cabatuando, et al., L-14542, Oct. 31, 1962; Ichong vs. Hernandez, L-7995, May 31, 1957.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174490e03a1d17815b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/4
9/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

372

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Del Rosario vs. Carbonell

     Teehankee, J., concurs on Items 1 to 7, excluding Item 5, and dissents on said Item 5 in

accordance with his separate opinion in Badoy, Jr. vs. Ferrer, L-32456 and L-32551, October 17,
1970.
     Barredo, J., dissents insofar as Item 5 is concerned and concurs in all other respects.
     Villamor, J., concurs in the result.
     Concepcion, C.J., is on official leave.

Petition denied.

Notes.—Taxpayer’s right to challenge constitutionality of a statute.—A taxpayer can bring an

action to restrain the expenditure of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or
unconstitutional statute (Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works, L-10405, Dec. 29, 1960; Philconsa
vs. Gimenez,  15 SCRA 479;  Pelaez vs. Auditor General,  15 SCRA 569;  Iloilo Palay & Corn
Planters Association vs. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377; Philconsa vs. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300; Lidasan vs.
Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 496;Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, 27 SCRA 835).
(b)  The constitutional requirement regarding title of statutes.—The primary purpose of the
constitutional provision (Section 21[1], Art. VI) that “no bill which may be enacted into law shall
embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill” is to prohibit
duplicity in legislation the title of which might completely fail to apprise the legislators or the
public of the nature, scope, and consequences of the law or its operation (Ichong vs. Hernandez, L-
7995, May 31, 1957).
This constitutional requirement is satisfied if all parts of a law relate to the subject expressed
in its title, and it is not necessary that the title be a complete index of the content (People vs.
Carlos,  78 Phil. 535. See also  Llanco vs. De la Fuente,  L-5748, Jan. 2, 1953;  Nuval vs. De la
Fuente,L-5695, Jan. 2, 1953; Alalayan vs. National Power Corporation, 24 SCRA 172).
373

VOL. 35, OCTOBER 22, 1970 373

Aquino vs. Socorro

Where the title of a statute is insufficient to embrace the subject matter of some of its provisions,
and they are inseparable from the others, the entire law is void (Re Petitions for Admission to the
Bar, Resolution of March 18, 1954, 50 O.G. 1602).

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174490e03a1d17815b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/4