G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, 1970,
♦ Decision,
Makasiar, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Fernando, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Villamor, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Barredo, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Teehankee, [J]
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-32485 October 22, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER SEC. 8 OF R.A. No. 6132.
KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, INC., petitioner.
Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:
The Court's decision reaffirms its split-vote ruling last September 11, 1970 in Imbong vs. Ferrer and Gonzales vs. Comelec1 upholding the constitutionality of the first paragraph of section 8(a) of Republic Act 6132. Inasmuch as I was unable to participate in the said cases, 2 I have expressed my contrary view in my separate dissenting opinion in Badoy, Jr. vs. Ferrer 3 that the challenged provision, together with the Act's other restrictions and strictures enumerated therein, "oppressively and unreasonably straitjacket the candidates as well as the electorate and gravely violate the constitutional guaranties of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of association, and, deny due process and the equal protection of the laws."
I therefore dissent from the Court's decision at bar for the same reason and considerations stated in my separate dissenting opinion in the case of Badoy.ℒαwρhi৷
I only wish to add a few words on the statements in the main opinion in Imbong-Gonzales that "(W)hile it may be true that a party's support of a candidate is not wrong per se, it is equally true that Congress in the exercise of the broad law-making authority can declare certain acts as mala prohibita when justified by the exigencies of the times. One such act is the party or organization support prescribed in Sec. 8(a), which ban is a valid limitation on the freedom of association as well as expression, for the reasons aforestated. Senator Tolentino emphasized that 'equality of chances may be better attained by banning all organization support.' "
I trust that said statements were not intended, and should not be construed, as endorsing the contention of Senator Tolentino, the Act's sponsor, that "(T)he protection of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the right of association when the purpose is a malum prohibitum because such purpose would be "contrary to law" " and "(O)nce the ban (on party and organization support) is approved into law, the freedom of association cannot be invoked against it" since the Constitution decrees only that "(T)he right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."4
Such a concept of malum prohibitum vis-a-vis the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association which has its root in the Malolos Constitution would render sterile and meaningless the Constitutional safeguard, should Congress be conceded, in the exercise of its broad law-making authority, the power to strike down at any time associations and societies by the simple expedient of declaring their purposes or certain activities, not wrong per se as "contrary to law" or mala prohibita. I believe that such a concept begs the question. Obviously, the word "law" in the qualifying clause "for purposes not contrary to law" does not mean that an enactment of the legislature forecloses the question with finality and sounds the death-knell. Laws that would regulate the purposes for which associations and societies may be formed or would declare their purposes mala prohibita must pass the usual constitutional test of reasonableness and furthermore, must not abridge freedom of speech and press.5
Footnotes
1 Nos. L-32432 and L-32443, jointly decided.
2 The writer hereof was then on official leave.
3 Nos. L-32456 and L-32551, October 17, 1970.
4 Sponsorship speech of Senator Arturo Tolentino of July 20, 1970, notes in parentheses furnished; emphasis copied; cit, Art, III, Sec. 1(6), Philippine Constitution.
5 See 2 Tañada and Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines, 209.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
