G.R. No. L-32546, October 17, 1970,
♦ Decision,
Makasiar, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion,
Reyes, Acting [CJ]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Makalintal, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
Castro, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Fernando, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Barredo, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Teehankee, [J]
EN BANC
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.
G.R. No. L-32551 October 17, 1970
ANACLETO D. BADOY, JR., petitioner,
vs.
JAIME N. FERRER, Chairman, CESAR MIRAFLOR, and LINO M. PATAJO, MEMBERS, Commission on Elections, respondents.
Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. in his own behalf.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
Separate Opinions
MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Felix V. Makasiar, but would add a few observations of my own which, although of merely tangential bearing on the strictly legal issues, I consider relevant in this case from a long-range viewpoint. ℒαwρhi৷
The copious citations of American authorities, particularly in one of the dissents, are undeniably of no little persuasive force, our constitutional orientation being what it is, by reason not only of the nature of the legal training dispensed in our law schools but also of the practical aspects of our political and juristic experience. But however steadfastly one might adhere to the fundamental principles enunciative of individual rights and liberties, as spelled out in almost identical terms in both the American and Philippine Constitutions, I am not so sure that their traditional and orthodox application in the United States should necessarily be binding upon us under all circumstances. Indeed even there the events of recent years have demonstrated that the concept of personal liberty can be so read that its real significance all but disappears. In a few instances it has been invoked to make a mockery of the administration of justice by the trial courts; to debase the meaning of students' academic freedom; to inspire violence and anarchy in the streets and college campuses; and, in general, to contribute in no small measure to a destructive divisiveness in a society that for hundreds of years has maintained a stable if delicate balance between individual rights and civic duties.
In the Philippines the same principles have governed our lives, and insofar as civil relationships are concerned have proven adequate and satisfactory. But in the political field, more particularly in connection with the conduct of elections and related activities, they have failed to curb if they have not indirectly abetted, the proliferating evils that have long cried for relief, among them the hegemony of wealth of entrenched political organizations and dynasties, of terrorist groups, of unabashed government patronage. The law that is here assailed as unconstitutional is a departure from the system that has been tried so many times before and found wanting. It is an experiment, to be sure; but it is one which Congress, by virtue of its powers and its grasp of the problem involved, has considered necessary to initiate; and I am not prepared to hinder its efforts except upon the clearest showing that they not only regulate but unjustifiably abridge individual rights and liberties.
It should be remembered that the law in question has to do with the process of amending the Constitution, or framing an entirely new one.ℒαwρhi৷ The task is vital to the life of the nation, and has a character of permanence which is not susceptible of change through periodic submission to the people. The delegates to be elected for that task will not represent regional districts in the political sense, nor particular social segments or interests. They stand for ideas, for theories of government and civil society; and the purpose of the law is to allow the people the freest possible choice, untrammelled by the many election practices heretofore permitted whereby some candidates are placed at a decided advantage because they have the logistics for effective political campaign that are denied the others.
As Mr. Justice Makasiar has stated in his opinion, the challenged statute is pragmatic and empirical in its approach to an old familiar problem; and considering how our traditional electoral processes have failed to provide a solution, I am quite willing to accept the trial and error method, even if we do adopt a more stringent regulation of certain individual rights as long as such regulation is within permissible limits, which I am convinced it is in this case.
Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J., and Castro, J., concurs.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
