SIMEON G. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, VS. UBALDO CARBONELL, JAIME N. FERRER, LINO PATAJO AND CESAR MIRAFLOR, RESPONDENTS.

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 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 inquired into nor interfered with by this
Tribunal, the same being purely a political question.^[1]

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
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.

6.  This Court also
sustained the validity of Sec. 4 and the second paragraph of Sec. 8(a) of R.A.
No. 6132 in a decision dated September
9, 1970.^[2]

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.”

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 and reasonably covers all
the provisions of the act so as not to mislead Congress or the people.^[3] 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., Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, and Ruiz
Castro, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on official leave.

Villamor, J., concurs in the result.

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

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.

Zaldivar, J., reserves his vote.

^[1]
Tañada, et. al. vs. Cuenco,
et. al., L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957.

^[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.

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