[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
379 views1 page

Gonzales V Comelec

Petitioners claimed that two new sections of the Revised Election Code under R.A. No. 4880 prohibiting early candidate nominations and limiting campaign periods infringed on constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that the law was a valid response to issues affecting elections and that the prohibitions and time limits were reasonable. The Court also noted it did not have the required two-thirds vote to declare a law unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and found R.A. No. 4880 to be constitutional.

Uploaded by

Anjanette Mangalindan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
379 views1 page

Gonzales V Comelec

Petitioners claimed that two new sections of the Revised Election Code under R.A. No. 4880 prohibiting early candidate nominations and limiting campaign periods infringed on constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that the law was a valid response to issues affecting elections and that the prohibitions and time limits were reasonable. The Court also noted it did not have the required two-thirds vote to declare a law unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and found R.A. No. 4880 to be constitutional.

Uploaded by

Anjanette Mangalindan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF RE CONSTITUTIONALITY

OF REPUBLIC ACT 4880. ARSENIO GONZALES and FELICISIMO R. CABIGAO, petitioners,


vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
G.R. NO. L – 27833, APRIL 18, 1969, Justice Enrique M. Fernando

FACTS:

Petitioner filed an action against respondent, alleging that there was infringement of liberty, freedom
of speech, freedom of assembly and right to form association not contrary to law, in its two new
section on the Revised Election Code under R.A. No. 4880; prohibiting the too early nomination of
candidates and limiting period of election campaign. Thus, petitioner claimed that the said act was
unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Whether or not R.A. No. 4880 was infringement of liberty, making the act unconstitutional.

HELD:

No. The Court declared that, in considering whether that said act violated any of the rights said above,
we cannot ignore that R.A. No. 4880 enactment was in response to a serious substantive evil affection
the electoral process. Further, the said prohibition and limitation in time, presents a question that was
not too formidable in character and the legislative activity was not duly narrowed; neither there was
infringement in the freedom to assemble. Another thing, under section 10 of Article VII, no treaty or
law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the
Supreme Court. In the case at bar, the necessary two-thirds vote, not being obtained, there is no
occasion for the power to annul statutes to come into play. For these reasons, the Court declared that
R.A. No. 4880 cannot be unconstitutional. The petition was dismissed.

You might also like