Montescarlo vs. Comelec

8/12/2019 Montescarlo vs. Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/montescarlo-vs-comelec 1/9

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 152295 July 9, 2002

ANTONIETTE V.C. MONTESCLAROS, MARICEL

CARANZO, JOSEPHINE ATANGAN, RONAL

ATANGAN !"# CLARIZA ECENA, !"# OTHER

$OUTH O% THE LAN SIMILARL$ SITUATE,

petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EPARTMENT O%INTERIOR AN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,

EPARTMENT O% BUGET AN MANAGEMENT,

E&ECUTIVE SECRETAR$ o' ()* O%%ICE O% THE

PRESIENT, SENATOR %RAN+LIN RILON " )-

!/!(y !- S*"!(* P*-#*"( !"# SENATOR AUILINO

PIMENTEL " )- !/!(y !- M"o(y L*!#* o' ()*

S*"!(* o' ()* P)l//"*-, CONGRESSMAN JOSE E

VENECIA " )- !/!(y !- S/*!*, CONGRESSMAN

AGUSTO L. S$JOCO " )- !/!(y !- C)!3!" o' ()*

Co33((** o" Su''!4* !"# El*(o!l R*'o3-, !"#CONGRESSMAN EMILIO C. MACIAS II " )- !/!(y

!- C)!3!" o' ()* Co33((** o" Lo!l Go*"3*"( o' ()*

Hou-* o' R*/*-*"(!(*-, THE PRESIENT O% THE

PAMBANSANG +ATIPUNAN NG MGA

SANGGUNIANG +ABATAAN, AN ALL THEIR

AGENTS AN REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.

CARPIO, J .6

T)* C!-*

Before us is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

with prayer for a temporary restraining order or preliminary

injunction. The petition seeks to prevent the postponement ofthe Sangguniang Kabataan !"#! for brevity$ electionsoriginally scheduled last May %, &''&. The petition also seeks

to prevent the reduction of the age re(uirement for membership

in the "#.

Petitioners, who are all &' years old, filed this petition as ata)payer*s and class suit, on their own behalf and on behalf of

other youths similarly situated. Petitioners claim that they are

in danger of being dis(ualified to vote and be voted for in the

"# elections should the "# elections on May %, &''& be postponed to a later date. +nder the ocal -overnment ode of/00/ R.1. 2o. 3/%'$, membership in the "# is limited to

youths at least /4 but not more than &/ years old.

Petitioners allege that public respondents !connived,

confederated and conspired! to postpone the May %, &''& "#elections and to lower the membership age in the "# to at least

/4 but less than /5 years of age. Petitioners assail the alleged

conspiracy because youths at least /5 but not more than &/

years old will be !summarily and unduly dismembered,unfairly discriminated, unnecessarily disenfranchised, unjustlydisassociated and obno)iously dis(ualified from the "#

organi6ation.!/

Thus, petitioners pray for the issuance of a temporary

restraining order or preliminary injunction 7



!a$ To prevent, annul or declare unconstitutional anylaw, decree, omelec resolution8directive and other

respondents* issuances, orders and actions and the like

in postponing the May %, &''& "# elections.

b$ To command the respondents to continue the May %,&''& "# elections set by the present law and in

accordance with omelec Resolutions 2o. 93/: and

93/9 and to e)pedite the funding of the "# elections.

c$ ;n the alternative, if the "# elections will be postponed for whatever reason, there must be a definite

date for said elections, for e)ample, <uly /4, &''&, and

the present "# membership, e)cept those incumbent

"# officers who were elected on May %, /00%, shall beallowed to run for any "# elective position even if theyare more than &/ years old.

d$ To direct the incumbent "# officers who are presently representing the "# in every sanggunian and

the 2= to vacate their post after the barangayelections.!&

T)* %!(-

The "# is a youth organi6ation originally established by

Presidential >ecree 2o. %59 as the Kabataang Barangay !#B! for brevity$. The #B was composed of all barangay

residents who were less than /5 years old, without specifyingthe minimum age. The #B was organi6ed to provide its

members with the opportunity to e)press their views and

opinions on issues of transcendental importance.:

The ocal -overnment ode of /00/ renamed the #B to "#and limited "# membership to those youths !at least /4 but not

more than &/ years of age.!9 The "# remains as a youth

organi6ation in every barangay tasked to initiate programs !to

enhance the social, political, economic, cultural, intellectual,moral, spiritual, and physical development of the youth.!4 The"# in every barangay is composed of a chairperson and seven

members, all elected by the Katipunan ng Kabataan. The Katipunan ng Kabataan in every barangay is composed of all

citi6ens actually residing in the barangay for at least si) months

and who meet the membership age re(uirement.

The first "# elections took place on >ecember 9, /00&. R1

2o. 35'5 reset the "# elections to the first Monday of May of

/00% and every three years thereafter. R1 2o. 35'5 mandatedthe omelec to supervise the conduct of the "# elections underrules the omelec shall promulgate. 1ccordingly, the omelec

on >ecember 9, &''/ issued Resolution 2os. 93/:% and 93/93 to govern the "# elections on May %, &''&.

?n @ebruary /5, &''&, petitioner 1ntoniette A.. Montesclaros!Montesclaros! for brevity$ sent a letter 5 to the omelec,

demanding that the "# elections be held as scheduled on May%, &''&. Montesclaros also urged the omelec to respond to

her letter within /' days upon receipt of the letter, otherwise,she will seek judicial relief.

?n @ebruary &', &''&, 1lfredo . Benipayo !hairman

Benipayo! for brevity$, then omelec hairman, wroteidentical letters to the "peaker of the ouse0 and the "enate

President/' about the status of pending bills on the "# andBarangay elections. ;n his letters, the omelec hairman

intimated that it was !operationally very difficult! to hold both



elections simultaneously in May &''&. ;nstead, the omelechairman e)pressed support for the bill of "enator @ranklin

>rilon that proposed to hold the Barangay elections in May

&''& and postpone the "# elections to 2ovember &''&.

Ten days lapsed without the omelec responding to the letterof Montesclaros. "ubse(uently, petitioners received a copy of

omelec En Banc Resolution 2o. 93%:// dated @ebruary 4,

&''& recommending to ongress the postponement of the "#elections to 2ovember &''& but holding the Barangay elections

in May &''& as scheduled./&

?n March %, &''&, the "enate and the ouse of

Representatives passed their respective bills postponing the "#

elections. ?n March //, &''&, the Bicameral onferenceommittee !Bicameral ommittee! for brevity$ of the "enateand the ouse came out with a Report/: recommending

approval of the reconciled bill consolidating "enate Bill 2o.

&'4'/9 and ouse Bill 2o. 994%./4 The Bicameral ommittee*sconsolidated bill reset the "# and Barangay elections to <uly

/4, &''& and lowered the membership age in the "# to at least/4 but not more than /5 years of age.

?n March //, &''&, petitioners filed the instant petition.

?n March //, &''&, the "enate approved the Bicameral

ommittee*s consolidated bill and on March /:, &''&, theouse of Representatives approved the same. The President

signed the approved bill into law on March /0, &''&.

T)* I--u*-

Petitioners/% raise the following grounds in support of their petitionC

!;.

RD"P?2>D2T" 1TD> E;M";1=,

;D-1= 12> +2?2"T;T+T;?21=T+" ?2"T;T+TD> ";$ E;T -R1AD 1B+"D

?@ >;"RDT;?2, 1M?+2T;2- T? 1# ?RDFD"" ?@ <+R;">;T;?2 ED2 TD=

;2TD2>D> T? P?"TP?2D TD "# DDT;?2".

;;.

RD"P?2>D2T" 1TD> E;M";1=,;D-1= 12> +2?2"T;T+T;?21=

T+" ?2"T;T+TD> ";$ E;T -R1AD 1B+"D?@ >;"RDT;?2, 1M?+2T;2- T? 1# ?R

DFD"" ?@ <+R;">;T;?2 ED2 TD=;2TD2>D> T? >;"R;M;21TD,

>;"D2@R12;"D, ";2-D ?+T 12>

>;"MDMBDR TD "# MDMBDR" E? 1RD /5B+T 2?T D""/3 ";$ T12 &/ =D1R" ?>

?MP?"D> ?@ 1B?+T 3 M;;?2 =?+T.

;;;.

RD"P?2>D2T" 1TD> E;M";1=,

;D-1= 12> +2?2"T;T+T;?21=

T+" ?2"T;T+TD> ";$ E;T -R1AD 1B+"D?@ >;"RDT;?2, 1M?+2T;2- T? 1# ?R

DFD"" ?@ <+R;">;T;?2 ED2 TD=E;@+= @1;D> T? @+2> TD "#



DDT;?2 P+RP?RTD>= T? P?"TP?2D TD"1MD ;2 ?R>DR T? ;MPDMD2T TD;R

;D-1 "DMD 12> M1;21T;?2 ;2

"P;TD ?@ TD @1T T1T TDRD 1RD

1A1;1BD @+2>" @?R TD P+RP?"D.

;A.

TD ;2+MBD2T "# ?@@;DR" E12TD> T?PDRPDT+1= ";T ?2 TD;R RD"PDT;AD

?@@;D" ?2TR1R= T? TD D2A;";?2 ";$?@ TD RD1T;?2 ?@ TD "# ?R-12;G1T;?2,

D2D, ;2 A;?1T;?2 ?@ 1E 12>

?2"T;T+T;?2.!/5

T)* Cou(7- Rul"4

The petition is bereft of merit.

1t the outset, the ourt takes judicial notice of the followingevents that have transpired since petitioners filed this petitionC

/. The May %, &''& "# elections and May /:, &''&

Barangay elections were not held as scheduled.

&.

ongress enacted R1 2o. 0/%9/0 which provides that

voters and candidates for the "# elections must be !at

least /4 but less than /5 years of age on the day of theelection.!&' R1 2o. 0/%9 also provides that there shall

be a synchroni6ed "# and Barangay elections on <uly/4, &''&.

:. The omelec promulgated Resolution 2o. 959%, therules and regulations for the conduct of the <uly /4,

&''& synchroni6ed "# and Barangay elections.

Petitioners, who all claim to be &' years old, argue that the postponement of the May %, &''& "# elections disenfranchisesthem, preventing them from voting and being voted for in the

"# elections. Petitioners* theory is that if the "# elections were

postponed to a date later than May %, &''&, the postponementwould dis(ualify from "# membership youths who will turn &/

years old between May %, &''& and the date of the new "#elections. Petitioners claim that a reduction in the "#

membership age to /4 but less than /5 years of age from the

then membership age of /4 but not more than &/ years of age

would dis(ualify about seven million youths. The publicrespondents* failure to hold the elections on May %, &''& would prejudice petitioners and other youths similarly situated.

Thus, petitioners instituted this petition toC /$ compel publicrespondents to hold the "# elections on May %, &''& and

should it be postponed, the "# elections should be held notlater than <uly /4, &''&H &$ prevent public respondents from

passing laws and issuing resolutions and orders that wouldlower the membership age in the "#H and :$ compel public

respondents to allow petitioners and those who have turned

more than &/ years old on May %, &''& to participate in any re7scheduled "# elections.

The ourt*s power of judicial review may be e)ercised inconstitutional cases only if all the following re(uisites are

complied with, namelyC /$ the e)istence of an actual andappropriate case or controversyH &$ a personal and substantial

interest of the party raising the constitutional (uestionH :$ the



e)ercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliestopportunityH and 9$ the constitutional (uestion is the lis mota

of the case.&/

;n the instant case, there is no actual controversy re(uiring thee)ercise of the power of judicial review. Ehile seeking to prevent a postponement of the May %, &''& "# elections,

petitioners are nevertheless amenable to a resetting of the "#

elections to any date not later than <uly /4, &''&. R1 2o. 0/%9has reset the "# elections to <uly /4, &''&, a date acceptable to

petitioners. Eith respect to the date of the "# elections, thereis therefore no actual controversy re(uiring judicial

intervention.

Petitioners* prayer to prevent ongress from enacting into lawa proposed bill lowering the membership age in the "# doesnot present an actual justiciable controversy. A /o/o-*# 8ll

- "o( -u8*( (o u#!l **: 8*!u-* ( - "o( ! l!:.

1

proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legallyenforceable by the ourt. 1 proposed bill, having no legal

effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The ourt has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or

unconstitutional because that would be in the nature ofrendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of ongress.

The power of judicial review cannot be e)ercised in vacuo.&&

The second paragraph of "ection /, 1rticle A;;; of theonstitution states I

!<udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights

which are legally demandable and enforceable, and todetermine whether or not there has been a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or e)cess of jurisdiction

on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the-overnment.! Dmphasis supplied$

Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the

constitutionality of a proposed bill. The ourt can e)ercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before.

+nder the separation of powers, the ourt cannot restrain

ongress from passing any law, or from setting into motion thelegislative mill according to its internal rules. Thus, the

following acts of ongress in the e)ercise of its legislative powers are not subject to judicial restraintC the filing of bills by

members of ongress, the approval of bills by each chamber of

ongress, the reconciliation by the Bicameral ommittee of

approved bills, and the eventual approval into law of thereconciled bills by each chamber of ongress. 1bsent a clearviolation of specific constitutional limitations or of

constitutional rights of private parties, the ourt cannot

e)ercise its power of judicial review over the internal processesor procedures of ongress.&:

The ourt has also no power to dictate to ongress the object

or subject of bills that ongress should enact into law. The

judicial power to review the constitutionality of laws does notinclude the power to prescribe to ongress what laws to enact.

The ourt has no power to compel ongress by mandamus toenact a law allowing petitioners, regardless of their age, to vote

and be voted for in the <uly /4, &''& "# elections. To do so

would destroy the delicate system of checks and balancesfinely crafted by the onstitution for the three co7e(ual,

coordinate and independent branches of government.



+nder R1 2o. 0/%9, ongress merely restored the agere(uirement in P> 2o. %59, the original charter of the "#,

which fi)ed the ma)imum age for membership in the "# to

youths less than /5 years old. Petitioners do not have a vested

right to the permanence of the age re(uirement under "ection9&9 of the ocal -overnment ode of /00/. Dvery law passed by ongress is always subject to amendment or repeal by

ongress. The ourt cannot restrain ongress from amendingor repealing laws, for the power to make laws includes the

power to change the laws.&9

The ourt cannot also direct the omelec to allow over7aged

voters to vote or be voted for in an election that is limited

under R1 2o. 0/%9 to youths at least /4 but less than /5 years

old. 1 law is needed to allow all those who have turned morethan &/ years old on or after May %, &''& to participate in the<uly /4, &''& "# elections. =ouths from /5 to &/ years old as

of May %, &''& are also no longer "# members, and cannot participate in the <uly /4, &''& "# elections. ongress will

have to decide whether to enact an amendatory law.

P*((o"*-7 *3*#y - l*4-l!(o", "o( u#!l "(**"(o".

Petitioners have no personal and substantial interest inmaintaining this suit. 1 party must show that he has been, or is

about to be denied some personal right or privilege to which he

is lawfully entitled.&4 1 party must also show that he has a realinterest in the suit. By !real interest! is meant a present

substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere e)pectancy orfuture, contingent, subordinate, or inconse(uential interest.&%

;n the instant case, petitioners seek to enforce a right originallyconferred by law on those who were at least /4 but not more

than &/ years old. 2ow, with the passage of R1 2o. 0/%9, this

right is limited to those who on the date of the "# elections areat least /4 but less than /5 years old. The new law restricts

membership in the "# to this specific age group. 2ot falling

within this classification, petitioners have ceased to be

members of the "# and are no longer (ualified to participate inthe <uly /4, &''& "# elections. Plainly, petitioners no longerhave a personal and substantial interest in the "# elections.

This petition does not raise any constitutional issue. 1t the time petitioners filed this petition, R1 2o. 0/%9, which reset the "#

elections and reduced the age re(uirement for "# membership,was not yet enacted into law. 1fter the passage of R1 2o.

0/%9, petitioners failed to assail any provision in R1 2o. 0/%9

that could be unconstitutional. To grant petitioners* prayer to be

allowed to vote and be voted for in the <uly /4, &''& "#elections necessitates assailing the constitutionality of R1 2o.0/%9. This, petitioners have not done. The ourt will not strike

down a law unless its constitutionality is properly raised in anappropriate action and ade(uately argued.&3

The only semblance of a constitutional issue, albeit erroneous,that petitioners raise is their claim that "# membership is a

!property right within the meaning of the onstitution.!&5 "incecertain public offices are !reserved! for "# officers, petitioners

also claim a constitutionally protected !opportunity! to occupy

these public offices. ;n petitioners* own words, they and otherssimilarly situated stand to !lose their opportunity to work in the

government positions reserved for "# members or officers.!&0 +nder the ocal -overnment ode of /00/, the president of

the federation of "# organi6ations in a municipality, city or

province is an ex-officio member of the municipal council, citycouncil or provincial board, respectively.:' The chairperson of

the "# in the barangay is an ex-officio member of the



"angguniang Barangay.:/ The president of the nationalfederation of "# organi6ations is an ex-officio member of the

2ational =outh ommission, with rank of a >epartment

1ssistant "ecretary.:&

ongress e)ercises the power to prescribe the (ualifications for"# membership. ?ne who is no longer (ualified because of an

amendment in the law cannot complain of being deprived of a

proprietary right to "# membership. ?nly those who (ualify as"# members can contest, based on a statutory right, any act

dis(ualifying them from "# membership or from voting in the"# elections. "# membership is not a property right protected

by the onstitution because it is a mere statutory right

conferred by law. ongress may amend at any time the law to

change or even withdraw the statutory right.

1 public office is not a property right. 1s the onstitution

e)pressly states, a !JPKublic office is a public trust.!:: 2o one

has a vested right to any public office, much less a vested rightto an e)pectancy of holding a public office. ;n Cornejo v.

Gabriel ,:9 decided in /0&', the ourt already ruledC

!1gain, for this petition to come under the due process

of law prohibition, it would be necessary to consider anoffice a !property.! It is, however, well settled ) ) )

that a public office is not property within the sense of

the constitutional guaranties of due process of law,

but is a public trust or agency. ) ) ) The basic idea of

the government ) ) ) is that of a popular representativegovernment, the officers being mere agents and not

rulers of the people, one where no one man or set ofmen has a proprietary or contractual right to an office,

but where every officer accepts office pursuant to the

provisions of the law and holds the office as a trust forthe people he represents.! Dmphasis supplied$

Petitioners, who apparently desire to hold public office, should

reali6e from the very start that no one has a proprietary right to public office. Ehile the law makes an "# officer an ex-officio member of a local government legislative council, the law does

not confer on petitioners a proprietary right or even a

proprietary e)pectancy to sit in local legislative councils. Theconstitutional principle of a public office as a public trust

precludes any proprietary claim to public office. Dven the "tate policy directing !e(ual access to opportunities for public

service!:4 cannot bestow on petitioners a proprietary right to

"# membership or a proprietary e)pectancy to ex-officio public

offices.

Moreover, while the "tate policy is to encourage the youth*s

involvement in public affairs,:% this policy refers to those who

belong to the class of people defined as the youth. ongresshas the power to define who are the youth (ualified to join the

"#, which itself is a creation of ongress. Those who do not(ualify because they are past the age group defined as the

youth cannot insist on being part of the youth. ;n governmentservice, once an employee reaches mandatory retirement age,

he cannot invoke any property right to cling to his office. ;n the

same manner, since petitioners are now past the ma)imum agefor membership in the "#, they cannot invoke any property

right to cling to their "# membership.

The petition must also fail because no grave abuse of discretion

attended the postponement of the "# elections. R1 2o. 0/%9 isnow the law that prescribes the (ualifications of candidates and

voters for the "# elections. This law also fi)es the date of the





law that is alleged to be unconstitutional. astly, we find nograve abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents.

;HERE%ORE, the petition is ISMISSE for utter lack of

merit.

SO ORERE.

Davie! "r.! C.".! Bellosillo! Puno! #itug! Kapunan! $eno%a! Panganiban! &uisumbing! 'nares-Santiago! Sanoval-

(utierre%! )ustria-$artine%! an Corona! "".! concur.

Documents

Montescarlo vs. Comelec