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*"!(* P0*-,#*"( !"# SENATOR A1UILINO
PIMENTEL ," ),- .!/!.,(y !- M,"o0,(y L*!#*0 o' ()*
S*"!(* o' ()* P),l,//,"*-, CONGRESSMAN JOSE E
VENECIA ," ),- .!/!.,(y !- S/*!2*0, CONGRESSMAN
AGUSTO L. S$JOCO ," ),- .!/!.,(y !- C)!,03!" o' ()*
Co33,((** o" Su''0!4* !"# El*.(o0!l R*'o03-, !"#
CONGRESSMAN EMILIO C. MACIAS II ," ),- .!/!.,(y
!- C)!,03!" o' ()* Co33,((** o" Lo.!l Go5*0"3*"( o' ()*
Hou-* o' R*/0*-*"(!(,5*-, THE PRESIENT O% THE
PAMBANSANG +ATIPUNAN NG MGA
SANGGUNIANG +ABATAAN, AN ALL THEIR
AGENTS AN REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.
CARPIO, J.6
T)* C!-*
Before us is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
with prayer for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction. The petition seeks to prevent the postponement of
the Sangguniang Kabataan !"#! for brevity$ elections
originally 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 a
ta)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/%'$, membership in the "# is limited to
youths at least /4 but not more than &/ years old.
Petitioners allege that public respondents !connived,
confederated and conspired! to postpone the May %, &''& "#
elections and to lower the membership age in the "# to at least
/4 but less than /5 years of age. Petitioners assail the alleged
conspiracy because youths at least /5 but not more than &/
years old will be !summarily and unduly dismembered,
unfairly discriminated, unnecessarily disenfranchised, unjustly
disassociated and obno)iously dis(ualified from the "#
organi6ation.!
/
Thus, petitioners pray for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction 7
!a$ To prevent, annul or declare unconstitutional any
law, 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 be
allowed to run for any "# elective position even if they
are 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 barangay
elections.!
&
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 specifying
the 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 mandated
the .omelec to supervise the conduct of the "# elections under
rules the .omelec shall promulgate. 1ccordingly, the .omelec
on >ecember 9, &''/ issued Resolution 2os. 93/:
%
and 93/9
3

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$, then .omelec .hairman, wrote
identical letters to the "peaker of the Bouse
0
and the "enate
President
/'
about the status of pending bills on the "# and
Barangay elections. ;n his letters, the .omelec .hairman
intimated that it was !operationally very difficult! to hold both
elections simultaneously in May &''&. ;nstead, the .omelec
.hairman e)pressed support for the bill of "enator @ranklin
>rilon that proposed to hold the Barangay elections in May
&''& and postpone the "# elections to 2ovember &''&.
Ten days lapsed without the .omelec responding to the letter
of Montesclaros. "ubse(uently, petitioners received a copy of
.omelec En Banc Resolution 2o. 93%:
//
dated @ebruary 4,
&''& recommending to .ongress the postponement of the "#
elections to 2ovember &''& but holding the Barangay elections
in May &''& as scheduled.
/&
?n March %, &''&, the "enate and the Bouse of
Representatives passed their respective bills postponing the "#
elections. ?n March //, &''&, the Bicameral .onference
.ommittee !Bicameral .ommittee! for brevity$ of the "enate
and the Bouse came out with a Report
/:
recommending
approval of the reconciled bill consolidating "enate Bill 2o.
&'4'
/9
and Bouse Bill 2o. 994%.
/4
The Bicameral .ommittee*s
consolidated 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 /:, &''&, the
Bouse 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" 1.TD> EB;M";.1,,=,
;,,D-1,,= 12> +2.?2"T;T+T;?21,,=
TB+" .?2"T;T+TD> ";.$ E;TB -R1AD 1B+"D
?@ >;".RDT;?2, 1M?+2T;2- T? ,1.# ?R
DF.D"" ?@ <+R;">;.T;?2 EBD2 TBD=
;2TD2>D> T? P?"TP?2D TBD "# D,D.T;?2".
;;.
RD"P?2>D2T" 1.TD> EB;M";.1,,=,
;,,D-1,,= 12> +2.?2"T;T+T;?21,,=
TB+" .?2"T;T+TD> ";.$ E;TB -R1AD 1B+"D
?@ >;".RDT;?2, 1M?+2T;2- T? ,1.# ?R
DF.D"" ?@ <+R;">;.T;?2 EBD2 TBD=
;2TD2>D> T? >;".R;M;21TD,
>;"D2@R12.B;"D, ";2-,D ?+T 12>
>;"MDMBDR TBD "# MDMBDR" EB? 1RD /5
B+T 2?T ,D""
/3
";.$ TB12 &/ =D1R" ?,>
.?MP?"D> ?@ 1B?+T 3 M;,,;?2 =?+TB.
;;;.
RD"P?2>D2T" 1.TD> EB;M";.1,,=,
;,,D-1,,= 12> +2.?2"T;T+T;?21,,=
TB+" .?2"T;T+TD> ";.$ E;TB -R1AD 1B+"D
?@ >;".RDT;?2, 1M?+2T;2- T? ,1.# ?R
DF.D"" ?@ <+R;">;.T;?2 EBD2 TBD=
E;,,@+,,= @1;,D> T? @+2> TBD "#
D,D.T;?2 P+RP?RTD>,= T? P?"TP?2D TBD
"1MD ;2 ?R>DR T? ;MP,DMD2T TBD;R
;,,D-1, ".BDMD 12> M1.B;21T;?2 ;2
"P;TD ?@ TBD @1.T TB1T TBDRD 1RD
1A1;,1B,D @+2>" @?R TBD P+RP?"D.
;A.
TBD ;2.+MBD2T "# ?@@;.DR" E12TD> T?
PDRPDT+1,,= ";T ?2 TBD;R RD"PD.T;AD
?@@;.D" .?2TR1R= T? TBD D2A;";?2 ";.$
?@ TBD .RD1T;?2 ?@ TBD "# ?R-12;G1T;?2,
BD2.D, ;2 A;?,1T;?2 ?@ ,1E 12>
.?2"T;T+T;?2.!
/5
T)* Cou0(7- Rul,"4
The petition is bereft of merit.
1t the outset, the .ourt takes judicial notice of the following
events 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 the
election.!
&'
R1 2o. 0/%9 also provides that there shall
be a synchroni6ed "# and Barangay elections on <uly
/4, &''&.
:. The .omelec promulgated Resolution 2o. 959%, the
rules 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 disenfranchises
them, 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 postponement
would 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 public
respondents* failure to hold the elections on May %, &''& would
prejudice petitioners and other youths similarly situated.
Thus, petitioners instituted this petition toC /$ compel public
respondents to hold the "# elections on May %, &''& and
should it be postponed, the "# elections should be held not
later than <uly /4, &''&H &$ prevent public respondents from
passing laws and issuing resolutions and orders that would
lower 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 re7
scheduled "# elections.
The .ourt*s power of judicial review may be e)ercised in
constitutional cases only if all the following re(uisites are
complied with, namelyC /$ the e)istence of an actual and
appropriate 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 earliest
opportunityH and 9$ the constitutional (uestion is the lis mota
of the case.
&/
;n the instant case, there is no actual controversy re(uiring the
e)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/%9
has reset the "# elections to <uly /4, &''&, a date acceptable to
petitioners. Eith respect to the date of the "# elections, there
is therefore no actual controversy re(uiring judicial
intervention.
Petitioners* prayer to prevent .ongress from enacting into law
a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the "# does
not present an actual justiciable controversy. A /0o/o-*# 8,ll
,- "o( -u89*.( (o 9u#,.,!l 0*5,*: 8*.!u-* ,( ,- "o( ! l!:. 1
proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally
enforceable 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 of
rendering 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 the
.onstitution 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 to
determine 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 the
legislative 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 the
reconciled bills by each chamber of .ongress. 1bsent a clear
violation of specific constitutional limitations or of
constitutional rights of private parties, the .ourt cannot
e)ercise its power of judicial review over the internal processes
or 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 not
include the power to prescribe to .ongress what laws to enact.
The .ourt has no power to compel .ongress by mandamus to
enact 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 balances
finely crafted by the .onstitution for the three co7e(ual,
coordinate and independent branches of government.
+nder R1 2o. 0/%9, .ongress merely restored the age
re(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 "ection
9&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 amending
or 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 more
than &/ 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"*0-7 0*3*#y ,- l*4,-l!(,o", "o( 9u#,.,!l ,"(*05*"(,o".
Petitioners have no personal and substantial interest in
maintaining 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 real
interest in the suit. By !real interest! is meant a present
substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere e)pectancy or
future, contingent, subordinate, or inconse(uential interest.
&%
;n the instant case, petitioners seek to enforce a right originally
conferred 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 are
at 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 in
the <uly /4, &''& "# elections. Plainly, petitioners no longer
have 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 an
appropriate 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
"ince
certain public offices are !reserved! for "# officers, petitioners
also claim a constitutionally protected !opportunity! to occupy
these public offices. ;n petitioners* own words, they and others
similarly 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, city
council or provincial board, respectively.
:'
The chairperson of
the "# in the barangay is an ex-officio member of the
"angguniang Barangay.
:/
The president of the national
federation 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 right
to 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 an
office 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 representative
government, the officers being mere agents and not
rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of
men 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 for
the 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. The
constitutional 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. .ongress
has 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 government
service, 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 age
for 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 is
now the law that prescribes the (ualifications of candidates and
voters for the "# elections. This law also fi)es the date of the
"# elections. Petitioners are not even assailing the
constitutionality of R1 2o. 0/%9. R1 2o. 0/%9 enjoys the
presumption of constitutionality and will apply to the <uly /4,
&''& "# elections.
Petitioners have not shown that the .omelec acted illegally or
with grave abuse of discretion in recommending to .ongress
the postponement of the "# elections. The very evidence relied
upon by petitioners contradict their allegation of illegality. The
evidence consist of the followingC /$ .omelec en banc
Resolution 2o. 93%: dated @ebruary 4, &''& that recommended
the postponement of the "# elections to &'':H &$ the letter of
then .omelec .hairman Benipayo addressed to the "peaker of
the Bouse of Representatives and the President of the "enateH
and :$ the .onference .ommittee Report consolidating "enate
Bill 2o. &'4' and Bouse Bill 2o. 994%.
The .omelec e)ercised its power and duty to !enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall!
:3
and to
!recommend to .ongress effective measures to minimi6e
election spending.!
:5
The .omelec*s acts enjoy the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties.
:0
These acts
cannot constitute proof, as claimed by petitioners, that there
!e)ists a connivance and conspiracy among$ respondents in
contravention of the present law.! 1s the .ourt held in
Pangkat Laguna v. Comelec,
9'
the !.omelec, as the
government agency tasked with the enforcement and
administration of elections laws, is entitled to the presumption
of regularity of official acts with respect to the elections.!
The /053 .onstitution imposes upon the .omelec the duty of
enforcing and administering all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of elections. Petitioners failed to prove that the
.omelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
recommending to .ongress the postponement of the May %,
&''& "# elections. The evidence cited by petitioners even
establish that the .omelec has demonstrated an earnest effort
to address the practical problems in holding the "# elections
on May %, &''&. The presumption remains that the decision of
the .omelec to recommend to .ongress the postponement of
the elections was made in good faith in the regular course of its
official duties.
-rave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical
e)ercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law.
9/
Public respondents having acted strictly
pursuant to their constitutional powers and duties, we find no
grave abuse of discretion in their assailed acts.
Petitioners contend that the postponement of the "# elections
would allow the incumbent "# officers to perpetuate
themselves in power, depriving other youths of the opportunity
to serve in elective "# positions. This argument deserves scant
consideration. Ehile R1 2o. 0/%9 contains a hold7over
provision, incumbent "# officials can remain in office only
until their successors have been elected or (ualified. ?n <uly
/4, &''&, when the "# elections are held, the hold7over period
e)pires and all incumbent "# officials automatically cease to
hold their "# offices and their e)7officio public offices.
;n sum, petitioners have no personal and substantial interest in
maintaining this suit. This petition presents no actual
justiciable controversy. Petitioners do not cite any provision of
law that is alleged to be unconstitutional. ,astly, we find no
grave 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.