Montesclaros v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, all 20 years old, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking to prevent the postponement of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections originally scheduled for May 6, 2002, and to prevent the reduction of the age requirement for SK membership. They claimed they were in danger of being disqualified due to the potential postponement and reduction of the age limit from 15-21 years old to 15-17 years old. Procedural History: The Supreme Court took judicial notice of subsequent events: the postponement of the May 6, 2002 elections, the enactment of Republic Act No. 9164 which reset the SK elections to July 15, 2002, and lowered the age requirement to at least 15 but less than 18 years of age, and the promulgation of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846 for the new elections. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent the postponement of the SK elections, to compel respondents to hold the elections as scheduled, or alternatively, to set a definite date and allow those over 21 to run. They also sought to prevent the lowering of the age requirement and to direct incumbent SK officers to vacate their posts.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in intending to postpone the SK elections. Whether the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in intending to discriminate, disenfranchise, single out, and dismember SK members aged 18 to 21 years old. Whether the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in failing to fund the SK elections to implement an illegal scheme. Whether incumbent SK officers sought to perpetually remain in office contrary to the SK's purpose.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for utter lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of postponing the SK elections: The Court found no actual controversy requiring judicial review regarding the postponement of the May 6, 2002 SK elections, as petitioners were amenable to a resetting of the elections to a date not later than July 15, 2002, which was subsequently enacted into law as RA No. 9164. The Court also held that it cannot restrain Congress from passing laws, as proposed bills are not subject to judicial review. The power of judicial review can only be exercised after a law is enacted, not before, and the Court cannot dictate to Congress what laws to enact. On the issue of lowering the SK membership age: The Court reiterated that Congress has the power to prescribe qualifications for SK membership and that laws are subject to amendment or repeal. Petitioners do not have a vested right to the permanence of the age requirement under the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court cannot compel Congress to enact a law allowing those who turned over-age to participate in the elections; their remedy lies in legislation, not judicial intervention. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and failure to fund: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents. The COMELEC's recommendation to postpone the elections was a valid exercise of its duty to enforce election laws and address practical problems. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies, and petitioners failed to prove connivance or conspiracy. The Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. On the issue of incumbent SK officers perpetuating themselves in power: The Court found this argument to be without merit. While RA No. 9164 contained a hold-over provision, incumbent SK officials would automatically cease to hold their offices and ex-officio positions upon the election and qualification of their successors on July 15, 2002. The Court also clarified that a public office is a public trust and not a property right, and no one has a vested right to hold public office.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court cannot exercise judicial review over proposed bills, nor can it compel Congress to enact or amend laws. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review as it creates no right and imposes no duty. Furthermore, a public office is not a property right, and individuals do not possess a vested right to hold public office or an expectancy thereof.