26. Montesclaros vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.

152295, July 9 2002

SEPTEMBER 16, 2018

FACTS:

The SK is a youth organization was established through Presidential Decree No 684 as “Kabataang
“Barangay” which composed of ALL barangay residents who were less than 18 years of age
without minimum age. KB was later on renamed to SK under Local Government Code 1991 which
limited membership to youth not younger than 15 and not older than 21.

On February 18 2002, Antionette Montesclaros sent a letter to COMELEC demanding to push

through with the May 2002 elections urging a response within 10 days. On February 20 2002,
COMELEC Chairman, Alfredo Benipayo, wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House and the Senate
President expressing that holding the elections of the barangay and SK simultaneously in May
2002 was “operationally very difficult” and suggested to go with Sen. Franklin Drilon’s propasal
to hold Barangay elections on May 2002 and the SK elections on Nov 2002 instead.

Petitioners received COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 4763 recommending to postpone SK

elections. On March 2002, the Senate and House of Representatives passed bills postponing SK
elections. On March 11 2002, the Bicameral Conference Committee reset SK elections and
Banrangay elections to July 15 2002 and lowered the SK membership age to 15 but not more than
18 years old. On the same day, Montesclaros filed a petition for a certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with prayer of temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent the
postponment of the May 2002 elections and the reduction of the age requirement for SK
membership.

The bill was later signed as law by the President.

ISSUE/HELD:

Whether there is an actual controversy in the case which postpones the SK elections from May
2002 to July 2002 and the reduction of age requirement for SK membership—NO.

RATIO:

The petition failed to present an actual case or controversy since petitioners acquiesced to the
change of date from May to July 2002.

Morevoer, a proposed bill is NOT a law. It imposes NO duty legally enforceable by the court.
Under the separation of powers, the Court cannot restrain Congress from passing a law or interfere
with its internal rules. The petitioners’ remedy lies in the legislative department through
LEGISLATION and NOT judicial intervention since it is up to Congress to decide whether to
enact an amendatory law.

Petitioners failed to assail ANY provision in RA No. 9164 that could be unconstitutional.
Consequently, the Court cannot strike down this law unless its unconstitutionality is properly
raised.