Montesclaros vs. COMELEC Case Digest

 

Montesclaros vs. COMELEC FACTS:

This is a petition that seeks to prevent the postponement of the May 6, 2002 elections, as well as to prevent Congress from enacting  into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK

The COMELEC is mandated by RA 7808 to supervise the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections. ccordingly! ccordingly! the COMELE COMELEC C issued Resolutions 4713 an 4714 to govern the SK elections on Ma! "# $00$. On "ebruary #$$#! petitioner ntoinette %.C. Monteclaros sent a letter to the COMELEC demanding that the SK elections be held as scheduled on May &! #$$#. ('ote nder * +,$,! SK elections should be scheduled on the -irst Monday o- May! //& and every three years therea-ter). T0o days later! then COMELEC Chairman l-redo 1enipayo 0rote identical letters to the Spea2er o- the 3ouse and the Senate 4resident regarding the pending bills on the SK and 1arangay elections! saying that it 0ould be di--icult to hold both elections simultaneously on May #$$#. On March #$$#! the Senate and the 3O* approved (on separate dates) the 1icameral committees consolidated bill (i.e. Senate 1ill 'o. #$5$ and 3ouse 1ill 'o. 665&) 0hich moved the SK and 1arangay elections to %ul! 1&# $00$ and lo0ered the membership age in the SK to at least 5 but not more than , years o- age. ('ote nder the Local 7overnment Code o- //! the age -or membership 0as -ormerly limited to those at least 5 but not more than # years o- age). The president signed the bill into la0 as RA '1"4. (OCTR)*E: Re+uisites o, %uicial Revie-

The Court8s po0er o- 9udicial revie0 may be e:ercised in constitutional cases only i- all the -ollo0ing re;uisites are complied 0ith! namely () the e:istence o- an actual and appropriate case or controversy< (#) a personal and substantial interest o- the party raising the constitutional ;uestion< (=) the e:ercise o- 9udicial revie0 is pleaded at the earliest opportunity< and (6) the constitutional ;uestion is the lis mota o- the case.

)SSE:

>O' there 0as grave abuse o- discretion amounting to lac2 or e:cess o- 9urisdiction on the part o- the respondent.

/EL(: 1.

a ass tere tere an ac actual tual an an a22r a22ro2riat o2riatee cas casee or contr controvers overs! ! *O. As to te issue o, te ate o, te election: There is no actual controversy. 4etitioners 4etitioners 0ere amenable to resetting the elections to any date not later than ?uly 5! #$$#. RA '1"4 reset the date to ?uly 5! #$$# @ a date 0hich 0as acceptable acceptable to the petitioner petitioners. s. As to te issue o, te ae re+uire5ent: *O. There can be no 9usticiable controver controversy sy regarding the constitutionality o- a 2ro2ose 6ill. At is not yet a la0. The 9udicial  po0er to revie0 revie0 the constitutionality constitutionality o- la0s la0s does 'OT include the po0e po0err to prescribe to to Congress 0ha 0hatt la0s to enact. enact. ()* S/ORT: *evie0ing the constitutionality constitutionality o- a la0 may only be done AFTER it is passed! and not be-ore).

$. a.

(i te 2etiti 2etitione oners rs  ave ave Loc Locus us Stan Stani i *O. The ne0 la0 restricts membership in the SK to people ages 5 to less than ,. 4etitioners no longer belong to this age group and are dis;uali-ied -rom participating in the ?uly #$$# elections! i.e.! they no longer have a personal

3.

and substantial interest in the SK elections. 6. (i te 2etitioner 2etitionerss raise raise a cconsti onstitution tutional al + +uesti uestion on *O. An order to grant the prayer o- the petitioners to be allo0ed to vote on the ?uly #$$# SK elections! the constitutionality constitutionali ty o- * /&6 should -irst be assailed. The petitioners have 'OT done this. a ass te eerci eercise se o, uicial uicial revie revie- 2leae 2leae  at t tee earlie earliest st o22ortunit o22ortunit! !

 

 'o need to bring bring this up. 'OT 'OT BASCSSEB BASCSSEB A' A' T3E C CSE. SE. 4. a ass te te co const nstitu itutio tional nal +uesti +uestion on te te lis mota o, te case  'o need to bring bring this up. There There 0as no constitutional constitutional ;uest ;uestion ion to begin 0i 0ith. th. 'OT BASCSSEB BASCSSEB A' T3E T3E CSE CSE.. O* O* tere -as rave a6use o, iscretion:

 'O. The COMELEC en9oys the presumption o- regularity in per-orming election related acts! unless petitioners can prove other0ise. 4etitioners -ailed -ailed to prove that the Comelec committed grave abuse o- discretion in recommending to Congress the postponement othe May &! #$$# SK elections. The evidence cited by petitioners even establish that the Comelec has demonstrated an earnest e--ort to address the practical problems in holding the SK elections on May &! #$$#. 9ET)T)O* ()SM)SSE(.