[G.R. No. 152295] [Montesclaros vs.

COMELEC]
Summarized by Mil Ramos & Charles Torres
Petitioners are seeking Judicial Review of RA 9164 by filing a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction.
RELEVANCE: Courts interpretation of Power of Judicial Review given to them by the
Constitution
Important People:
Petitioners: Antoniette V.C. Montesclaros, Maricel Caranzo, Josephine Atangan, Ronald
Atangan And Clariza Decena, And Other Youth Of The Land Similarly Situated (all 20 yrs. of
age)
Respondents: Comelec, DILG, DBM, Executive Sec. of the Office of the President, Senate
President Franklin Drilon, Minority Leader of the Senate Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Cong.
Jose De Venecia (Speaker), Cong. August Syjoco (Chairman of the Committee on Suffrage
and Electoral Reforms) and Cong. Emilio C. Macias II (Chairman of the Committee on Local
Government of the House of Representatives), The President of the Pambansang Katipunan
ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan and other agents and representatives
FACTS: (In order of chronological events)
February 18, 2002 - Petitioner sent a letter to Comelec demanding that SK elections be held
on May 6, 2002 and gave the Comelec 10 days to respond, otherwise she will seek Judicial
Relief.
February 20, 2002 - Comelec Chairman wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House and
Senate President, advising them that holding the SK and Barangay Elections simultaneously
was operationally very difficult.
February 5, 2002 - date of the Comelec en banc Resolution no. 4763 recommending to
Congress the postponement of SK elections to November 2002 but holding the Barangay
elections in May 2002 as scheduled. Petitioner received a copy of the letter after her 10
days request for reply elapsed.
March 6, 2002 - the Senate and the House of Representatives passed their respective bills
postponing SK elections
March 11, 2002 - Bicameral Conference Committee came out with a report recommending
the approval of the reconciled bill consolidating the House and Senate versions. Bill resets
SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002
- Petitioners filed for instant petition (take note, petition filed even before the
bill was made into law)
- Senate approved the Bicameral Committees consolidated Bill
March 13, 2002 - House of Representatives approved the Bicameral Committees
consolidated bill
March 19, 2002 - President signed the approved bill (RA 9164)
May 6, 2002 - scheduled date of SK elections
July 15, 2002 - Petitioners proposed date of SK elections if postponed
- Date of SK and Barangay elections as approved by RA 9164

PD 684 - established the Kabataang Barangay (KB) composed of all youth less than 18
years old. Original charter of SK.
Local Government Code of 1991 - renamed KB to Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) and limited
the membership to youths at least 15 but not more than 21 years of age
RA 9164 - law that states the rescheduling and simultaneous holding of SK and Barangay
elections on July 15, 2002. Law also restored the age requirement in PD 684, which is
maximum 18 years old.
RA 7808 - mandated the Comelec to supervise the conduct of the SK elections
December 4 - Comelec Resolutions 4713 & 4714 governing the SK elections on May 6, 2002
were issued
Senate Bill 2050 - senate version of RA 9164
House Bill 4456 - house version of RA 9164
ISSUE(s):
Grounds in support for petition:
Respondents acted whimsically, illegally and unconstitutionally thus constituted with grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction...
1. when they intended to postpone the SK elections
2. when they intended to discriminate SK members who are 18 but not less than
21 years old (7,000,000 in population)
3. when, due to its postponement, they failed to fund the SK elections already
allocated with a budget for the purpose
and 4. Incumbent SK officers wanted to perpetually sit on their respective offices in violation
of law and constitution
HOLDING:
Verdict: Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
All requisites needed for the Court to exercise the power of judicial review in constitutional
cases had not been met:
1. the existence of an actual and appropriate case or controversy
- There is no actual controversy since petitioners are only seeking to prevent a
proposed bill limiting the SK members age limit.
- Also, petitioners are amenable to a resetting of the SK elections to any date not
later than July 15, 2002 which incidentally is the date set in RA 9164.
2. a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional
question
- Petitioners are no longer considered interested parties since they have been
disqualified as not belonging the class of the youth as defined by the Congress.
3. the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity
- The petition was filed when RA 9164 was not yet enacted into law
4. the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case
- No constitutional issue since at the time the petition was filed, RA 9164 was not yet
enacted into law.
- Petitioners claim that SK membership is a property right within the meaning of
the Constitution has no basis. SK membership is not a property right protected by

the Constitution, but a statutory right conferred law. No one has a property right to
public office, since public office is public trust.
The remedy petitioners are seeking is legislation, not judicial intervention. What they might
be seeking is for Congress to pass an amendatory law that will allow them to participate in
the elections even though they are over-aged.
No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was done because:
- Court considers the actions of Comelec operating under the presumption of
regularity they are entitled to with respect to elections (Pangkat Laguna v.
Comelec).
- The actions of the legislative and executive bodies are all in accordance to the
powers and duties vested unto them, all which are considered to be done in good
faith (minimization of spending, creating laws, etc).