<Actual Case or Controversy: Prematurity> <Montesclaros v. Comelec> <Hinanay, Grace Anne Nicole R.

>
< G.R No. 152295.> <July 09, 2002> <J. Carpio>
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

Actual case or controversy (prematurity) exists where there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal
claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence

RECIT-READY / SUMMARY

Petitioners seeks to prevent the postponement of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections and the reduction of the age
requirement for membership in the SK when Senate Bill 2050 and House Bill 4456 which resets the date of the SK and
Barangay elections and lowered the age requirement of the SK was approved. Petitioners claim that there was a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

FACTS
Petitions are all 20 years old. They are in danger of being disqualified to vote and to be voted in the SK elections on
May 6, 2002 if it were to be postponed to a later date.
According to the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160): members in the SK is limited to youths at least 15 but
not more than 21 years old.
Comelec issued Resolution 4713 and 4714 to govern the upcoming SK elections. Chairman Benipayo responded to
petitioner Montesclaros request to push for the elections on May 6, 2002 stating that it will be difficult to
simultaneously have both elections in 2002.
Chairman Benipayo expressed support for the bill of Senator Drilon that proposed to hold the Barangay elections
in May 2002 and postpone the SK elections to November 2002.
Senate and House of Representatives passed their respective bills postponing the SK elections. On March 11 2002,
the Bicameral Conference Committee of the Senate and the House recommended approval of Senate Bill 2050 and
House Bill 4456 which resets the SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002 and lowered the SK to at least 15 but
not more than 18 years old. The Senate approved the Bicameral Committees consolidated bill and on March 13,
2002, the House approved the same. The President signed the approved bill into law on March 19, 2002.

ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED

Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction imputable to Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160)
respondents. Senate Bill 2050
House Bill 4456
RA 9164

HELD

Judicial 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 excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Thus, there can be no
justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise its power of judicial review
only after a law is enacted, not before.

The Court cannot also restrain Congress, they are not subject to judicial restraint and it cannot exercise its power of judicial
review over the internal processes or procedures of Congress. It has the power to define who are the youth qualified to join
the SK.

The petition failed because no grave abuse of discretion in recommending to Congress the postponement of the SK
elections. The very evidence relied upon by petitioners contradict their allegation of illegality. The evidence consists of the
following: (1) Comelec en banc Resolution No. 4763 dated February 5, 2002 that recommended the postponement of the SK
elections to 2003; (2) the letter of then Comelec Chairman Benipayo addressed to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate; and (3) the Conference Committee Report consolidating Senate Bill No.
2050 and House Bill No. 4456.

In sum, the 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. Lastly, we find no
 <Actual Case or Controversy: Prematurity> <Montesclaros v. Comelec> <Hinanay, Grace Anne Nicole R.>
< G.R No. 152295.> <July 09, 2002> <J. Carpio>
grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondents.

OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)