Scribd
Upload
55 views2 pages

Consti1 - 13 Montesclaros Vs Comelec

This case concerns a petition seeking to prevent the postponement of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections originally scheduled for May 6, 2002 and to prevent the reduction of the age requirement for SK membership from a proposed bill. The Supreme Court held that there was no actual justiciable controversy because a proposed bill that has not been enacted into law yet creates no rights or duties and is not subject to judicial review, as that would constitute an advisory opinion. As such, the Court has no power to rule on the constitutionality of a mere proposed bill. The petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Erla Elauria
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views2 pages

Consti1 - 13 Montesclaros Vs Comelec

This case concerns a petition seeking to prevent the postponement of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections originally scheduled for May 6, 2002 and to prevent the reduction of the age requirement for SK membership from a proposed bill. The Supreme Court held that there was no actual justiciable controversy because a proposed bill that has not been enacted into law yet creates no rights or duties and is not subject to judicial review, as that would constitute an advisory opinion. As such, the Court has no power to rule on the constitutionality of a mere proposed bill. The petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Erla Elauria
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CONSTI 1

EN BANC

G.R. No. 152295 - July 9, 2002

MONTESCLAROS vs. COMELEC

PONENTE: JUSTICE CARPIO

FACTS:

The Sangguniang Kabataan ("SK") is a youth organization originally established by


Presidential Decree No. 684 as the Kabataang Barangay ("KB"). The Local
Government Code of 1991 renamed the KB to SK and limited SK membership to those
youths "at least 15 but not more than 21 years of age." The Katipunan ng Kabataan in
every barangay is composed of all citizens actually residing in the barangay for at least
six months and who meet the membership age requirement.

The first SK elections took place on December 4, 1992. RA No. 7808 reset the SK
elections to the first Monday of May of 1996 and every three years thereafter. RA No.
7808 mandated the Comelec to supervise the conduct of the SK elections under rules
the Comelec shall promulgate. Accordingly, the Comelec on December 4, 2001 issued
Resolution Nos. 4713 and 4714 to govern the SK elections on May 6, 2002.

Petitioners sent a letter to the Comelec, demanding that the SK elections be held as
scheduled on May 6, 2002. However, the Bicameral Committee's consolidated bill reset
the SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002 and lowered the membership age in the
SK to at least 15 but not more than 18 years of age. Petitioners filed a petition seeking
to prevent the postponement of the SK elections originally scheduled last May 6, 2002.
The petition also seeks to prevent the reduction of the age requirement for membership
in the SK.

ISSUE: W/N there exists an actual justiciable controversy for the Court to prevent
Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK

HELD:

No, a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK does not present an actual
justiciable controversy.

A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill
creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill,
having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to
declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the
nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of
judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. 
CONSTI 1

In sum, 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 grave abuse of
discretion on the part of public respondents.

You might also like