Montesclaros vs. COMELEC

A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable; Congress exercises the power to prescribe qualifications for statutory bodies like the Sangguniang Kabataan, and such membership is a mere statutory right, not a property right protected by the Constitution.

The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) originated as the Kabataang Barangay (KB) under P.D. No. 684, composed of residents less than 18 years old. The Local Government Code of 1991 renamed it to SK and expanded membership to those at least 15 but not more than 21 years of age. The first SK elections were held in 1992, and R.A. No. 7808 reset the subsequent elections to the first Monday of May 1996 and every three years thereafter. Comelec issued resolutions for the May 6, 2002 elections. However, citing operational difficulties, Comelec recommended postponement to Congress, which then passed a bill resetting the elections and lowering the age limit.

• SK Membership and Elections: Under R.A. 7160, SK membership was set at 15 to 21 years old. Elections were scheduled for May 6, 2002, pursuant to Comelec Resolution Nos. 4713 and 4714.
• Move to Postpone: Petitioner Montesclaros demanded Comelec hold the elections as scheduled. Comelec Chairman Benipayo wrote to Congress expressing operational difficulty and supporting postponement. Comelec En Banc Resolution No. 4763 recommended postponement to November 2002.
• Legislative Action: Congress passed bills postponing the elections. The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated the bills, resetting the SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002, and lowering the SK membership age to at least 15 but less than 18 years.
• Filing of Petition: Petitioners filed the instant petition on March 11, 2002, while the bill was still pending, alleging conspiracy among respondents to postpone the elections and reduce the age limit.
• Enactment of R.A. No. 9164: The President signed the bill into law on March 19, 2002. Petitioners, being 20 years old, were disqualified from the new SK membership age.

• Postponement of Elections: Petitioners argued that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in conspiring to postpone the May 6, 2002 SK elections, disenfranchising youths who would turn 21 before the new date.
• Reduction of Age Requirement: Lowering the age limit to less than 18 years discriminates, disenfranchises, and dismembers about 7 million youths aged 18-21.
• Failure to Fund Elections: Respondents willfully failed to fund the SK election to implement their illegal scheme despite available funds.
• Perpetuation in Office: Incumbent SK officers sought to perpetually sit in their offices contrary to the vision of the SK organization.
• Property Right: SK membership is a property right within the meaning of the Constitution, and the ex-officio positions reserved for SK officers represent a constitutionally protected opportunity to hold public office.

• Justiciable Controversy: Whether an actual justiciable controversy exists to warrant the exercise of judicial review over the postponement of the SK elections and the proposed reduction of the membership age.
• Property Right to SK Membership: Whether SK membership and the opportunity to hold ex-officio public office constitute a property right protected by the Constitution.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in recommending and effecting the postponement of the SK elections.

• Justiciable Controversy: No actual justiciable controversy exists. The enactment of R.A. No. 9164 resetting the elections to July 15, 2002, a date acceptable to petitioners, mooted the issue on the date of elections. A proposed bill cannot be subject to judicial review because it creates no right and imposes no duty; the Court cannot render an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress.
• Property Right to SK Membership: SK membership is not a property right but a mere statutory right conferred by law, which Congress may amend or repeal at any time. A public office is a public trust, not property, and no one has a vested right to an expectancy of holding public office. The constitutional policy of equal access to opportunities for public service does not bestow a proprietary right to SK membership.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondents. Comelec acted pursuant to its constitutional duty to enforce and administer election laws and recommend effective measures to Congress, enjoying the presumption of regularity. The hold-over provision for incumbent SK officials was merely until their successors were elected on July 15, 2002.

• Judicial Review of Proposed Legislation — The power of judicial review cannot be exercised over a proposed bill, as it creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable. Judicial review may only be exercised after a law is enacted, not before, to avoid rendering advisory opinions.
• Public Office as a Public Trust — A public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is a public trust or agency. No one has a vested right to any public office, much less a vested right to an expectancy of holding a public office.
• Statutory Rights — Rights conferred by statute, such as membership in the Sangguniang Kabataan, are mere statutory rights subject to amendment or repeal by Congress. Petitioners have no vested right to the permanence of qualifications prescribed by law.

• "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."
• "It is, however, well settled x x x that a public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is a public trust or agency."

• Cornejo v. Gabriel, 41 Phil 188 (1920) — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that a public office is not property within the sense of constitutional due process guaranties but is a public trust.
• Pangkat Laguna v. Comelec, G.R. No. 148075 (2002) — Followed regarding the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to Comelec.
• Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000) — Followed for the requisites of judicial review and the definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Defines judicial power as including the duty to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights. Applied to show that no justiciable controversy exists regarding a proposed bill.
• Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution — Declares that public office is a public trust. Applied to reject the claim that SK membership or ex-officio positions are property rights.
• Section 2, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Enumerates the powers and duties of the Comelec, including enforcing election laws and recommending measures to minimize election spending. Applied to justify Comelec's recommendation to Congress as acting pursuant to its duty.
• Section 26, Article II, 1987 Constitution — State policy of equal access to opportunities for public service. Interpreted not to bestow a proprietary right to SK membership.
• Section 424, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Prescribed the previous SK membership age of 15 to 21 years old. Held not to confer a vested right to the permanence of this age requirement.
• Republic Act No. 9164 — Reset the SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002, and lowered the SK membership age to at least 15 but less than 18 years. Applied as the prevailing law that petitioners failed to assail for unconstitutionality.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ.