The Facts

The SK is a youth organization originally established by Presidential

Decree No. 684 as the Kabataang Barangay ("KB" for brevity). The KB
was composed of all barangay residents who were less than 18 years
old, without specifying the minimum age. The KB was organized to
provide its members with the opportunity to express their views and
EN BANC opinions on issues of transcendental importance. 3

[G.R. No. 152295. July 9, 2002.] 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
ANTONIETTE V.C. MONTESCLAROS, MARICEL CARANZO, years of age." 4 The SK remains as a youth organization in every
JOSEPHINE ATANGAN, RONALD ATANGAN and CLARIZA barangay tasked to initiate programs "to enhance the social, political,
DECENA, and OTHER YOUTH OF THE LAND SIMILARLY economic, cultural, intellectual, moral, spiritual, and physical
SITUATED, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, development of the youth." 5 The SK in every barangay is composed
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, of a chairperson and seven members, all elected by the Katipunan ng
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, EXECUTIVE Kabataan. The Katipunan ng Kabataan in every barangay is composed
SECRETARY of the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATOR of all citizens actually residing in the barangay for at least six months
FRANKLIN DRILON in his capacity as Senate President and and who meet the membership age requirement.
SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL in his capacity as Minority
Leader of the Senate of the Philippines, CONGRESSMAN JOSE The first SK elections took place on December 4, 1992. RA No. 7808
DE VENECIA in his capacity as Speaker, CONGRESSMAN reset the SK elections to the first Monday of May of 1996 and every
AGUSTO L. SYJOCO in his capacity as Chairman of the three years thereafter. RA No. 7808 mandated the Comelec to
Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, and supervise the conduct of the SK elections under rules the Comelec
CONGRESSMAN EMILIO C. MACIAS II in his capacity as shall promulgate. Accordingly, the Comelec on December 4, 2001
Chairman of the Committee on Local Government of the issued Resolution Nos. 4713 6 and 4714 7 to govern the SK elections
House of Representatives, THE PRESIDENT OF THE on May 6, 2002.
PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SANGGUNIANG
KABATAAN, AND ALL THEIR AGENTS AND On February 18, 2002, petitioner Antoniette V.C. Montesclaros
REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. ("Montesclaros" for brevity) sent a letter 8 to the Comelec, demanding
that the SK elections be held as scheduled on May 6, 2002.
DECISION Montesclaros also urged the Comelec to respond to her letter within 10
days upon receipt of the letter, otherwise, she will seek judicial relief.

On February 20, 2002, Alfredo L. Benipayo ("Chairman Benipayo" for

CARPIO, J.: brevity), then Comelec Chairman, wrote identical letters to the Speaker
of the House 9 and the Senate President 10 about the status of
pending bills on the SK and Barangay elections. In his letters, the
The Case Comelec Chairman intimated that it was "operationally very difficult" to
hold both elections simultaneously in May 2002. Instead, the Comelec
Chairman expressed support for the bill of Senator Franklin Drilon that
Before us is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with proposed to hold the Barangay elections in May 2002 and postpone
prayer for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The the SK elections to November 2002.
petition seeks to prevent the postponement of the Sangguniang
Kabataan ("SK" for brevity) elections originally scheduled last May 6, Ten days lapsed without the Comelec responding to the letter of
2002. The petition also seeks to prevent the reduction of the age Montesclaros. Subsequently, petitioners received a copy of Comelec En
requirement for membership in the SK. Banc Resolution No. 4763 11 dated February 5, 2002 recommending to
Congress the postponement of the SK elections to November 2002 but
Petitioners, who are all 20 years old, filed this petition as a taxpayer’s holding the Barangay elections in May 2002 as scheduled. 12
and class suit, on their own behalf and on behalf of other youths
similarly situated. Petitioners claim that they are in danger of being On March 6, 2002, the Senate and the House of Representatives
disqualified to vote and be voted for in the SK elections should the SK passed their respective bills postponing the SK elections. On March 11,
elections on May 6, 2002 be postponed to a later date. Under the Local 2002, the Bicameral Conference Committee ("Bicameral Committee"
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), membership in the SK is for brevity) of the Senate and the House came out with a Report 13
limited to youths at least 15 but not more than 21 years old. recommending approval of the reconciled bill consolidating Senate Bill
No. 2050 14 and House Bill No. 4456. 15 The Bicameral Committee’s
Petitioners allege that public respondents "connived, confederated and consolidated bill reset the SK and Barangay elections to July 15, 2002
conspired" to postpone the May 6, 2002 SK elections and to lower the and lowered the membership age in the SK to at least 15 but not more
membership age in the SK to at least 15 but less than 18 years of age. than 18 years of age.
Petitioners assail the alleged conspiracy because youths at least 18 but
not more than 21 years old will be "summarily and unduly On March 11, 2002, petitioners filed the instant petition.
dismembered, unfairly discriminated, unnecessarily disenfranchised,
unjustly disassociated and obnoxiously disqualified from the SK On March 11, 2002, the Senate approved the Bicameral Committee’s
organization." 1 consolidated bill and on March 13, 2002, the House of Representatives
approved the same. The President signed the approved bill into law on
Thus, petitioners pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order March 19, 2002.
or preliminary injunction —
The Issues
"a) To prevent, annul or declare unconstitutional any law, decree,
Comelec resolution/directive and other respondents’ issuances, orders
and actions and the like in postponing the May 6, 2002 SK elections. Petitioners 16 raise the following grounds in support of their
petition:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
b) To command the respondents to continue the May 6, 2002 SK
elections set by the present law and in accordance with Comelec
Resolutions No. 4713 and 4714 and to expedite the funding of the SK "I.
elections.

c) In the alternative, if the SK elections will be postponed for whatever RESPONDENTS ACTED WHIMSICALLY, ILLEGALLY AND
reason, there must be a definite date for said elections, for example, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY THUS CONSTITUTED (SIC) WITH GRAVE
July 15, 2002, and the present SK membership, except those ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
incumbent SK officers who were elected on May 6, 1996, shall be JURISDICTION WHEN THEY INTENDED TO POSTPONE THE SK
allowed to run for any SK elective position even if they are more than ELECTIONS.
21 years old.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
II.
d) To direct the incumbent SK officers who are presently representing
the SK in every sanggunian and the NYC to vacate their post after the
barangay elections." 2 RESPONDENTS ACTED WHIMSICALLY, ILLEGALLY AND
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY THUS CONSTITUTED (SIC) WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK does not present
JURISDICTION WHEN THEY INTENDED TO DISCRIMINATE, an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to
DISENFRANCHISE, SINGLE OUT AND DISMEMBER THE SK MEMBERS judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right
WHO ARE 18 BUT NOT LESS 17 (SIC) THAN 21 YEARS OLD and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill,
COMPOSED OF ABOUT 7 MILLION YOUTH. having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The
Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or
III. 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. 22 The second paragraph of
RESPONDENTS ACTED WHIMSICALLY, ILLEGALLY AND Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states —
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY THUS CONSTITUTED (SIC) WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF "Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
JURISDICTION WHEN THEY WILLFULLY FAILED TO FUND THE SK actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
ELECTION PURPORTEDLY TO POSTPONE THE SAME IN ORDER TO enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
IMPLEMENT THEIR ILLEGAL SCHEME AND MACHINATION IN SPITE abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." (Emphasis
PURPOSE. supplied)

Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the

IV.
constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise its power of
judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before.
THE INCUMBENT SK OFFICERS WANTED TO PERPETUALLY SIT ON
Under the separation of powers, the Court cannot restrain Congress
THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES CONTRARY TO THE ENVISION (SIC) OF
from passing any law, or from setting into motion the legislative mill
THE CREATION OF THE SK ORGANIZATION, HENCE, IN VIOLATION
according to its internal rules. Thus, the following acts of Congress in
OF LAW AND CONSTITUTION." 18
the exercise of its legislative powers are not subject to judicial
restraint: the filing of bills by members of Congress, the approval of
The Court’s Ruling bills by each chamber of Congress, the reconciliation by the Bicameral
Committee of approved bills, and the eventual approval into law of the
reconciled bills by each chamber of Congress. Absent a clear violation
The petition is bereft of merit. of specific constitutional limitations or of constitutional rights of private
parties, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over the
At the outset, the Court takes judicial notice of the following events internal processes or procedures of Congress. 23
that have transpired since petitioners filed this petition:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library The Court has also no power to dictate to Congress the object or
subject of bills that Congress should enact into law. The judicial power
1. The May 6, 2002 SK elections and May 13, 2002 Barangay elections to review the constitutionality of laws does not include the power to
were not held as scheduled. prescribe to Congress what laws to enact. The Court has no power to
compel Congress by mandamus to enact a law allowing petitioners,
2. Congress enacted RA No. 9164 19 which provides that voters and regardless of their age, to vote and be voted for in the July 15, 2002
candidates for the SK elections must be "at least 15 but less than 18 SK elections. To do so would destroy the delicate system of checks and
years of age on the day of the election." 20 RA No. 9164 also provides balances finely crafted by the Constitution for the three co-equal,
that there shall be a synchronized SK and Barangay elections on July coordinate and independent branches of government.
15, 2002.
Under RA No. 9164, Congress merely restored the age requirement in
3. The Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 4846, the rules and PD No. 684, the original charter of the SK, which fixed the maximum
regulations for the conduct of the July 15, 2002 synchronized SK and age for membership in the SK to youths less than 18 years old.
Barangay elections. Petitioners do not have a vested right to the permanence of the age
requirement under Section 424 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Petitioners, who all claim to be 20 years old, argue that the Every law passed by Congress is, always subject to amendment or
postponement of the May 6, 2002 SK elections disenfranchises them, repeal by Congress. The Court cannot restrain Congress from
preventing them from voting and being voted for in the SK elections. amending or repealing laws, for the power to make laws includes the
Petitioners’ theory is that if the SK elections were postponed to a date power to change the laws. 24
later than May 6, 2002, the postponement would disqualify from SK
membership youths who will turn 21 years old between May 6, 2002 The Court cannot also direct the Comelec to allow over-aged voters to
and the date of the new SK elections. Petitioners claim that a reduction vote or be voted for in an election that is limited under RA No. 9164 to
in the SK membership age to 15 but less than 18 years of age from the youths at least 15 but less than 18 years old. A law is needed to allow
then membership age of 15 but not more than 21 years of age would all those who have turned more than 21 years old on or after May 6,
disqualify about seven million youths. The public respondents’ failure 2002 to participate in the July 15, 2002 SK elections. Youths from 18
to hold the elections on May 6, 2002 would prejudice petitioners and to 21 years old as of May 6, 2002 are also no longer SK members, and
other youths similarly situated.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary cannot participate in the July 15, 2002 SK elections. Congress will have
to decide whether to enact an amendatory law. Petitioners’ remedy is
Thus, petitioners instituted this petition to: (1) compel public legislation, not judicial intervention.
respondents to hold the SK elections on May 6, 2002 and should it be
postponed, the SK elections should be held not later than July 15, Petitioners have no personal and substantial interest in maintaining
2002; (2) prevent public respondents from passing laws and issuing this suit. A party must show that he has been, or is about to be denied
resolutions and orders that would lower the membership age in the some personal right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled. 25 A
SK; and (3) compel public respondents to allow petitioners and those party must also show that he has a real interest in the suit. By "real
who have turned more than 21 years old on May 6, 2002 to participate interest" is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from
in any re-scheduled SK elections. a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or
inconsequential interest. 26
The Court’s power of judicial review may be exercised in constitutional
cases only if all the following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) In the instant case, petitioners seek to enforce a right originally
the existence of an actual and appropriate case or controversy; (2) a conferred by law on those who were at least 15 but not more than 21
personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional years old. Now, with the passage of RA No. 9164, this right is limited
question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest to those who on the date of the SK elections are at least 15 but less
opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the than 18 years old. The new law restricts membership in the SK to this
case. 21 specific age group. Not falling within this classification, petitioners have
ceased to be members of the SK and are no longer qualified to
In the instant case, there is no actual controversy requiring the participate in the July 15, 2002 SK elections. Plainly, petitioners no
exercise of the power of judicial review. While seeking to prevent a longer have a personal and substantial interest in the SK elections.
postponement of the May 6, 2002 SK elections, petitioners are
nevertheless amenable to a resetting of the SK elections to any date This petition does not raise any constitutional issue. At the time
not later than July 15, 2002. RA No. 9164 has reset the SK elections to petitioners filed this petition, RA No. 9164, which reset the SK elections
July 15, 2002, a date acceptable to petitioners. With respect to the and reduced the age requirement for SK membership, was not yet
date of the SK elections, there is therefore no actual controversy enacted into law. After the passage of RA No. 9164, petitioners failed
requiring judicial intervention. to assail any provision in RA No. 9164 that could be unconstitutional.
To grant petitioners’ prayer to be allowed to vote and be voted for in
Petitioners’ prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a the July 15, 2002 SK elections necessitates assailing the
constitutionality of RA No. 9164. This, petitioners have not done. The consolidating Senate Bill No. 2050 and House Bill No. 4456.
Court will not strike down a law unless its constitutionality is properly
raised in an appropriate action and adequately argued. 27 The Comelec exercised its power and duty to "enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
The only semblance of a constitutional issue, albeit erroneous, that plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall" 37 and to "recommend to
petitioners raise is their claim that SK membership is a "property right Congress effective measures to minimize election spending. 38 The
within the meaning of the Constitution." 28 Since certain public offices Comelec’s acts enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance
are "reserved" for SK officers, petitioners also claim a constitutionally of official duties. 39 These acts cannot constitute proof, as claimed by
protected "opportunity" to occupy these public offices. In petitioners’ petitioners, that there "exists a connivance and conspiracy (among)
own words, they and others similarly situated stand to "lose their respondents in contravention of the present law." As the Court held in
opportunity to work in the government positions reserved for SK Pangkat Laguna v. Comelec, 40 the "Comelec, as the government
members or officers." 29 Under the Local Government Code of 1991, agency tasked with the enforcement and administration of elections
the president of the federation of SK organizations in a municipality, laws, is entitled to the presumption of regularity of official acts with
city or province is an ex-officio member of the municipal council, city respect to the elections."cralaw virtua1aw library
council or provincial board, respectively. 30 The chairperson of the SK
in the barangay is an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Barangay. The 1987 Constitution imposes upon the Comelec the duty of
31 The president of the national federation of SK organizations is an enforcing and administering all laws and regulations relative to the
ex-officio member of the National Youth Commission, with rank of a conduct of elections. Petitioners failed to prove that the Comelec
Department Assistant Secretary. 32 committed grave abuse of discretion in recommending to Congress the
postponement of the May 6, 2002 SK elections. The evidence cited by
Congress exercises the power to prescribe the qualifications for SK petitioners even establish that the Comelec has demonstrated an
membership. One who is no longer qualified because of an earnest effort to address the practical problems in holding the SK
amendment in the law cannot complain of being deprived of a elections on May 6, 2002. The presumption remains that the decision
proprietary right to SK membership. Only those who qualify as SK of the Comelec to recommend to Congress the postponement of the
members can contest, based on a statutory right, any act disqualifying elections was made in good faith in the regular course of its official
them from SK membership or from voting in the SK elections. SK duties.
membership is not a property right protected by the Constitution
because it is a mere statutory right conferred by law. Congress may Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of
amend at any time the law to change or even withdraw the statutory judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
right. positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. 41
Public respondents having acted strictly pursuant to their constitutional
A public office is not a property right. As the Constitution expressly powers and duties, we find no grave abuse of discretion in their
states, a" [P]ublic office is a public trust." 33 No one has a vested right assailed acts.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
to any public office, much less a vested right to an expectancy of
holding a public office. In Cornejo v. Gabriel, 34 decided in 1920, the Petitioners contend that the postponement of the SK elections would
Court already ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph allow the incumbent SK officers to perpetuate themselves in power,
depriving other youths of the opportunity to serve in elective SK
"Again, for this petition to come under the due process of law positions. This argument deserves scant consideration. While RA No.
prohibition, it would be necessary to consider an office a "property." It 9164 contains a hold-over provision, incumbent SK officials can remain
is, however, well settled . . . that a public office is not property within in office only until their successors have been elected or qualified. On
the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is July 15, 2002, when the SK elections are held, the hold-over period
a public trust or agency. . . . The basic idea of the government . . . is expires and all incumbent SK officials automatically cease to hold their
that of a popular representative government, the officers being mere SK offices and their ex-officio public offices.
agents and not rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of
men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where In sum, petitioners have no personal and substantial interest in
every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of the law and maintaining this suit. This petition presents no actual justiciable
holds the office as a trust for the people he represents." ( Emphasis controversy. Petitioners do not cite any provision of law that is alleged
supplied) to be unconstitutional. Lastly, we find no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of public respondents.
Petitioners, who apparently desire to hold public office, should realize
from the very start that no one has a proprietary right to public office. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
While the law makes an SK officer an ex-officio member of a local
government legislative council, the law does not confer on petitioners SO ORDERED.
a proprietary right or even a proprietary expectancy to sit in local
legislative councils. The constitutional principle of a public office as a Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
public trust precludes any proprietary claim to public office. Even the Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez and
State policy directing "equal access to opportunities for public service" Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
35 cannot bestow on petitioners a proprietary right to SK membership
or a proprietary expectancy to ex-officio public offices.
Endnotes:
Moreover, while the State policy is to encourage the youth’s
involvement in public affairs, 36 this policy refers to those who belong
to the class of people defined as the youth. Congress has the power to
define who are the youth qualified to join the SK, which itself is a
creation of Congress. Those who do not qualify because they are past 1. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
the age group defined as the youth cannot insist on being part of the
youth. In government service, once an employee reaches mandatory 2. Ibid., pp. 14-15.
retirement age, he cannot invoke any property right to cling to his
office. In the same manner, since petitioners are now past the 3. Second Whereas Clause of PD No. 684; See also Mercado v. Board
maximum age for membership in the SK, they cannot invoke any of Election Supervisors of Ibaan, Batangas, 243 SCRA 422 (1995).
property right to cling to their SK membership.
4. This was the same membership qualification in Section 116 of the
The petition must also fail because no grave abuse of discretion
Local Government Code of 1983. Earlier, PD No. 1102, issued on
attended the postponement of the SK elections. RA No. 9164 is now
the law that prescribes the qualifications of candidates and voters for February 28, 1977, had increased the age requirement to "twenty-one
the SK elections. This law also fixes the date of the SK elections. years of age or less."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioners are not even assailing the constitutionality of RA No. 9164.
RA No. 9164 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and will apply 5. Section 426 of the Local Government Code enumerates the powers
to the July 15, 2002 SK elections.cralawred and functions of the Sangguniang Kabataan as follows: "Section 426.
Powers and Functions of the Sangguniang Kabataan. The Sangguniang
Petitioners have not shown that the Comelec acted illegally or with Kabataan shall: (a) Promulgate resolutions necessary to carry out the
grave abuse of discretion in recommending to Congress the objectives of the youth in the barangay in accordance with the
postponement of the SK elections. The very evidence relied upon by applicable provisions of this Code; (b) Initiate programs designed to
petitioners contradict their allegation of illegality. The evidence consist enhance the social, political, economic, cultural, intellectual, moral,
of the following: (1) Comelec en banc Resolution No. 4763 dated spiritual, and physical development of the members; (c) Hold fund-
February 5, 2002 that recommended the postponement of the SK
raising activities, the proceeds of which shall be tax-exempt and shall
elections to 2003; (2) the letter of then Comelec Chairman Benipayo
accrue to the general fund of the sangguniang kabataan: Provided,
addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate; and (3) the Conference Committee Report however, That in the appropriation thereof, the specific purpose for
which such activity has been held shall be first satisfied; (d) Create 30. Section 438, Local Government Code of 1991.
such bodies or committees as it may deem necessary to effectively
carry out its programs and activities; (e) Submit annual and end-of- 31. Section 390, Local Government Code of 1991.
term reports to the sangguniang barangay on their projects and
activities for the survival and development of the youth in the 32. Section 5, RA No. 8044.
barangay; (f) Consult and coordinate with all youth organizations in
the barangay for policy formulation and program implementation; (g) 33. Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Coordinate with the appropriate national agency for the
implementation of youth development projects and programs at the 34. 41 Phil. 188 (1920).
national level; (h) Exercise such other powers and perform such other
duties and functions as the sangguniang barangay may determine or 35. Section 26, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
delegate; and (i) Exercise such other powers and perform such other
duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance."cralaw 36. Section 13, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
virtua1aw library
37. Section 2, paragraph (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
6. Rollo, pp. 47-55. Resolution No. 4713 is entitled "Rules and
Regulation on the Registration of Members of the Katipunan ng 38. Section 2, paragraph (7), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
Kabataan in Connection with the May 6, 2002 Election of Members of
the Sangguniang Kabataan."cralaw virtua1aw library 39. Salcedo v. Comelec, 312 SCRA 447 (1999).

7. Ibid., pp. 56-61. Resolution No. 4714 is entitled "Calendar of 40. G.R. No. 148075, February 4, 2002.
Activities and Periods of Certain Prohibited Acts in Connection with the
May 6, 2002 Election of Members of the Sangguniang 41. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, see note 21.
Kabataan."cralaw virtua1aw library

8. Ibid., pp. 62-63.

9. Ibid., p. 64.

10. Ibid., p. 65.

11. Entitled "In Re: Position of the Commission on Elections on the

Postponement or Synchronization of the Barangay and Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK) Elections within the year 2002."cralaw virtua1aw library

12 Ibid., pp. 66-68.

13. Ibid., pp. 69-71.

14. "An Act amending Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the
‘Local Government Code of 1991’, as amended, resetting the elections
of the Sangguniang Kabataan officials to the first Monday of
November, 2002, and for other purposes."cralaw virtua1aw library

15. "An Act providing for a synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang

Kabataan elections on the second Monday of November 2002,
repealing Republic Act No. 8524, and for other purposes."cralaw
virtua1aw library

16. Represented by Atty. Abraham A. Mantilla.

17. This should read "more."cralaw virtua1aw library

18. Rollo, pp. 25-26.

19. "An Act Providing for Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang

Kabataan Elections, Amending Republic Act No. 7160, As Amended,
Otherwise Known As ‘The Local Government Code of 1991’, And For
Other Purposes."cralaw virtua1aw library

20. Sections 6 and 7 of RA No. 9164.

21. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000).

22 Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. v. Republic, 190 SCRA 782 (1990).

23. Santiago v. Guingona, 298 SCRA 756 (1998); See also Arroyo v. De
Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 (1997); Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 249
SCRA 628 (1995).

24. Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1998 Ed., p. 152.

25. Bayan (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449

(2000).

26. Caruncho III v. Commission on Elections, 315 SCRA 693 (1999).

27. See Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 486 (1999).

28. Petition dated March 11, 2002, p. 3; Rollo, p. 8.

29. Ibid.