Requisites of Judicial Review- Actual case or controversy

Montesclaros v. Comelec,
G.R. No. 152295, July 09, 2002

Facts: The Local Government Code of 1991 renamed the Kabataang Barangay to
Sangguniang Kabataan and limited its membership to youths “at least 15 but no more
than 21 years of age.” On 18 February 2002, Antoniette VC Montesclaros demanded
from COMELEC that SK elections be held as scheduled on 6 May 2002. COMELEC
Chairman Alfredo Benipayo wrote to the House of Representatives and the Senate on 20
February 2002 inquiring on the status of pending bills on SK and Barangay elections and
expressed support to postpone the SK election on November 2002. On 11 March 2002
the Bicameral Committee consolidated Senate Bill 2050 and House Bill 4456, resetting
the SK election to 15 July 2002 and lowered the membership age to at least 15 but no
more than 18 years of age. This was approved by the Senate and House of
Representative on 11 March and 13 March 2002 respectively and signed by the President
on 19 March 2002. The petitioners filed prohibition and mandamus for temporary
restraining order seeking the prevention of postponement of the SK election and reduction
of age requirement on 11 March 2002.

Issue: Whether or not the proposed bill is unconstitutional.

Decision: Petition dismissed for utter lack of merit. This petition presents no actual
justiciable controversy. Petitioners do not cite any provision of law that is alleged to be
unconstitutional. Petitioner’s prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a
proposed bill does not present actual 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. Having no legal effect it violates no constitutional right or duty.
At the time petitioners filed this petition, RA No. 9164 was not yet enacted into law. After
its passage petitioners failed to assail any provision in RA No. 9164 that could be
unconstitutional.