JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA and ROMEO B. IGOT vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

January 27, 1983 | De Castro, J. | Taxation 1 | Taxpayers’ Suit

DOCTRINE: It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal
expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed.

CASE SUMMARY: Petitioners sue as taxpayers to compel a special election. SC dismisses the petition. See doctrine.

FACTS: Petition for mandamus to review the decision of the Commission on Elections
 Petitioners Eulalio and Igot filed this petition as a representative suit for and on behalf of those who wish to
participate in the election, to compel COMELEC to call a special election to fill up 12 existing vacancies in the
Interim Batasang Pambansa.
o The petition is based on Sec. 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which reads: “In case a vacancy
arises in the Batasang Pambansa 18 months or more before a regular election, the [COMELEC] shall call a
special election to be held within 60 days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the
unexpired term.”
 Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bonafide elector of Cebu City, and a transient voter of Quezon City. He
wants to run for the position in the Batasan. Igot alleges that as a taxpayer, he has standing to petition by
mandamus the calling of a special election as mandated by the Constitution.
o They allege that they are deeply concerned about their duties as citizens and they want to uphold the
Constitutional mandate; and that they filed the petition since the subject matters are of profound and
general interest.
 COMELEC opposes the petition alleging that petitioners lack standing to file the petition because they are not the
proper parties to institute the action, the SC has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, and that the Constitutional
provision above cited does not apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

ISSUES: W/N have standing to sue? – NO.

RULING:
 The Court held that petitioners may not file the instant petition as taxpayers, because there is no allegation that
tax money is being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election,
which is allegedly its duty under Sec 5(2), Art. VIII of the Constitution, and therefore, there is actually no
expenditure of public funds involved in the act complained of.
 It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal
expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed.
 What the instant case seeks is one that entails expenditure of public funds which may be illegal, because
it would be spent for a purpose that has no authority in the Constitution or a statute.
 Petitioners also do not have standing to sue as voters, because they do not have the requisite personal and
substantial interest in the case such that they have or would sustain direct injury as a result of the assailed act.
 The alleged inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election to fill the vacant seats in the Batasang
Pambansa would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens.
 The SC’s jurisdiction over the COMELEC, as provided in the Constitution, is only to review by certiorari the latter’s
decision, orders, or rulings. In this case, there is no such decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC that is brought
to the Court for review. It is not alleged that petitioners asked COMELEC to perform its alleged duty, and that it
had issued an order/resolution denying such petition.
 Further, the writ of mandamus cannot issue because there is no showing that COMELEC has unlawfully refused or
neglected to perform a ministerial duty.
 The holding of special elections would entail huge expenditures of money that have to be financed by the
necessary appropriations, which is an act only the Batasang Pambansa can do.
 The Court held that the provision cited by the petitioners applies only to the regular Batasang Pambansa, and not
the Interim one.
 This is because of the Interim Batasang Pambansa’s composition, which is the members of the
Constitutional Convention, Congressmenn, Senators, and the President and Vice-President. Thus, even if
there were vacancies therein, no province or legislative district would ever be without representation,
unlike in the Regular Batasang Pambansa.
 Further, said provision is in the main body of the Constitution, and not in the Transitory Provisions.

DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.

RDB Arcadio