9/8/2016 G.R.No.

L59068

TodayisThursday,September08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L59068January27,1983

JOSEMARIEULALIOC.LOZADAandROMEOB.IGOT,petitioners,
vs.
THECOMMISSIONONELECTIONS,respondent.

DECASTRO,J.:

ThisisapetitionformandamusfiledbyJoseMariEulalioC.LozadaandRomeoB.Igotasarepresentativesuit
for and in behalf of those who wish to participate in the election irrespective of party affiliation, to compel the
respondentCOMELECtocallaspecialelectiontofillupexistingvacanciesnumberingtwelve(12)intheInterim
BatasanPambansa.ThepetitionisbasedonSection5(2),ArticleVIIIofthe1973Constitutionwhichreads:

(2)IncaseavacancyarisesintheBatasangPambansaeighteenmonthsormorebeforearegular
election,theCommissiononElectionshallcallaspecialelectiontobeheldwithinsixty(60)daysafter
thevacancyoccurstoelecttheMembertoservetheunexpiredterm.

Petitioner Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bonafide elector of Cebu City and a transient voter of
QuezonCity,MetroManila,whodesirestorunforthepositionintheBatasanPambansawhilepetitionerRomeo
B.Igotallegesthat,asataxpayer,hehasstandingtopetitionbymandamusthecallingofaspecialelectionas
mandated by the 1973 Constitution. As reason for their petition, petitioners allege that they are "... deeply
concernedabouttheirdutiesascitizensanddesiroustoupholdtheconstitutionalmandateandruleoflaw...that
theyhavefiledtheinstantpetitionontheirownandinbehalfofallotherFilipinossincethesubjectmattersareof
profoundandgeneralinterest."

The respondent COMELEC, represented by counsel, opposes the petition alleging, substantially, that 1)
petitionerslackstandingtofiletheinstantpetitionfortheyarenottheproperpartiestoinstitutetheaction2)this
Courthasnojurisdictiontoentertainthispetitionand3)Section5(2),ArticleVIIIofthe1973Constitutiondoes
notapplytotheInterimBatasanPambansa.

Thepetitionmustbedismiss.

Astaxpayers,petitionersmaynotfiletheinstantpetition,fornowherethereinisitallegedthattaxmoneyisbeing
illegallyspent.TheactcomplainedofistheinactionoftheCOMELECtocallaspecialelection,asisallegedlyits
ministerial duty under the constitutional provision above cited, and therefore, involves no expenditure of public
funds. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the
illegalexpenditureofpublicmoneythatthesocalledtaxpayersuitmaybeallowed.1Whatthecaseatbarseeksis
one that entails expenditure of public funds which may be illegal because it would be spent for a purpose that of calling a
specialelectionwhich,aswillbeshown,hasnoauthorityeitherintheConstitutionorastatute.

Asvoters,neitherhavepetitionerstherequisiteinterestorpersonalitytoqualifythemtomaintainandprosecute
thepresentpetition.Theunchallengedruleisthatthepersonwhoimpugnsthevalidityofastatutemusthavea
personalandsubstantialinterestinthecasesuchthathehassustained,orwillsustain,directinjuryasaresultof
its enforcement. 2 In the case before Us, the alleged inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election to fillup the
existing vacancies in the Batasan Pambansa, standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all
citizens. Petitioners' standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here, which is held in
common by all members of the public because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury supposedly shared by all
citizens. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to
castitinaformtraditionallycapableofjudicialresolution. 3Whentheassertedharmisa"generalizedgrievance"sharedin
substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of
jurisdiction. 4 As adverted to earlier, petitioners have not demonstrated any permissible personal stake, for petitioner
Lozada'sinterestasanallegedcandidateandasavoterisnotsufficienttoconferstanding.PetitionerLozadadoesnotonly
failtoinformtheCourtoftheregionhewantstobeacandidatebutmakesindiscriminatedemandthatspecialelectionbe
calledthroughoutthecountry.Evenhispleaasavoterispredicatedonaninterestheldincommonbyallmembersofthe
publicanddoesnotdemonstrateanyinjuryspeciallydirectedtohiminparticular.

II

TheSupremeCourt'sjurisdictionovertheCOMELECisonlytoreviewbycertiorarithelatter'sdecision,ordersor
rulings.ThisisasclearlyprovidedinArticleXIICSection11oftheNewConstitutionwhichreads:

Anydecision,order,orrulingoftheCommissionmaybebroughttotheSupremeCourtoncertiorari
bytheaggrievedpartywithinthirtydaysfromhisreceiptofacopythereof.

Thereisinthiscasenodecision,orderorrulingoftheCOMELECwhichissoughttobereviewedbythisCourt
under its certiorari jurisdiction as provided for in the aforequoted provision which is the only known provision
conferringjurisdictionorauthorityontheSupremeCourtovertheCOMELEC.ItisnotallegedthattheCOMELEC
was asked by petitioners to perform its alleged duty under the Constitution to call a special election, and that
COMELEChasissuedanorderorresolutiondenyingsuchpetition.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/jan1983/gr_l_59068_1983.html 1/3
9/8/2016 G.R.No.L59068

Even from the standpoint of an action for mandamus, with the total absence of a showing that COMELEC has
unlawfullyneglectedtheperformanceofaministerialduty,orhasrefusedonbeingdemanded,todischargesuch
adutyandasdemonstratedabove,itisnotshown,norcaniteverbeshown,thatpetitionershaveaclearrightto
the holding of a special election. which is equally the clear and ministerial duty of COMELEC to respect,
mandamuswillnotlie.5Thewritwillnotissueindoubtfulcases.6

Itisobviousthattheholdingofspecialelectionsinseveralregionaldistrictswherevacanciesexist,wouldentail
hugeexpenditureofmoney.OnlytheBatasanPambansacanmakethenecessaryappropriationforthepurpose,
and this power of the Batasan Pambansa may neither be subject to mandamus by the courts much less may
COMELECcompeltheBatasantoexerciseitspowerofappropriation.FromtheroleBatasanPambansahasto
playintheholdingofspecialelections,whichistoappropriatethefundsfortheexpensesthereof,itwouldseem
thattheinitiativeonthemattermustcomefromsaidbody,nottheCOMELEC,evenwhenthevacancieswould
occur in the regular not interim Batasan Pambansa. The power to appropriate is the sole and exclusive
prerogativeofthelegislativebody,theexerciseofwhichmaynotbecompelledthroughapetitionformandamus.
Whatismore,theprovisionofSection5(2),ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionwasintendedtoapplytovacanciesin
theregularNationalAssembly,nowBatasanPambansa,nottotheInterimBatasanPambansa,aswillpresently
beshown.

III

Perhaps the strongest reason why the aforecited provision of the Constitution is not intended to apply to the
Interim National Assembly as originally envisioned by the 1973 Constitution is the fact that as passed by the
Constitutional Convention, the Interim National Assembly was to be composed by the delegates to the
ConstitutionalConvention,aswellasthethenincumbentPresidentandVicePresident,andthemembersofthe
Senate and House of Representatives of Congress under the 1935 Constitution. With such number of
representatives representing each congressional district, or a province, not to mention the Senators, there was
feltabsolutelynoneedforfilingvacanciesoccurringintheInterimNationalAssembly,consideringtheuncertainty
of the duration of its existence. What was in the mind of the Constitutional Convention in providing for special
electionstofillupvacanciesistheregularNationalAssembly,becauseaprovinceorrepresentativedistrictwould
haveonlyonerepresentativeinthesaidNationalAssembly.

EvenaspresentlyconstitutedwheretherepresentationintheInterimBatasanPambansaisregionalandsectoral,
theneedtofillupvacanciesintheBodyisneitherimperativenorurgent.Nodistrictorprovincewouldeverbeleft
withoutrepresentationatall,astonecessitatethefillingupofvacanciesintheInterimBatasanPambansa.There
wouldalwaysbeadequaterepresentationforeveryprovincewhichonlyformspartofacertainregion,specially
consideringthattheBodyisonlytransitoryincharacter.

TheunmistakableintentoftheConstitutionalConventionasadvertedtoisevenmorepositivelyrevealedbythe
fact that the provision of Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the New Constitution is in the main body of the said
Constitution, not in the transitory provisions in which all matters relating to the Interim Batasan Pambansa are
found.NoprovisionoutsideofArticleVIIIonthe"TransitoryProvisions"hasreferenceorrelevancetotheInterim
BatasanPambansa.

Also under the original provision of the Constitution (Section 1, Article XVIITransitory Provisions), the Interim
National Assembly had only one single occasion on which to call for an election, and that is for the election of
membersoftheregularNationalAssembly. TheConstitutioncouldnothaveatthattimecontemplatedtofillup
1 w p h 1 . t

vacanciesintheInterimNationalAssemblythecompositionofwhich,asalreadydemonstrated,wouldnotraise
anyimperiousnecessityofhavingtocallspecialelectionsforthatpurpose,becausethedurationofitsexistence
was neither known or predetermined. It could be for a period so brief that the time prescriptions mentioned in
Section5(2),ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutioncannotbeapplicable.

The foregoing observations make it indubitably clear that the aforementioned provision for calling special
elections to fill up vacancies apply only to the regular Batasan Pambansa. This is evident from the language
thereofwhichspeaksofavacancyintheBatasanPambansa,"whichmeanstheregularBatasanPambansaas
thesamewords"BatasanPambansa"foundinallthemanyothersectionsofArticleVIII,undoubtedlyrefertothe
regularBatasan,nottheinterimone.AwordorphraseusedinonepartofaConstitutionistoreceivethesame
interpretation when used in every other part, unless it clearly appears, from the context or otherwise, that a
differentmeaningshouldbeapplied.7

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebydismissed.

SOORDERED.

Aquino,ConcepcionJr.,Guerrero,Plana,EscolinVasquez,RelovaandGutierrez,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Fernando,CJ.,Makasiar,andMelencioHerrera,JJ.,concursintheresult.

Teehankee,J.,tooknopart.

AbadSantos,J.,Ireservemyvote.

Footnotes

1Flastvs.Cohen,392U.S.383(1960),Pascualvs.SecretaryofPublicWorks,110Phil.331(1960).

2Peoplevs.Vera,65Phil.56(1937).

3Schlesignervs.ReservistComm.toStoptheWar,418U.S.208,94SCt.2925,41FEd.2d706
(1974)citingFlastvs.Cohen.

4Ibid

5Lemivs.Valencia,26SCRA203.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/jan1983/gr_l_59068_1983.html 2/3
9/8/2016 G.R.No.L59068

6Taboyvs.CourtofAppeals,105SCRA759Valdezvs.Gutierrez,23SCRA661Alzatevs.Aldana,
8SCRA219.

716C.J.S.8889,citingCartervs.Cain14S.W.2d250,199Ark.79Whittemorev.Terral,215S.W.
686,140Ark.493Wilmorev.Annear,65P.2d1433,100Colo16350AmJur259,citingSpring
CanyonCoalCo.v.IndustrialCommission,74Utah,103,277P206Alexanderv.Alexandria,5
Cranch(US)1,3Led19.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/jan1983/gr_l_59068_1983.html 3/3