G.R. No. 221201, March 29, 2022
ATTY. VICTOR AGUINALDO, PETITIONER, VS. NEW BILIBID PRISON (BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS), DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, DIFFERENT MUNICIPAL, CITY AND PROVINCIAL JAILS IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND ENLISTED VOTERS OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON, AND/OR DETAINEES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On March 6, 2012, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated Resolution No. 9371, which set the Rules and Regulations on Person Deprived of Liberty (PDL) Registration and Voting for the May 13, 2013 elections and subsequent elections. The Resolution defined eligible PDLs as those: (1) confined and formally charged, awaiting or undergoing trial; (2) serving a sentence of less than one year; or (3) whose conviction for crimes involving disloyalty to the government (e.g., rebellion, sedition) is on appeal. Atty. Victor Aguinaldo filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the validity of Resolution No. 9371, arguing it failed to provide its own implementing rules, did not undergo public consultations, violated equal protection by favoring PDL voters, and contained operational deficiencies. He prayed for the Resolution to be declared unconstitutional and for its implementation to be enjoined. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) commented that the petition was procedurally flawed and failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality. The Court, in a prior Resolution dated April 19, 2016, partially granted injunctive relief, enjoining the application of specific provisions of Resolution No. 9371 for the May 9, 2016 elections on the local level but allowing qualified PDLs to vote on the national level. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) intervened as amicus curiae, arguing against the petition to protect PDLs’ right to electoral participation.

ISSUE

Whether the petition should be granted, declaring COMELEC Resolution No. 9371 unconstitutional.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the petition for failing to establish the requisites of judicial review. The power of judicial review in constitutional cases requires: (1) an actual case or controversy; (2) the petitioner’s personal and substantial interest (locus standi); (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case. The petition fatally lacked the first two requisites. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights susceptible to judicial resolution, not a hypothetical or conjectural scenario. Petitioner failed to show how Resolution No. 9371 diminished his legal rights or the actual facts grounding its alleged unconstitutionality. Merely alleging imperfections in the law without demonstrating a direct injury is insufficient. Regarding locus standi, petitioner merely stated his standing as “a citizen, lawyer and taxpayer” without elaborating how he sustained or was in imminent danger of sustaining a direct injury from the Resolution’s enforcement. A citizen must show a direct injury, not a generalized grievance. Consequently, the petition was dismissible for lack of a proper justiciable controversy and standing.