G.R. No. 257610 , January 24, 2023
GLEN QUINTOS ALBANO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. [UDK No. 17230] CATALINA G. LEONEN-PIZARRO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves petitions challenging the constitutionality of a provision in Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act) and a related Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolution. Section 8 of RA 7941 states that the party-list nominee list “shall not include any candidate for any elective office or a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election.” COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, Sections 5(d) and 10, reiterated this disqualification for the May 9, 2022 elections, specifically barring persons who lost in the May 13, 2019 elections. The petitioners, Glen Quintos Albano and Catalina G. Leonen-Pizarro, assailed these provisions.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as framed in the dissenting opinion, is whether the Court should exercise its power of judicial review to rule on the constitutionality of the statutory phrase “a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding election” in RA 7941, Section 8, and the corresponding COMELEC rules.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, voted to sustain the constitutionality of the challenged provision and found that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The core of his ruling is that the Court should not have taken cognizance of the constitutional challenge due to a lack of justiciability. He dissented from the majority’s decision to rule on the merits.
The dissent emphasizes the distinction between jurisdiction and justiciability. While the Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, the power of judicial review is discretionary and subject to the essential requisites of justiciability: (1) an actual case or controversy; (2) the petitioner’s locus standi; (3) the constitutional question was raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the resolution of the constitutional question is unavoidably necessary to decide the case.
Justice Leonen implies that the case may have been moot or academic, as the elections in question had likely concluded, and a ruling would be of no practical value. He notes that a case becomes moot due to supervening events, and while there are exceptions (such as a grave constitutional violation, paramount public interest, guiding principle formulation, or a issue capable of repetition yet evading review), he suggests these were not sufficiently met to compel the Court to rule on the constitutionality of the statute.
Furthermore, the dissent underscores that a petitioner must have legal standing (locus standi), requiring a personal and substantial interest and direct injury from the challenged act. The opinion questions whether the petitioners adequately demonstrated this direct injury.
Consequently, based on the principles of justiciability and separation of powers, Justice Leonen concludes that the Court should have declined to exercise judicial review. He would have dismissed the petitions and upheld both the statutory disqualification for losing candidates and the COMELEC resolution implementing it.