G.R. No. L-59068 January 27, 1983
JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA and ROMEO B. IGOT, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada and Romeo B. Igot filed a petition for mandamus as a representative suit to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to call a special election to fill twelve (12) existing vacancies in the Interim Batasan Pambansa. They anchored their petition on Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which mandates the COMELEC to call a special election within sixty days if a vacancy arises eighteen months or more before a regular election. Lozada claimed standing as a voter and a potential candidate, while Igot claimed standing as a taxpayer. They asserted a general interest in upholding constitutional mandates.
The respondent COMELEC opposed the petition on three primary grounds: first, that petitioners lacked legal standing to file the suit; second, that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition; and third, that the constitutional provision cited by petitioners does not apply to the Interim Batasan Pambansa but only to the regular Batasan.

ISSUE

The principal issues were: (1) whether petitioners possessed the requisite legal standing to file the petition; (2) whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the petition against the COMELEC; and (3) whether Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution applies to vacancies in the Interim Batasan Pambansa.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the issue of standing, the Court held that petitioners, as taxpayers, could not sue because the act complained of—the COMELEC’s inaction—did not involve the illegal expenditure of public funds. A taxpayer’s suit is permissible only when there is such an illegal expenditure. As voters and a potential candidate, petitioners also lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate a personal and substantial interest that would sustain direct injury. Their claimed injury was a “generalized grievance” shared equally by the public, which is insufficient to confer standing.
On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that its authority over the COMELEC, under Article XIIC, Section 11 of the Constitution , is limited to reviewing by certiorari the Commission’s decisions, orders, or rulings. In this case, there was no such COMELEC issuance to review. Furthermore, mandamus would not lie because petitioners failed to show a clear legal right to the special election or that the COMELEC unlawfully neglected a ministerial duty. The Court noted that holding special elections requires a legislative appropriation, a power exclusively vested in the Batasan Pambansa, which cannot be compelled by mandamus.
Finally, the Court ruled that Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution applies only to the regular Batasan Pambansa, not the Interim Batasan. This interpretation is based on the constitutional structure: provisions concerning the Interim Batasan are found exclusively in the Transitory Provisions (Article XVII), not in the main body like Article VIII. The constitutional intent was for the Interim Batasan to be a transitional body with a non-pre-determined duration, making the specific time prescriptions for calling special elections inapplicable.