FACTS: 

The two petitions, filed by their respective petitioners in their capacities as concerned citizens and taxpayers, prayed for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled “A Resolution Calling upon the Members of Congress to Convene for the Purpose of Considering Proposals to Amend or Revise the Constitution, Upon a Three-fourths Vote of All the Members of Congress.”  In essence, both petitions seek to trigger a justiciable controversy that would warrant a definitive interpretation by this Court of Section 1, Article XVII, which provides for the procedure for amending or revising the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Do petitioners have legal standing?

RULING:

No.

In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial review is grossly lacking.  In the first place, petitioners have not sufficiently proven any adverse injury or hardship from the act complained of.  In the second place, House Resolution No. 1109 only resolved that the House of Representatives shall convene at a future time for the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the Constitution.  No actual convention has yet transpired and no rules of procedure have yet been adopted.  More importantly, no proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of power or gross abuse of discretion has yet taken place. In short, House Resolution No. 1109 involves a quintessential example of an uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. The House has not yet performed a positive act that would warrant an intervention from this Court.

Neither can the lack of locus standi be cured by the claim of petitioners that they are instituting the cases at bar as taxpayers and concerned citizens.  A taxpayer’s suit requires that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.  It is undisputed that there has been no allocation or disbursement of public funds in this case as of yet.