Case Summary (G.R. No. 9105)
Factual Background — Filing and Nature of Proposal
On January 21, 2013, Marmeto, for the MPP, filed a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa seeking (a) creation of a sectoral council and (b) appropriation of P200 million for livelihood programs and related projects for city residents. When the Sanggunian did not act within 30 days, Marmeto invoked the local initiative procedure under the LGC.
First Initiative Petition and COMELEC Rulings
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-0904 (July 31, 2013) setting aside the first initiative petition, finding the propositions beyond the powers of the Sanggunian and not in accordance with law and rules. Marmeto moved for reconsideration; COMELEC denied it through Resolution No. 13-1039 (September 17, 2013), reiterating prior findings but noting Marmeto could re-file given a new Sanggunian composition.
Second Initiative Petition and Supplemental Filing
Marmeto re-filed a similar proposed ordinance on December 2, 2013. After the Sanggunian again failed to act within 30 days, Marmeto filed a second initiative petition on February 10, 2014, and later filed a Supplemental Petition (April 1, 2014) to comply with COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.
Assailed Resolution — COMELEC No. 14-0509
On July 22, 2014, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 14-0509 dismissing Marmeto’s second initiative petition on the ground that the Commission’s FY 2014 budget contained no specific provision for expenses related to local initiatives; therefore, the COMELEC determined it could not set up signature stations, verify signatures, or perform other acts entailing expense.
Procedural Relief and Core Legal Issue
Marmeto filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus alleging grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC in dismissing the initiative for lack of appropriated funds and asserting a ministerial duty on COMELEC to conduct initiative proceedings upon legal compliance. COMELEC defended dismissal alternatively by arguing the propositions were ultra vires — beyond the Sanggunian’s power to enact.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework Governing Initiative
The Court framed the dispute under the 1987 Constitution: initiative and referendum are reserved original legislative powers of the people (Article VI), and Congress must provide a system for initiative and referendum; COMELEC is mandated under Article IX-C, Section 2(1) to enforce and administer laws on initiative and referendum. RA 6735 (1989) and Sections 120–127 of the LGC implement local initiative and referendum procedures; COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 provides implementing rules.
Initiative as Original Legislative Power and COMELEC Mandate
The Court reiterated that initiative is an instrument of direct democracy and an exercise of original legislative power reserved to the people. COMELEC’s constitutional duty is to enforce and administer the laws that make initiative and referendum operational; thus, COMELEC cannot lightly frustrate the exercise of that people’s power.
Budgetary Allocation Issue and Precedent (Goh v. Bayron)
Relying on Goh v. Bayron (2014), the Court examined whether lack of a specific line-item appropriation in the FY 2014 GAA could justify COMELEC’s refusal to conduct an electoral exercise. In Goh the Court found the FY 2014 GAA contained an express appropriation for “Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites” (P1,360,975,000 within a P1.4015 billion allocation) and related MFO allocations, which the Court held were specific enough to fund both regular and special electoral exercises (including recall). The Court concluded that such line-item appropriations, together with authorization to augment from COMELEC savings where applicable, precluded COMELEC from declining to perform constitutional functions solely for lack of a separately labeled appropriation.
Application of Goh to Marmeto’s Case — Budget Sufficiency
The Court extended Goh’s reasoning to initiative proceedings: the FY 2014 appropriation for elections, referenda, recalls and plebiscites, together with funds for management and supervision of elections, necessarily covered the conduct of initiative elections. The constitutional provision that funds certified by COMELEC as necessary to defray expenses for elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda and recalls shall be provided and automatically released (Article IX-C, Section 11) reinforced that COMELEC could not refuse to proceed solely for lack of a separately denominated line item in the GAA. Accordingly, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion if it dismissed Marmeto’s petition exclusively on that ground.
COMELEC’s Authority to Review Initiative Propositions
The Court confirmed that COMELEC has quasi-judicial and administrative authority to review initiative petitions for sufficiency in form, language, and, in clear cases, content insofar as propositions are patently and clearly outside the capacity of the local legislative body to enact. Section 124(b) of the LGC limits initiatives to matters within the legal powers of the Sanggunian; Section 127 permits courts to nullify propositions approved by initiative for unconstitutionality or want of capacity to enact, but judicial review of content is principally framed after approval. COMELEC thus may and should screen petitions to determine whether proposals are within the Sanggunian’s authority.
Review of Marmeto’s Propositions — Overview
Although the record lacked the full text of the second proposed ordinance, the Supplemental Petition and related documents identified the core propositions: (1) creation of a 12-member sectoral council to serve as people’s representatives for implementation and management of livelihood programs; (2) vesting that council with power to directly propose, enact, approve or reject ordinances via initiative/referendum; (3) appropriation of P200 million for livelihood projects whose net income would fund services and facilities; and (4) entrusting MPP to prepare implementing guidelines, feasibility studies, and manage funds subject only to reporting and compliance with accounting/auditing rules.
Ultra Vires Creation of Another Local Legislative Body
Applying the LGC, the Court found the creation of a separate local legislative body was ultra vires. The LGC vests local legislative power in the Sangguniang Panlungsod composed of elected district and sectoral representatives and limits sectoral representatives to three elected members from enumerated sectors. The LGC contains no provision permitting creation of a distinct, parallel legislative body to enact ordinances or exercise legislative functions. Accordingly, a sectoral council with legislative competence would contravene the statutory scheme and the allocation of local legislative power.
Overlap with and Redundancy to the Local Development Council
The Court observed that functions proposed for the s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 9105)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto seeking annulment of COMELEC Resolution No. 14-0509 dated July 22, 2014.
- The assailed resolution dismissed Marmeto’s second initiative petition on the ground of lack of budgetary appropriation for the conduct of the initiative process.
- Prior administrative action: Marmeto filed an earlier initiative petition which COMELEC dismissed under Resolution No. 13-0904 (July 31, 2013) and affirmed on motion for reconsideration by Resolution No. 13-1039 (September 17, 2013).
- Supreme Court, En Banc, heard the petition and rendered decision on September 26, 2017, dismissing the petition and affirming COMELEC Resolution No. 14-0509.
Relevant Facts
- On January 21, 2013, Marmeto, on behalf of the Muntinlupa People Power (MPP), filed a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa seeking creation of a sectoral council and appropriation of P200 million for livelihood programs and projects for Muntinlupa residents.
- Sanggunian Panlungsod did not act within 30 days; Marmeto invoked the power of initiative under RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code) and filed an initiative petition.
- The Sanggunian’s secretary informed COMELEC (letter dated June 11, 2013) that the Sanggunian could not act because the FY 2013 City budget had been enacted and a new appropriation ordinance would be needed.
- COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-0904 (July 31, 2013) setting aside the first initiative petition as beyond Sanggunian’s powers and not in accordance with existing laws and rules; motion for reconsideration denied by Resolution No. 13-1039 (September 17, 2013).
- Marmeto re-filed a proposed ordinance on December 2, 2013; second initiative petition filed with the Office of the City Election Officer on February 10, 2014. A Supplemental Petition was filed April 1, 2014 to comply with COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.
- COMELEC issued Resolution No. 14-0509 (July 22, 2014) dismissing the second initiative petition for lack of FY 2014 budget provision for local initiatives, citing costs of signature stations, verification of signatures, certification of registered voters, and related acts.
The Assailed COMELEC Resolution (No. 14-0509)
- COMELEC’s stated ground for dismissal: absence of any provision in the Commission’s FY 2014 budget for expenses for local initiative or any other election activity, making the power of local initiative unable to be invoked by Marmeto.
- The resolution emphasized that the setting up of signature stations, verification, certification of voter numbers, and other necessary acts would entail COMELEC expenses for which no appropriation existed in FY 2014.
Issues Presented to the Court
- Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Marmeto’s second initiative petition for lack of appropriated funds.
- Whether the propositions in Marmeto’s second initiative petition were within the legal powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa to enact and thus proper subjects of initiative under the LGC.
Parties’ Contentions
- Marmeto:
- Denies that lack of appropriated funds justifies dismissal and contends denial constitutes gross neglect and abandonment of COMELEC duties under the Constitution.
- Maintains COMELEC has a ministerial duty to conduct initiative proceedings once legal requirements are met; COMELEC evaded this duty by invoking unavailability of funds.
- COMELEC:
- Defends dismissal as proper because the propositions were beyond the legal powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact.
- Asserts the second petition proposed creation of a separate legislative body (a sectoral council of 12 members) that would directly propose, enact, approve, or reject ordinances by initiative and referendum—powers not granted under the LGC.
- Relies on Sections 457 and 458 of the LGC to show that the Sanggunian’s composition and powers do not permit creation of a separate local legislative body nor appointment of sectoral representatives by initiative.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework Cited
- Constitution:
- Article VI, Section 1: Legislative power vested in Congress except to the extent reserved to the people by initiative and referendum.
- Article VI, Section 32: Congress to provide for system of initiative and referendum.
- Article IX-A and IX-C: Budgetary provisions and COMELEC funds; Article IX-C, Section 11: funds certified by COMELEC for holding electoral exercises shall be provided and released automatically upon certification by the Chairman.
- Republic Act No. 6735 (1989): System of initiative and referendum on national and local laws; implemented by COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (January 16, 1991).
- Local Government Code (RA No. 7160):
- Sections 120–127: Local initiative and referendum provisions (reiterated from RA 6735).
- Section 122(c): COMELEC to assist in formulating propositions.
- Section 124(b): Initiative shall extend only to matters within legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact.
- Section 127: Courts may declare null and void propositions approved pursuant to the Chapter for violation of the Constitution or want of capacity of the sanggunian concerned to enact the measure.
- Article 41 & Article 48: Composition and legislative power of the Sanggunian Panlungsod; limitation of sectoral representatives to three elected members.
- Sections 34–36, 106–109: Provisions on people’s organizations, local development councils, and their functions.
- Section 305(a)–(b): Appropriations and public purpose of local government funds; local fiscal administration rules and accountability measures.
Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon
- Goh v. Hon. Bayron (748 Phil. 282, 2014):
- Court held FY 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA) contained a line-item appropriation for COMELEC for conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites (P1,401,501,000), and that such appropriation was specific enough to include recall elections and could be augmented from COMELEC savings.
- Holding applied to show that lack of specific line item for recall did not justify COMELEC’s refusal to hold elections when an appropriation for conduct and supervision of elections existed.
- Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections (330 Phil. 1082, 1996):
- COMELEC, in exercise of qu