Case Summary (G.R. No. 213953)
Key Dates
- January 21, 2013: Filing of first proposed ordinance
- June 11, 2013: Sanggunian Panlungsod advises COMELEC of FY 2013 budget enactment
- July 31 and September 17, 2013: COMELEC dismisses first initiative petition (Resolutions 13-0904, 13-1039)
- December 2, 2013: Filing of second proposed ordinance
- February 10, 2014: Second initiative petition lodged with City Election Officer
- April 1, 2014: Supplemental petition filed per COMELEC Resolution 2300
- July 22, 2014: Issuance of assailed Resolution 14-0509
- September 26, 2017: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution: Article VI, Sections 1 & 32; Article IX-C, Sections 2(1) & 11
- Republic Act No. 6735 (1989): System of Initiative and Referendum, implementing Resolution 2300 (1991)
- Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160): Sections 41, 48, 107–109 (Local Development Council); Sections 120–127 (Local initiative and referendum); Sections 305(a)–(b) (Fiscal administration)
Factual Background
Marmeto sought by citizen initiative to enact a city ordinance creating a 12-member sectoral council and appropriating ₱200 million for livelihood programs. After the Sanggunian Panlungsod failed to act within 30 days, he filed two successive initiative petitions with COMELEC, each dismissed—first for exceeding Sanggunian powers, then for lack of specific budgetary allocation under the FY 2014 General Appropriations Act.
Issues
- Did COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion by dismissing the petition on grounds of budgetary insufficiency?
- Are the measures proposed by Marmeto within the legislative competence of the Sanggunian Panlungsod?
COMELEC’s Duty and Budgetary Sufficiency
Under the 1987 Constitution and implementing statutes, COMELEC must enforce initiative and referendum laws. In Goh v. Bayron (2014), the Court held that the FY 2014 GAA’s line item of ₱1.4 billion for “conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites” suffices to fund initiative elections and may be augmented from COMELEC’s savings. The same appropriation authorizes COMELEC to conduct Marmeto’s local initiative.
COMELEC’s Quasi-Judicial Power on Initiative Measures
Beyond funding, COMELEC has quasi-judicial authority to assess whether proposed measures are within the legal powers of the relevant Sanggunian to enact. While courts void only approved propositions, COMELEC may dismiss petitions that are patently ultra vires.
Analysis of Marmeto’s Proposals
Marmeto’s second petition proposed:
(1) A separate 12-member sectoral council with legislative powers;
(2) Its authority to enact or reject ordinances via initiative or referendum;
(3) A ₱200 million appropriation managed by that council, with net income devoted to public services;
(4) Power for a private association (MPP) to draft implementing guidelines, manage funds, and report monthly.
These propositions conflict with the LGC:
- Local legislative power in a city is vested exclusively in the Sanggunian Panlungsod, which may include only three elec
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213953)
Facts
- On January 21, 2013, Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto, on behalf of Muntinlupa People Power (MPP), filed a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa seeking:
- Creation of a sectoral council.
- Appropriation of ₱200 million for livelihood programs and projects.
- After 30 days without action by the Sanggunian, Marmeto invoked the local initiative under RA No. 7160 (LGC).
- The Sanggunian’s secretary advised COMELEC on June 11, 2013 that FY 2013 budget was already enacted and that new appropriation was needed.
- On July 31, 2013, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-0904 dismissing the first initiative petition for being beyond the Sanggunian’s powers.
- Marmeto moved for reconsideration; on September 17, 2013, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-1039 affirming dismissal but invited refiling.
- Marmeto refiled a second proposed ordinance on December 2, 2013; filed a second initiative petition on February 10, 2014; and submitted a Supplemental Petition on April 1, 2014 per COMELEC Resolution No. 2300.
Procedural History
- First initiative petition dismissed by COMELEC Resolution No. 13-0904 (July 31, 2013) for ultra vires content.
- Motion for reconsideration denied by Resolution No. 13-1039 (September 17, 2013).
- Second petition filed; Supplemental Petition complied with COMELEC rules.
- COMELEC issued Resolution No. 14-0509 (July 22, 2014) dismissing second petition for lack of budgetary allocation.
- Marmeto filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65 to annul Resolution No. 14-0509.
Assailed Resolution (COMELEC Res. No. 14-0509)
- Held that no provision existed in COMELEC’s FY 2014 budget for local initiative expenses.
- Concluded that signature stations, verification of signatures, certification of voter numbers, and other acts would incur expenses.
- Resolved that the power of local initiative cannot be invoked for appropriation of funds for livelihood projects.
Issues Presented
- Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Marmeto’s initi