Title
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 125416
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1996
A dispute arose over Morong, Bataan's inclusion in the Subic Special Economic Zone, with petitioners challenging a local resolution via referendum. The Supreme Court annulled the Comelec's referendum, ruling it improperly sought to amend national law, and remanded the case for proper procedural review.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125416)

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the present petition is barred by the finality of the earlier Garcia v. Comelec decision.
  2. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848.
  3. Whether the proposed initiative seeks to amend a national law and thus lies beyond the powers of the local electorate.

Bar by Final Judgment

The Court held that Garcia v. Comelec addressed only the form of an initiative (resolution versus ordinance), not the sufficiency or propriety of submitting Morong’s Resolution No. 10 for popular vote. Therefore, the earlier decision does not bar consideration of the present certiorari petition.

Grave Abuse of Discretion in Resolution No. 2848

Comelec mislabeled and treated the petition as a “referendum” rather than an “initiative.” Under RA 6735 and RA 7160:

  • Initiative: a people-driven proposal to enact or amend local laws when the legislative body fails to act;
  • Referendum: the electorate’s approval or rejection of measures already enacted by a legislative body.
    Resolution No. 2848 uses “referendum” throughout (27 instances) and omits any reference to “initiative,” demonstrating a failure to distinguish these distinct constitutional processes. The Commission thereby neglected its duty to ensure that the proposition was properly formulated, complied with the single-subject rule, and provided voters with clear, discrete options.

Prematurity of Ultra Vires Challenge

SBMA’s argument that Morong lacked power to withdraw its unconditional concurrence or impose conditions under RA 7227 was premature. The proposal remains unapproved; judicial relief is inappropriate until after voters adopt the measure. Courts may only decide actual controversies, and Sec. 18 of RA 6735 expressly reserves for proper judicial review any proposition approved under the Act. Comelec, however, possesses quasi-judicial authority to review on remand whether the proposal is within the competence of the local legislative body and whether it must be divided into separate propositions (e.g., total annulment versus conditional replacement). Ownership questions over Grande Island and the “virgin forests” also merit administrative review.

Disposition and Remand

The petition for certiorari i

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.