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. 211015)

Petitioner’s Position and Relief Sought

SBMA petitioned for certiorari and prohibition to annul Comelec’s Ruling of April 17, 1996 and Resolution No. 2848 (June 27, 1996), asserting grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction in allowing and preparing for a local initiative that, in SBMA’s view, effectively sought amendment of a national law and withdrawal or conditional alteration of municipal concurrence that is no longer within the local legislative capacity.

Key Dates and Legislative Instruments

Applicable constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution. Relevant statutes and instruments: Republic Act No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), Republic Act No. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), Omnibus Election Code, and related election laws. Notable dates in the record include the enactment of RA 7227 (March 13, 1992), turnover of the Subic base (November 24, 1992), municipal concurrence Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10 (April 1993), Proclamation No. 532 defining SSEZ metes and bounds (February 1, 1995), Comelec Resolutions adopting a calendar (No. 2845, June 18, 1996) and promulgating rules (No. 2848, June 27, 1996), and the present petition (filed July 10, 1996).

Facts: Creation of SSEZ and Municipal Action

RA 7227 created the SSEZ and the SBMA, authorized capital and asset transfers to SBMA (including lands defined in Section 12), and required local government units’ concurrence. Morong’s Sangguniang Bayan adopted Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 expressing unconditional concurrence. Private respondents (Garcia, Calimbas, et al.) filed a petition to annul that kapasyahan and, within 30 days after submission to the Office of the President, invoked the local initiative mechanism under the Local Government Code to attempt to annul and replace the municipal concurrence with a conditional concurrence listing multiple specific demands.

Facts: Administrative Responses and Prior Litigation

Comelec initially denied the local initiative on July 6, 1993 (Resolution No. 93-1623) on the ground the subject was a resolution and not an ordinance; subsequently it directed authentication of signatures (Resolution No. 93-1676). Private respondents filed certiorari and mandamus (G.R. No. 111230) challenging Comelec’s denial; the Supreme Court in that earlier case addressed whether a municipal resolution may be the subject of initiative. After Proclamation No. 532 (Feb. 1, 1995) delineated the SSEZ to include lands within Morong, Comelec issued Resolution No. 2845 (June 18, 1996) setting a referendum calendar and Resolution No. 2848 (June 27, 1996) establishing rules and guidelines for the plebiscite scheduled for July 27, 1996. SBMA sought judicial relief to enjoin the initiative/ref­erendum.

Procedural Posture and Interim Action

During the Supreme Court hearing on July 23, 1996, Comelec transmitted an order holding the scheduled referendum in abeyance pending resolution of the present petition, rendering SBMA’s TRO/PI application moot. The Court took the case under submission with directions and admitted pertinent comments and pleadings.

Issues Presented

The Court formulated the issues as: (1) whether the present petition is barred by the finality of the earlier Garcia decision; (2) whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848; and (3) whether the local initiative seeks to amend a national law or otherwise exceeds the legislative competence of the local sanggunian (i.e., whether the proposal is ultra vires).

Governing Legal Concepts: Initiative and Referendum

Under the 1987 Constitution and implementing statutes, initiative and referendum are distinct mechanisms of direct democracy. RA 6735 and the Local Government Code distinguish: initiative (power of the people to propose and enact legislation independently, including local legislation) and referendum (power of the electorate to approve or reject measures already enacted by a legislative body). Initiative procedures require the proponents to present propositions to the local legislative body, allow the body an opportunity to act, and, if it fails to act, permit the proponents to collect signatures to compel an election on the proposition. Referendum procedures are triggered by a legislative body’s submission of an enacted ordinance or resolution for voter approval.

Court’s Analysis: Final-Judgment Bar Rejected

The Court concluded that the prior Garcia decision did not bar the present petition because the earlier case decided only whether a municipal resolution (as distinct from an ordinance) may be the proper subject of initiative and referendum. The present petition raises different questions—principally whether Comelec’s Resolution No. 2848 was properly promulgated and whether the particular proposal, as drafted, could be validly submitted for a people-initiated vote.

Court’s Analysis: Comelec’s Grave Abuse — Initiative Treated as Referendum

The Court held that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848 because it treated an initiative as a referendum throughout the resolution. The record shows the word “referendum” was used repeatedly while no reference to “initiative” appeared in the operative provisions, and the mechanisms adopted—ballot language, referendum committees, canvass procedures—reflected referendum practice. The Court emphasized statutory and conceptual distinctions: an initiative is initiated by the people and requires Comelec supervision not merely of vote-counting but of the adequacy of the proposition’s form and language, possible division into separate propositions, and exclusion of multi-subject submissions; a referendum is the electorate’s approval or rejection of measures enacted by a legislative body and follows a different administrative regimen.

Court’s Direction on Proper Comelec Supervision of Initiatives

Because initiatives are lawmaking acts by the people, Comelec’s supervisory role must extend to ensuring clarity, single-subject compliance, and separability of propositions so voters can understand and vote meaningfully. The Court criticized Comelec’s failure to apply initiative-specific procedures and instructed that Comelec should issue and apply relevant guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of initiative and referendum, supervise formulation of propositions (with assistance from the Secretary of Local Government where provided by law), and adjudicate in the first instance questions concerning form, language, and obvious excesses beyond local legislative capacity.

Court’s Analysis: Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Capacity and Contental Limits

The Court clarified the respective roles of the Comelec and the judiciary: courts decide actual controversies and review final actions or grave abuse by government instrumentalities, whereas Comelec has administrative and initiatory quasi-judicial jurisdiction to adjudicate preliminary questions on the sufficiency, form, and content of a proposed initiative and to determine whether parts of a proposal are clearly outside the capacity of a local sanggunian to enact. Thus, certain content-based challenges that are manifestly beyond l

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms