Marmento v. Commission On Elections

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 840 9/5/20, 8:48 PM
G.R. No. 213953. September 26, 2017.*
ENGR. OSCAR A. MARMETO, petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent.
Initiatives; Legislative Power; Initiative has been described as

an instrument of direct democracy whereby the citizens directly
propose and legislate laws.·Initiative has been described as an
instrument of direct democracy whereby the citizens directly
propose and legislate laws. As it is the citizens themselves who
legislate the laws, direct legislation through initiative (along with
referendum) is considered as an exercise of original legislative
power, as opposed to that of derivative legislative power which has
been delegated by the sovereign people to legislative bodies such as
the Congress.
Same; Same; Considering that derivative legislative power is
merely delegated by the sovereign people to its elected
representatives, it is deemed subordinate to the original power of the
people.·Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution recognizes the
distinction between original and derivative legislative power by
declaring that „legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
x x x except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.‰ The italicized clause pertains to the
original power of legislation which the sovereign people have
reserved for their exercise in matters they consider fit. Considering
that derivative legislative power is merely delegated by the
sovereign people to its elected representatives, it is deemed
subordinate to the original power of the people. The Constitution
further mandated the Congress to „provide for a system of initiative
and referendum, x x x whereby the people can directly propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof by the
Congress or local legislative body x x x.‰ In compliance, the
Congress enacted RA No. 6735 on August 4, 1989 which provided
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745e4de0e1674d23e9003600fb002c009e/p/AUH443/?username=Guest Page 1 of 33
for a system of initiative and referendum on national and local

laws. To implement RA No. 6735, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution No. 2300 on January 16, 1991, which provided the rules
and regulations governing the conduct of initiative on the
Constitution, and initiative and referendum on national and local
laws. Since
_______________
* EN BANC.
582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marmeto vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
the LGC codified all laws pertaining to local governments, the

provisions on local initiative and referendum found in RA No. 6735
were reiterated, with slight modifications, in Sections 120 to 127 of
the LGC; all other provisions in RA No. 6735 not inconsistent
within the Sections 120 and 127 of the LGC remained valid and in
effect.
Same; Republic Act (RA) No. 6735 and the Local Government
Code (LGC) are thus the pertinent laws on local initiative and
referendum which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is
mandated to enforce and administer under Article IX-C, Section 2(1)
of the Constitution.·RA No. 6735 and the LGC are thus the
pertinent laws on local initiative and referendum which the
COMELEC is mandated to enforce and administer under Article IX-
C, Section 2(1) of the Constitution. Naturally, the conduct of
initiative and referendum (as with any election exercise) will entail
expenses on the part of the government. The budget for the conduct
of the exercise of political rights, specifically those on suffrage and
electoral rights, is given to the COMELEC, whose approved annual
appropriations are automatically and regularly released.
Same; The Supreme Court (SC) considered the appropriation of
P1.4 billion as specific enough to fund elections, which includes both
regular and special elections, including recall elections.·Notably,
for its Major Final Output (MFO) 1 on the Regulation of Elections,

the COMELEC was provided with a total of P1,401,501,000 for the
„Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall
votes and plebiscites,‰ which amount was subdivided among the
15 administrative regions in the country. The Court added that
„[w]hen the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation
for its ÂCurrent Operating Expenditures,Ê such appropriation
includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional
functions x x x.‰ The Court considered the appropriation of P1.4
billion as specific enough to fund elections, which includes both
regular and special elections, including recall elections. Further, the
allocation of a specific budget for the conduct of elections
constituted as „a line item which can be augmented from the
COMELECÊs savings to fund the conduct of recall elections in 2014.‰
Thus, the Court concluded that · [c]onsidering that there is an
existing line item appropriation for the conduct of recall elections in
the 2014 GAA, we see no reason why the COMELEC is unable to
perform its constitutional mandate to Âenforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the
583
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 583

conduct of x x x recall.Ê Should the finds appropriated in the

2014 GAA be deemed insufficient, then the COMELEC Chairman
may exercise his authority to augment such line item appropriation
from the COMELECÊs existing savings, as this augmentation is
expressly authorized in the 2014 GAA.
Same; Election; Words and Phrases; The term „election‰ is
comprehensive enough to include other kinds of electoral exercises,
including initiative elections.·Although Goh v. Bayron, 742 SCRA
303 (2014), involved the conduct of recall elections, the 1.4 billion
appropriation under the FY 2014 GAA was for the „conduct and
supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites.‰
The term „election‰ is comprehensive enough to include other kinds
of electoral exercises, including initiative elections. As earlier
mentioned, the COMELECÊs constitutional mandate is to enforce

and administer all laws relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. The Constitution
further states that the „[f]unds certified by the [COMELEC] as
necessary to defray the expenses for holding regular and special
elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be
provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once
approved shall be released automatically.‰ Thus, the budgetary
allocation for the „regulation of elections‰ identified as the
COMELECÊs MFO 1 should necessarily also cover expenses for the
conduct of initiative elections.
Same; Section 124(b) of the Local Government Code (LGC)
provides that „[i]nitiatives shall extend only to subjects or matters
which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact.‰·In
several cases, this Court considered issues which were not raised by
either party when these issues are necessary for the complete
resolution of the cases. If the Court can review unassigned errors
which are necessary to arrive at a just resolution of the case, with
all the more reason can it review a matter raised as a defense by a
party to uphold the validity of a resolution assailed in the case.
Section 124(b) of the LGC provides that „[i]nitiatives shall extend
only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the
Sanggunian to enact.‰ Section 127 of the LGC gives the courts
authority to declare „null and void any proposition approved
pursuant to this Chapter for violation of the Constitution or want
of capacity of the sanggunian concerned to enact the said
measure.‰ Significantly, the power of the courts to nullify
propositions for being ultra
584

vires extends only to those already approved, i.e., those

which have been approved by a majority of the votes cast in the
initiative election called for the purpose. In other words, the courts
can review the terms only of an approved ordinance. It will
be premature for the courts to review the propositions contained in

an initiative petition that has yet to be voted for by the people
because at that point, there is no actual controversy that the courts
may adjudicate. This begs the question of which tribunal can review
the sufficiency of an initiative petition.
Same; Commission on Elections; Jurisdiction; Inasmuch as the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) also has quasi-judicial and
administrative functions, it is the COMELEC which has the power
to determine whether the propositions in an initiative petition are
within the powers of a concerned sanggunian to enact.·Inasmuch
as the COMELEC also has quasi-judicial and administrative
functions, it is the COMELEC which has the power to
determine whether the propositions in an initiative petition
are within the powers of a concerned sanggunian to enact.
In Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections,
262 SCRA 492 (1996), the Court ruled that · while regular courts
may take jurisdiction over Âapproved propositionsÊ per said Sec. 18 of
R.A. 6735, the Comelec in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
and administrative powers may adjudicate and pass upon
such proposals insofar as their form and language are
concerned x x x and it may be added, even as to content,
where the proposals or parts thereof are patently and
clearly outside the Âcapacity of the local legislative body to
enact.Ê x x x (Emphasis supplied) The COMELECÊs power to review
the substance of the propositions is also implied in Section 12 of RA
No. 6735, which gives this Court appellate power to review the
COMELECÊs „findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
petition for initiative or referendum x x x.‰
Local Legislative Power; Under the Local Government Code
(LGC), local legislative power within the city is to be exercised by the
sangguniang panlungsod, which shall be comprised of elected
district and sectoral representatives.·Under the LGC, local
legislative power within the city is to be exercised by the
sangguniang panlungsod, which shall be comprised of elected
district and sectoral representatives. The sectoral representatives,
moreover shall be limited to
585
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 585

three members, coming from enumerated/identified sectors.

Significantly, nothing in the LGC allows the creation of another
local legislative body that will enact, approve, or reject local laws
either through the regular legislative process or through initiative
or referendum. Even MarmetoÊs claim that the sectoral council will
not legislate but will merely „facilitate‰ the peopleÊs exercise of the
power of initiative and referendum is rendered unnecessary by the
task the COMELEC must assume under the LGC. Section 122(c) of
the LGC provides that the COMELEC (or its designated
representative) shall extend assistance in the formulation of the
proposition.
Local Development Councils; The Local Government Code
(LGC) requires the establishment in each Local Government Unit
(LGU) of a local development council, whose membership includes
representatives of PeopleÊs and Non-Government Organization
(POs/NGOs). These local development councils are primarily
operating within the LGU tasked with developing a „comprehensive
multisectoral development plan‰ in their respective LGUs.·The law
recognizes the right of the people to organize themselves and
encourages the formation of nongovernmental, community-based, or
sectoral organizations that aim to promote the nationÊs welfare.
Even the LGC promotes relations between the LGUs and peopleÊs
and nongovernmental organizations (PO/NGOs), and provides
various ways by which they can be active partners in pursuing local
autonomy. The LGC, moreover, requires the establishment in each
LGU of a local development council, whose membership includes
representatives of POs/NGOs operating within the LGU. These
local development councils are primarily tasked with developing a
„comprehensive multisectoral development plan‰ in their respective
LGUs. City development councils are specifically tasked to exercise
the following functions: (1) Formulate long-term, medium-term, and
annual socio-economic development plans and policies; (2) x x x; (3)
Appraise and prioritize socio-economic development programs and
projects; (4) x x x; (5) Coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the
implementation of development programs and projects; and (6)
Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or
competent authority.
Appropriations Ordinance; Local Fiscal Administration; The
fundamental principles in local fiscal administration provided in

the Local Government Code (LGC) state that no money shall be paid
out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations
ordi-
586

nance or law, and that local government funds and monies shall
be spent solely for public purposes.·The fundamental principles in
local fiscal administration provided in the LGC state that no money
shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriations ordinance or law, and that local government funds
and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes. MarmetoÊs
petition proposes the appropriation of P200 million for the
livelihood programs and projects of Muntinlupa residents.
Significantly, the utilization of this amount is subject to the
guidelines to be later implemented by MarmetoÊs MPP. That
these guidelines will be drafted and implemented subsequent to the
initiative elections denies the Muntinlupa residents of the
opportunity to assess and scrutinize the utilization of local funds,
and gives Marmeto and his organization an almost complete
discretion in determining the allocation and disbursement of the
funds. It is no justification that the funds will be used for public
purposes on the claim these will be applied to programs and
projects that will eventually redound to the benefit of the public.
Public Funds; Our laws have put in place measures to ensure
transparency and accountability in dealing with public funds, since
„[p]ublic funds are the property of the people and must be used
prudently at all times with a view to prevent dissipation and
waste.‰·Our laws have put in place measures to ensure
transparency and accountability in dealing with public funds, since
„[p]ublic funds are the property of the people and must be used
prudently at all times with a view to prevent dissipation and
waste.‰ These measures may be subverted or rendered inapplicable
when the management and utilization of the funds is turned over to
private persons or entities. Although comprised of Muntinlupa

residents and voters, MarmetoÊs MPP remains a private
organization and its members cannot be considered as public
officers who are burdened with responsibility for public funds and
who may be held administratively and criminally liable for the
imprudent use thereof.
Initiatives; Referendum; Initiative and referendum are the
means by which the sovereign people exercise their legislative power,
and the valid exercise thereof should not be easily defeated by
claiming lack of specific budgetary appropriation for their conduct.
·Initiative and referendum are the means by which the sovereign
people exercise their legislative power, and the valid exercise
thereof
587
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 587

should not be easily defeated by claiming lack of specific

budgetary appropriation for their conduct. The Court reiterates its
ruling in Goh v. Bayron, 742 SCRA 303 (2014), that the grant of a
line item in the FY 2014 GAA for the conduct and supervision of
elections constitutes as sufficient authority for the COMELEC to
use the amount for elections and other political exercises, including
initiative and recall, and to augment this amount from the
COMELECÊs existing savings.
Commission on Elections; Jurisdiction; As the Supreme Court
(SC) ruled in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on
Elections, 262 SCRA 492 (1996), the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) is likewise given the power to review the sufficiency of
initiative petitions, particularly the issue of whether the propositions
set forth therein are within the power of the concerned sanggunian to
enact.·As the Court ruled in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v.
Commission on Elections, 262 SCRA 492 (1996), the COMELEC is
likewise given the power to review the sufficiency of initiative
petitions, particularly the issue of whether the propositions set
forth therein are within the power of the concerned sanggunian to
enact. In as much as a sanggunian does not have the power to

create a separate local legislative body and that other propositions
in MarmetoÊs initiative petition clearly contravene the existing
laws, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition
and cannot be ordered to conduct and supervise the procedure for
the conduct of initiative elections.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari and Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Reynaldo A. Cardeño for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for certiorari and

mandamus1 seeking to annul the Resolution No. 14-0509
dated July 22,
_______________
1 Filed under Rule 65 of the RULES OF COURT, Rollo, pp. 3-16.
588

20142 of the respondent Commission of Elections

(COMELEC). The assailed resolution declared that the
power of initiative could not be invoked by the petitioner,
Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto (Marmeto), for the passage of a
proposed ordinance in Muntinlupa City, citing the lack of
budgetary appropriation for the conduct of the initiative
process.3
The Facts
On January 21, 2013, Marmeto filed in behalf of the

Muntinlupa People Power4 (MPP) a proposed ordinance
with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa.5 The
proposal sought the creation of a sectoral council and the
appropriation of the amount of P200 million for the
livelihood programs and projects that would benefit the
people of Muntinlupa City.
For failure of the Sanggunian Panlungsod to act on the
proposition within 30 days from its filing, Marmeto filed a
petition for initiative with the same body to invoke the
power of initiative under the Republic Act (RA) No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991
(LGC).
The secretary of Sanggunian Panlungsod of Muntinlupa
wrote a letter dated June 11, 2013 to the COMELEC
stating that the proposal could not be acted upon by the
Sanggunian because the CityÊs budget for FY 2013 had
already been enacted. Thus, the secretary claimed that a
new appropriation ordinance was needed to provide funds
for the conduct of the initiative.
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 17-18, signed by COMELEC Chairman Sixto S.

Brillantes, Jr., Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Christian Robert S.
Lim, Al A. Parreño, and Luie Tito F. Guia.
3 Id., at p. 18.
4 The MPP is an informal association of residents and registered
voters of Muntinlupa City, and is represented by Marmeto, id., at p. 38.
5 Id., at p. 4.
589
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 589

On July 31, 2013, the COMELEC issued Resolution

No. 13-0904 setting aside MarmetoÊs initiative petition
because the propositions therein were beyond the powers of
the Sanggunian Panlungsod to enact and were not in

accordance with the provisions of existing laws and rules.6
Marmeto sought reconsideration7 of COMELECÊs
Resolution No. 13-0904 by contending that the sectoral
council sought to be created would not constitute as a
legislative body separate from the Sanggunian
Panlungsod. He clarified that the sectoral council would
merely act as the peopleÊs representative, which would
facilitate the exercise of the peopleÊs power of initiative and
referendum.
However, the COMELEC did not find MarmetoÊs motion
for reconsideration meritorious and issued Resolution No.
13-1039 dated September 17, 2013,8 affirming its earlier
ruling dismissing the initiative petition. It ruled that the
issues Marmeto raised in his motion were mere reiterations
of his petition which it had already addressed. Nonetheless,
it noted that Marmeto might opt to refile his initiative
petition, since the then newly-elected members of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa might be more
sympathetic to MarmetoÊs propositions.
Accordingly, on December 2, 2013, Marmeto filed a
second proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Muntinlupa. Again, no favorable action was
done by the Sanggunian within 30 days from the filing of
the proposal, prompting Marmeto file a second initiative
petition with the Office of the City Election Officer on
February 10, 2014.9
On April 1, 2014, Marmeto filed a Supplemental Petition
to comply with the requirements of COMELEC Resolution
No.
_______________
6 Id., at p. 32.
7 Id., at pp. 33-35.
8 Id., at pp. 36-37.
9 Id., at pp. 38-40.
590

2300,10 which provided the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution,
and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local
Laws.
The Assailed COMELECÊs

Resolution
On July 22, 2014, the COMELEC issued the assailed

Resolution No. 14-050911 which effectively dismissed
MarmetoÊs second initiative petition for lack of budgetary
allocation. The pertinent portion of the assailed resolution
reads as follows:
Considering the absence of any provision in the

CommissionÊs FY 2014 budget for the expenses for local
initiative or any other election activity x x x the Commission
RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to adopt the foregoing
recommendation x x x that the power of local initiative cannot
be invoked by Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto x x x for the passage of
an ordinance for the appropriation of funds for livelihood projects
for the residents of Muntinlupa City since the setting up of
signature stations, verification of signatures, the certification of the
number of registered voters, and all other acts to be done in exercise
thereof will entail expenses on the part of the Cornmission.12
(Emphasis supplied)
Disagreeing with Resolution No. 14-0509, Marmeto

filed the present certiorari and mandamus petition
contending that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
it dismissed his second initiative petition.
_______________
10 Dated January 16, 1991.

11 Rollo, pp. 17-18.
12 Id., at p. 18.
591
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 591

The PartiesÊ Arguments
Marmeto assails the COMELECÊs Resolution No. 14-

0509, contending that the denial of an initiative petition
due to lack of appropriated funds constitutes a gross
neglect and abandonment of the COMELECÊs duties under
the Constitution.13
Marmeto believes that the COMELEC has a ministerial
duty to conduct the initiative proceedings under pertinent
laws upon compliance with the legal requirements for the
exercise of the right. He asserts that the COMELEC
evaded its mandated duty by citing unavailability of funds
as ground to frustrate the conduct of local initiative.14
The COMELEC, on the other hand, claims that the
denial of MarmetoÊs initiative petition was proper, since the
propositions therein were beyond the legal powers of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact.15 Section 124(b) of the
LGC provides that the „[i]nitiative shall extend only to
subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of
the Sanggunian to enact.‰ According to the COMELEC,
MarmetoÊs second initiative petition proposed the creation
of a council composed of 12 sectoral representatives. This
sectoral council will act as a legislative body that will
directly propose, enact, approve, or reject any ordinance
through the power of initiative and referendum.16
The COMELEC refers to Section 458 of the LGC which
enumerates the powers and duties of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod, noting that nothing in the provision grants
the Sanggunian the power to create a separate local
legislative body. Moreover, Section 457 of the LGC allows
only three sectoral representatives to become members of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod. These sectoral
representatives are to be elected by
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 8, 11.

14 Id., at p. 13.
15 Id., at p. 77.
16 Id., at pp. 79, 87-88.
592

the residents of the city as members of the Sanggunian,

and cannot be appointed through an initiative election.
The CourtÊs Ruling
The Court dismisses the Petition.
The COMELEC is mandated

to enforce and administer
the laws on local initiative
and referendum
Initiative has been described as an instrument of direct

democracy whereby the citizens directly propose and
legislate laws.17 As it is the citizens themselves who
legislate the laws, direct legislation through initiative
(along with referendum) is considered as an exercise of
original legislative power,18 as opposed to that of derivative
legislative power which has been delegated by the
sovereign people to legislative bodies such as the
Congress.19
Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution recognizes the
distinction between original and derivative legislative
power by declaring that „legislative power shall be vested
in the Congress x x x except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.‰ The
italicized clause pertains to the original power of legislation
which the sovereign people have reserved for their exercise

in matters they consider fit. Considering that derivative
legislative power is
_______________
17 Coury, Christopher A., Direct Democracy through Initiative and

Referendum: Checking the Balance, Vol. 8, p. 573, Notre Dame J Law,
Ethics & Pub. Policy (1994), available at <http://scholarship.
law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=l446&context=ndjlepp> (last
visited 11 September 2017).
18 Garcia v. Commission on Elections, 307 Phil. 296, 303; 237 SCRA
279, 287 (1994).
19 Id.
593
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 593

merely delegated by the sovereign people to its elected

representatives, it is deemed subordinate to the original
power of the people.20
The Constitution further mandated the Congress to
„provide for a system of initiative and referendum, x x x
whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof by the
Congress or local legislative body x x x.‰21 In compliance,
the Congress enacted RA No. 6735 on August 4, 1989 which
provided for a system of initiative and referendum on
national and local laws. To implement RA No. 6735, the
COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2300 on January
16, 1991, which provided the rules and regulations
governing the conduct of initiative on the Constitution,22
and initiative and referendum on national and local laws.
Since the LGC codified all laws pertaining to local
governments,23 the provisions on local initiative and
referendum found in RA No. 6735 were reiterated, with
slight modifications, in Sections 120 to 127 of the LGC; all
other provisions in RA No. 6735 not inconsistent within the

Sections 120 and 127 of the LGC remained valid and in
effect.
RA No. 6735 and the LGC are thus the pertinent laws on
local initiative and referendum which the COMELEC is
mandated to enforce and administer under Article IX-C,
Section 2(1) of the Constitution. Naturally, the conduct of
initiative and referendum (as with any election exercise)
will entail expenses on the part of the government. The
budget for the conduct of the exercise of political rights,
specifically those on suffrage and electoral rights, is given
to the COMELEC,
_______________
20 Id., at pp. 303, 305; p. 287.

21 CONSTITUTION, Article VI, Section 32.
22 The Supreme Court nullified the provisions on initiative on the
amendment of the Constitution under Republic Act No. 6735 in Santiago
v. Commission on Elections, 336 Phil. 848; 270 SCRA 106 (1997).
23 Pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the Constitution.
594

whose approved annual appropriations are automatically

and regularly released.24
The COMELEC cannot de-

feat the exercise of the peo-
pleÊs original legislative
power for lack of budgetary
allocation for its conduct
In Goh v. Hon. Bayron,25 the Court has definitely ruled

the question of whether the COMELEC may prevent
the conduct of a recall election for lack of specific
budgetary allocation therefor. In as much as the issue

resolved in Goh is similar to the present one before the
Court, a brief summary thereof is necessary.
In 2014, Alroben Goh commenced the proceedings for
the conduct of recall elections against Puerto Princessa
City Mayor Lucilo Bayron. Although the COMELEC found
GohÊs petition sufficient in form and substance, it resolved
to suspend the recall election because there was no
appropriation provided for the conduct of recall elections in
the FY 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA). As there
was no line item in the GAA for recall elections, there could
likewise be no augmentation according to the COMELEC.
Contrary to the COMELECÊs assertions, the Court ruled
that the FY 2014 GAA „actually expressly provides for a
line item appropriation for the conduct and supervision of
recall
_______________
24 CONSTITUTION, Article IX-A, Section 5. See also Constitution, Article

IX-C, Section 11, which states that:
Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to
defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections, plebiscites,
initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or
special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released
automatically upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission.
25 748 Phil. 282; 742 SCRA 303 (2014).
595
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 595

elections.‰26 Under the Program category of the

COMELECÊs 2014 budget,27 the following amounts were
provided:
_______________
26 Id., at p. 305; pp. 331-332.

27 Department of Budget and Management, FY 2014 GAA · Annex
A: Details of the Budget, Volume 1, available
at <http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/GAA/GAA2014%20ANNEXES/Vol%201/COMELEC/COMELEC.pdf> (last
visited 11 September 2017). Emphasis ours.
596

597
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 597

Notably, for its Major Final Output (MFO) 1 on the

Regulation of Elections, the COMELEC was provided with
a total of P1,401,501,000 for the „Conduct and
supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and
plebiscites,‰ which amount was subdivided among the 15
administrative regions in the country.
The Court added that „[w]hen the COMELEC
receives a budgetary appropriation for its ÂCurrent

Operating Expenditures,Ê such appropriation
includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional
functions x x x.‰28 The Court considered the appropriation
of P1.4 billion as specific enough to fund elections, which
includes both regular and special elections, including recall
elections.
Further, the allocation of a specific budget for the
conduct of elections constituted as „a line item which can
be augmented from the COMELECÊs savings to fund the
conduct of recall elections in 2014.‰29 Thus, the Court
concluded that ·
[c]onsidering that there is an existing line item appropriation for

the conduct of recall elections in the 2014 GAA, we see no reason
why the COMELEC is unable to perform its constitutional mandate
to Âenforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of x x x recall.Ê Should the finds appropriated in the 2014
GAA be deemed insufficient, then the COMELEC Chairman may
exercise his authority to augment such line item appropriation from
the COMELECÊs existing savings, as this augmentation is expressly
authorized in the 2014 GAA.30
There is no reason not to extend the GohÊs ruling to the

present case. In fact, MarmetoÊs second initiative petition
was also filed in 2014; in dismissing MarmetoÊs petition for
lack of
_______________
28 Goh v. Bayron, supra note 25 at p. 305; p. 332.

29 Id., at p. 316; pp. 345-346.
30 Id., at p. 320; p. 350.
598

funds, the COMELEC was referring to its budget under the

FY 2014 GAA.
Although Goh involved the conduct of recall elections,
the 1.4 billion appropriation under the FY 2014 GAA was
for the „conduct and supervision of elections, referenda,
recall votes and plebiscites.‰31 The term „election‰ is
comprehensive enough to include other kinds of electoral
exercises, including initiative elections. As earlier
mentioned, the COMELECÊs constitutional mandate is to
enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of
an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
The Constitution further states that the „[f]unds certified
by the [COMELEC] as necessary to defray the expenses for
holding regular and special elections, plebiscites,
initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the
regular or special appropriations and, once approved shall
be released automatically.‰32 Thus, the budgetary allocation
for the „regulation of elections‰ identified as the
COMELECÊs MFO 1 should necessarily also cover expenses
for the conduct of initiative elections.
The Court also notes that, aside from the 1.4 billion
appropriation for the „conduct and supervision of elections,
referenda, recall votes and plebiscites,‰ the COMELEC was
also given 1.6 billion in the FY 2014 GAA for the
„management and supervision of elections and other
electoral exercises.‰33
Thus, as in Goh, the COMELEC was provided with
budgetary allocation for the conduct of initiative elections.
The COMELEC, therefore, committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing MarmetoÊs second initiative
petition on the ground that there were no funds allocated
for the purpose.
_______________

A: Details of Budget, Volume 1, supra note 27.
32 CONSTITUTION, Article IX-C, Section 11.
A: Details of the Budget, Volume 1, supra note 27.
599
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 599

The COMELEC has the power

to review whether the proposi
tions in an initiative petition
are within the power of the
concerned Sanggunian to enact
The resolution of the present case, however, does not end

in applying the CourtÊs ruling in Goh to the present case. In
its Comment and Memorandum, the COMELEC defends
the dismissal of MarmetoÊs second initiative petition on the
ground that the propositions raised therein were matters
that were not within the powers of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod to enact. This petition purportedly proposed
the creation of another legislative body separate from the
Sanggunian, composed of 12 appointive sectoral
representatives. Not only does the LGC denies to the
Sanggunian the power to create a separate legislative body,
but it also limits the number of sectoral representatives in
the Sanggunian itself to only three elected members.34 For
these reasons, the COMELEC argues that the dismissal of
MarmetoÊs second initiative petition was proper.
Marmeto counters that the arguments the COMELEC
now raises were not the grounds which the COMELEC
cited in Resolution No. 14-0509 that is assailed in the
present certiorari and mandamus petition. He points out
that Resolution No. 14-0509 dismissed his second initiative
petition solely for lack of specific budgetary allocation.
There was no mention in the assailed resolution that the
propositions in his second initiative petition were not
within the powers of the Sanggunian to enact. This ground
was instead cited by the COMELEC in its Resolution Nos.
13-0904 and 13-1039 which dismissed MarmetoÊs first
initiative petition. Hence, he opines that the propriety of
the propositions contained in his second initiative petition,
not being covered by the assailed COMELECÊs resolution,
cannot be reviewed in the present petition.
_______________
34 Rollo, pp. 88-90.
600

In several cases, this Court considered issues which

were not raised by either party when these issues are
necessary for the complete resolution of the cases.35 If the
Court can review unassigned errors which are necessary to
arrive at a just resolution of the case, with all the more
reason can it review a matter raised as a defense by a party
to uphold the validity of a resolution assailed in the case.
Section 124(b) of the LGC provides that „[i]nitiatives
shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within
the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact.‰ Section 127
of the LGC gives the courts authority to declare „null and
void any proposition approved pursuant to this
Chapter36 for violation of the Constitution or want of
capacity of the sanggunian concerned to enact the
said measure.‰37
Significantly, the power of the courts to nullify
propositions for being ultra vires extends only to those
already approved, i.e., those which have been approved
by a majority of the votes cast in the initiative election
called for the purpose. In other words, the courts can
review the terms only of an approved ordinance. It
will be premature for the courts to review the propositions
contained in an initiative petition that has yet to be voted
for by the people because at that point, there is no actual
controversy that the courts may adjudicate. This begs the
question of which tribunal can review the sufficiency of an
initiative petition.
Inasmuch as the COMELEC also has quasi-judicial and
administrative functions, it is the COMELEC which has
_______________
35 See Martinez v. Buen, G.R. No. 187342, April 5, 2017, 822 SCRA
334; Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 744 Phil. 590, 602-603; 737 SCRA
252, 263 (2014); Dinio v. Laguesma, 339 Phil. 309, 318-319; 273 SCRA
109, 119-120 (1997).
36 Referring to Chapter II, Local Initiative and Referendum of Title
IX, Other Provisions Applicable to Local Government Units, Book I of the
LGC.
37 Emphasis ours.
601
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 601

the power to determine whether the propositions in

an initiative petition are within the powers of a
concerned sanggunian to enact. In Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections,38 the
Court ruled that ·
while regular courts may take jurisdiction over Âapproved

propositionsÊ per said Sec. 18 of R.A. 6735, the Comelec in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial and administrative powers may
adjudicate and pass upon such proposals insofar as their
form and language are concerned x x x and it may be added,
even as to content, where the proposals or parts thereof are
patently and clearly outside the Âcapacity of the local
legislative body to enact.Ê x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The COMELECÊs power to review the substance of the

propositions is also implied in Section 12 of RA No. 6735,
which gives this Court appellate power to review the
COMELECÊs „findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of
the petition for initiative or referendum x x x.‰
MarmetoÊs propositions in
his initiative petition are
beyond the powers of the

Sangguniang Panlungsod
ng Muntinlupa to enact
Accordingly, a review of the propositions put forth by

Marmeto in his second initiative petition becomes
imperative.
Unfortunately, the records do not contain a copy of the
proposed ordinance itself. Nevertheless, MarmetoÊs
pleadings and the annexes thereto (particularly the
Supplemental Peti-
_______________
38 330 Phil. 1082, 1111; 262 SCRA 492, 514-515 (1996).
602

tion)39 refer to the significant propositions put forth in his

second initiative petition.
The Court also notes that the propositions in MarmetoÊs
second petition are closely related to those in his first
petition, which are mentioned in the COMELEC Resolution
Nos. 13-0904 and 13-1039. As Marmeto never denied that
the propositions in his second initiative petition are
completely different from those in his first petition,40 it is
not implausible to presume that the propositions contained
in both petitions are more or less the same. Since the
COMELEC had already ruled on the propriety of these
propositions in its Resolution No. 13-0904 and to avoid a
remand of the case that will prolong these proceedings, the
Court will proceed to rule on the issue of whether
MarmetoÊs propositions are within the power of the
Sanggunian to enact and thus be valid subjects of an
initiative petition.
MarmetoÊs initiative petitions propose the following:
(1) The creation of a sectoral council composed of 12

members from various sectors who will serve as the
peopleÊs representatives for the implementation and
management of livelihood programs and projects;41
(2) The sectoral council will also stand as the peopleÊs
representatives that will directly propose, enact,
approve, or reject ordinances through initiative or
referendum;42
_______________
39 Rollo, pp. 41-45.

40 In fact, he refers to the second petition as the „refiled proposed
ordinance‰ (id., at p. 97), and done in compliance with the COMELECÊs
advise to file his petition anew with the Sanggunian (id., at p. 37).
41 Id., at p. 30.
42 Id. Although Marmeto claims that the Sectoral Council will only
facilitate the electorateÊs exercise of the power of initiative and
referendum, id., at pp. 33, 122.
603
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 603

(3) An appropriation of P200 million to be allocated for

livelihood projects of the people and other purposes.
The net income from the projects will then be used for
the delivery of basic services and facility for
Muntinlupa residents;43
(4) The MPP will create the implementing guidelines
and procedure for the utilization of the appropriated
funds, and conduct programs and project feasibility
studies. It shall comply with the prescribed
accounting and auditing rules of, and submit monthly
accomplishment report to the local government unit
(LGU). It shall also observe transparency and
accountability in fund management.44
These propositions, however, are either sufficiently

covered by or violative of the LGC for reasons explained
below.
(A) The creation of a sepa-

rate local legislative
body is ultra vires
Under the LGC, local legislative power within the city is

to be exercised by the sangguniang panlungsod,45 which
shall be comprised of elected district and sectoral
representatives.46 The sectoral representatives, moreover
shall be limited to three members, coming from
enumerated/identified sectors.47
Significantly, nothing in the LGC allows the creation of
another local legislative body that will enact, approve, or
reject local laws either through the regular legislative
process or through initiative or referendum. Even
MarmetoÊs claim that
_______________
43 Id., at p. 43.
44 Id.
45 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 48.
46 Id., Article 41(a) and (b).
47 Id., Article 41(c).
604

the sectoral council will not legislate but will merely

„facilitate‰ the peopleÊs exercise of the power of initiative
and referendum is rendered unnecessary by the task the
COMELEC must assume under the LGC. Section 122(c) of
the LGC provides that the COMELEC (or its designated
representative) shall extend assistance in the formulation
of the proposition.
(B) The sectoral coun-

cil/MPPÊs proposed
function overlaps
with the Local De-
velopment Council
The law recognizes the right of the people to organize

themselves and encourages the formation of
nongovernmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations that aim to promote the nationÊs welfare.48
Even the LGC promotes relations between the LGUs and
peopleÊs and nongovernmental organizations (PO/NGOs),
and provides various ways by which they can be active
partners in pursuing local autonomy.49
_______________
48 CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 23.

49 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Sections 34 to 36 provide:
SECTION 34. Role of PeopleÊs and Nongovernmental Organizations.
·Local government units shall promote the establishment and operation
of peopleÊs and nongovernmental organizations to become active partners
in the pursuit of local autonomy.
SECTION 35. Linkages with PeopleÊs and Nongovernmental
Organizations.·Local government units may enter into joint ventures
and such other cooperative arrangements with peopleÊs and
nongovernmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic
services, capability-building and livelihood projects, and to develop local
enterprises designed to improve productivity and income, diversify
agriculture, spur rural industrialization, promote ecological balance, and
enhance the economic and social well-being of the people.
SECTION 36. Assistance to PeopleÊs and Nongovernmental
Organizations.·A local government unit may, through its local chief
605
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 605
The LGC, moreover, requires the establishment in each

LGU of a local development council, whose membership
includes representatives of POs/NGOs operating within the
LGU.50 These local development councils are primarily
tasked with developing a „comprehensive multisectoral
development plan‰51 in their respective LGUs. City
development councils are specifically tasked to exercise the
following functions:
(1) Formulate long-term, medium-term, and annual socio-economic

development plans and policies;
(2) x x x;
(3) Appraise and prioritize socio-economic development programs
and projects;
(4) x x x;
(5) Coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of
development programs and projects; and
(6) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or
competent authority.52
Given these functions of the city development council,

there is a clear overlap with those proposed by Marmeto to
be performed by the sectoral council and/or MPP.
(C) The LGC requires local

government funds and
monies to be spent
solely for public pur-
poses, and provides
_______________
executive and with the concurrence of the Sanggunian concerned,

provide assistance, financial or otherwise, to such peopleÊs and
nongovernmental organizations for economic, socially-oriented,
environmental, or cultural projects to be implemented within its
territorial jurisdiction.
50 Id., Section 107.
51 Id., Section 106.
52 Id., Section 109(a).
606

transparency and ac-

countability measures
to ensure this end
The overlap in functions, by itself, does not suffice to

turn down MarmetoÊs proposal to create a sectoral council
or any similar organization. What the Court finds
disturbing in MarmetoÊs initiative petitions is the authority
of the proposed sectoral council to utilize, manage, and
administer public funds as it sees fit.
The fundamental principles in local fiscal
administration provided in the LGC state that no money
shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance
of an appropriations ordinance or law,53 and that local
government funds and monies shall be spent solely for
public purposes.54
MarmetoÊs petition proposes the appropriation of P200
million for the livelihood programs and projects of
Muntinlupa residents. Significantly, the utilization of
this amount is subject to the guidelines to be later
implemented by MarmetoÊs MPP. That these guidelines
will be drafted and implemented subsequent to the
initiative elections denies the Muntinlupa residents of the
opportunity to assess and scrutinize the utilization of local
funds, and gives Marmeto and his organization an almost
complete discretion in determining the allocation and
disbursement of the funds. It is no justification that the
funds will be used for public purposes on the claim these
will be applied to programs and projects that will
eventually redound to the benefit of the public.
_______________
53 Id., Section 305(a).
54 Id., Section 305(b).
607
VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 607

Our laws have put in place measures to ensure

transparency and accountability in dealing with public
funds,55 since „[p]ublic funds are the property of the people
and must be used prudently at all times with a view to
prevent dissipation and waste.‰56 These measures may be
subverted or rendered inapplicable when the management
and utilization of the funds is turned over to private
persons or entities. Although comprised of Muntinlupa
residents and voters, MarmetoÊs MPP remains a private
organization and its members cannot be considered as
public officers who are burdened with responsibility for
public funds and who may be held administratively and
criminally liable for the imprudent use thereof.
Conclusion
Initiative and referendum are the means by which the

sovereign people exercise their legislative power, and the
valid exercise thereof should not be easily defeated by
claiming lack of specific budgetary appropriation for their
conduct. The Court reiterates its ruling in Goh that the
grant of a line item in the FY 2014 GAA for the conduct
and supervision of elections constitutes as sufficient
authority for the COMELEC to use the amount for
elections and other political exercises, including initiative
and recall, and to augment this amount from the
COMELECÊs existing savings.
Nonetheless, as the Court ruled in Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority, the COMELEC is likewise given
the power to review the sufficiency of initiative petitions,
particularly the issue of whether the propositions set forth
therein are within the power of the concerned sanggunian
to enact. Inasmuch as a sanggunian does not have the

power to create a separate
_______________
55 These laws include Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the

Government Accounting Code of the Philippines, and Sections 335 to 354
of the LGC.
56 Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174, 188; 619 SCRA 154,
166-167 (2010).
608

local legislative body and that other propositions in

MarmetoÊs initiative petition clearly contravene the
existing laws, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
dismissing the petition and cannot be ordered to conduct
and supervise the procedure for the conduct of initiative
elections.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari and
mandamus is DISMISSED. The Resolution No. 14-0509 of
the Commission on Elections dated July 22, 2014 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta,

Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Martires,
Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Carpio and Jardeleza, JJ., On Official Leave.
Petition dismissed, COMELECÊs resolution affirmed.
Note.·Members of Congress possess the legal standing

to question acts that amount to a usurpation of the
legislative power of Congress. (Purisima vs. Lazatin, 811
SCRA 205 [2016])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Marmento v. Commission On Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marmento v. Commission On Elections

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marmento v. Commission On Elections

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 840 9/5/20, 8:48 PM

G.R. No. 213953. September 26, 2017.*

ENGR. OSCAR A. MARMETO, petitioner, vs.

Initiatives; Legislative Power; Initiative has been described as

for a system of initiative and referendum on national and local

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the LGC codified all laws pertaining to local governments, the

for its Major Final Output (MFO) 1 on the Regulation of Elections,

VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 583

conduct of x x x recall.Ê Should the finds appropriated in the

mentioned, the COMELECÊs constitutional mandate is to enforce

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

vires extends only to those already approved, i.e., those

be premature for the courts to review the propositions contained in

VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 585

three members, coming from enumerated/identified sectors.

fundamental principles in local fiscal administration provided in

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

private persons or entities. Although comprised of Muntinlupa

VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 587

should not be easily defeated by claiming lack of specific

enact. In as much as a sanggunian does not have the power to

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court.

Before the Court is a Petition for certiorari and

1 Filed under Rule 65 of the RULES OF COURT, Rollo, pp. 3-16.

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

20142 of the respondent Commission of Elections

On January 21, 2013, Marmeto filed in behalf of the

2 Id., at pp. 17-18, signed by COMELEC Chairman Sixto S.

VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 589

On July 31, 2013, the COMELEC issued Resolution

the Sanggunian Panlungsod to enact and were not in

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2300,10 which provided the Rules and Regulations

The Assailed COMELECÊs

On July 22, 2014, the COMELEC issued the assailed

Considering the absence of any provision in the

Disagreeing with Resolution No. 14-0509, Marmeto

10 Dated January 16, 1991.

VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 591

The PartiesÊ Arguments

Marmeto assails the COMELECÊs Resolution No. 14-

13 Id., at pp. 8, 11.

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the residents of the city as members of the Sanggunian,

The CourtÊs Ruling

The Court dismisses the Petition.

The COMELEC is mandated

Initiative has been described as an instrument of direct

which the sovereign people have reserved for their exercise

17 Coury, Christopher A., Direct Democracy through Initiative and

VOL. 840, SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 593

merely delegated by the sovereign people to its elected

other provisions in RA No. 6735 not inconsistent within the

20 Id., at pp. 303, 305; p. 287.

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

whose approved annual appropriations are automatically

The COMELEC cannot de-

In Goh v. Hon. Bayron,25 the Court has definitely ruled