ll\epuhlic of tbe ~bilippines

~uprttttt (ourt
;ffianila

EN BANC

ENGR. OSCAR A. MARMETO, G.R. No. 213953

Petitioner,
Present:

SERENO, C.J.,
CARPIO,*
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
-versus - DEL CASTILLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA,*
CAGUIOA,
MARTIRES,
TIJAM,
REYES, and
GESMUNDO, JJ.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(COMELEC), Promulgated:
Respondent. September 26, 2017
x---------------------------------- ~-~ Q:: - x t1r'
DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

1
Before the Court is a Petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to
annul the Resolution No. 14-0509 dated July 22, 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 proc~

On official leave.
Filed under Rules 65 ofthe Rules of Court, rollo, pp. 3-16.
Id. at 17-18, signed by COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle,
Christian Robert S. Lim, Al A. Parreno, and Luie Tito F. Guia.
Id. at 18.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 213953

THE FACTS

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

4
Power (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 ~200 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, Manneto 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 City's 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.

On July 31, 2013, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-0904 setting
aside Marmeto' s initiative petition because the propositions therein were beyond
the powers of the Sanggunian Panglunsod to enact and were not in accordance
with the provisions of existing laws and rules. 6

Marmeto sought reconsideration7 ofCOMELEC's 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 people's representative, which would
facilitate the exercise of the people's power of initiative and referendum.

However, the COMJJLEC did not find Marmeto's motion for

reconsideration meritorious and issued Resolution No. 13-1039 dated September
8
17, 2013, 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
re-file his initiative petition, since the then newly-elected members of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of l\1untin1upa might be more sympathetic to
Marmeto' s propositions. ~~

4
The MPP is an informal association ofresidents and registered voters ofMuntinlupa City, and is represented
by Marmeto, see rollo, p. 38.
Id. at4.
ld. at 32.
Id. at 33-35
Id. at 36-37.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 213953

Accordingly, on December 2, 2013, Manneto filed a second proposed

ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod ofMuntinlupa. Again, no favorable
action was done by the Sanggunian within 30 days from the filing of the proposal,
prompting Manneto file a second initiative petition with the Office of the City
Election Officer on February 10, 2014. 9

On April 1, 2014, Manneto filed a Supplemental Petition to comply with

the requirements of COMELEC Resolution No. 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 COMELEC Resolution

On July 22, 2014, the COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution No. 14-
050911 which effectively dismissed Manneto's 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 Commission's FY

2014 budget for the expenses for local initiative or any other election activity
xx 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 Commission. 12 (Emphasis
supplied)

Disagreeing with Resolution No. 14-0509, Manneto 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.

THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS

Manneto assails the COMELEC's Resolution No. 14-0509, contending

that the denial of an initiative petition due to lack of appropriated funds constitutes
a gross neglecfaabandonment of the COMELEC's duties under the
Constitution. 13 ~
7
9
Id. at 38-40.
10
Dated January 16, 1991.
11
Rollo, pp. 17-18.
12
Id. at 18.
13
Id. at 8, 11.
 Decision 4 G.R. No. 213953

Manneto 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
14
conduct oflocal initiative.

The COMELEC, on the other hand, claims that the denial of Manneto's
initiative petition was proper, since the propositions therein were beyond the legal
15
powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact. 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, Manneto's 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 the residents of the city as members of
the Sanggunian, and cannot be appointed through an initiative election.

THE COURT'S 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 :,,#,N<
14
Id. at 13.
15
Id. at 77.
16
Id. at 79, 87-88.
17
Christopher A. Coury, Direct Democracy through Initiative and Referendum: Checking the Balance, 8
Notre Dame J Law, Ethics & Pub. Policy 573 (1994), available at
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=ndjlepp (last visited 11 September
2017).
18
Garcia v. Commission on Elections, 307 Phil. 296, 303 (1994).
Decision 5 G.R. No. 213953

derivative legislative power which has been delegated by the sovereign people to
19
legislative bodies such as the Congress.

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
20
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 xx 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
22
and regulations governing the conduct of initiative on the Constitution, 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, w~~~e ~roved annual appropriations are automatically and
regularly release~~#'('

19 Id.
20
Id. at 303, 305.
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 (1997).
23
Pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the Constitution.
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.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 213953

The COMELEC cannot defeat the

exercise of the people's original
legislative power for lack of budgetary
a/location 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 Goh's 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 COMELEC's assertions, the Court ruled that the FY 2014
GAA "actually expressly provides for a line item appropriation for the conduct
and supervision of recall elections."26 Under the Program category of the
27
COMELEC's 2014 budget, the following amounts were provided:

xxxrr. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

For general and administration support, and operations, including locally-ftmded projects, as indicated hereunder ........ .
. . .. . .. . .. ...... ... . .. . .. . .. ... . ..... . .. ... . .. . ..... ....... .. . .. . ... .. . ... .. .... .. . .. . .. ... . ..... . .. . .. . ... ..... . ... . ... .... P2,735,321,000

New Appropriations, by Programs/Activities/Projects, by Operating Units

Current Operating Expenditures

Maintenance
and Other
Personnel Operating Capital
Services Expenses Outlays Totals
PROGRAMS
100000000 General Administration and Support
100010000 General management and supervision p 454,457.000 p 276,749,000 p 731206,000
National Capital Region (NCR) _A,~4,457.000 276,749,000 731206,000
Central Office 454,457,000 276,749000 731206,000
Sub-total, General Administration and Support 454,457,000 276,749,000 731206.000

300000000 Operations
301000000 MFO I: REGULATION OF ELECTIONS 1,483,087,000 174,188,000 1,657275.000
301010000 Management and supervision of
elections and other electoral exercises li437J72i()()() 172~000 ,000
301010001 Conduct of voter's education and
information campaign thru
print/radio/television and social media 10141000 1363 000 11,504,000
National Capital Region (NCR) 10,141,000 IJ63,000 11,504,oog ~ - /.#
Central Office 10,141,000 1,363,000 11,504,000/~P"' ~,.

25
748 Phil. 282 (2014).
26
Id. at 305.
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/GAA20 l 4%20ANNEXES/V01%20 l I
COMELEC/COMELEC.pdf (last visited 11 September 2017). Emphasis ours.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 213953

301010002 Preparation of maps oftenitorial

units of voting centers, the establislunent of
new voting centers, and the transfer, merger
or abolition of existing ones 21,662,000 2,161,000 23,823,000
National Capital Region (NCR) 21,662,000 2,161,000 23,823,000
Central Office 21,662,000 2,161,000 23,823,000
301010003 Development of software system and
procedures 6,432,000 5,674,000 12,106,000
National Capital Region (NCR) 6,432,000 5,674,000 12,106,000
Central Office 6,432,000 5,674,000 12,106,000
301010004 Monitoring the implemenmtion on the
conduct of election and other political
exercises and development of measures to
improve the registration and election systems
including the dissemination of election
results ofprevious elections 10,,}79,000 120,644,000 131,023,000
National Capital Region (NCR) 10,379.000 120644,000 131,023,000
Central Office 10,379,000 120,644,000 131,023,000
301010005 Conduct and supervision of
elections, referenda, recall votes and
,(ebiscites 1=1!!.975.000 40~261000 ldJ!li=i!.!11000
National Capital Region (NCR) 67,917,000 6,439.000 74~56,000
Central Office 67,917,000 6,439,000 74,356,000

Notably, for its Major Final Output (MFO) 1 on the Regulation of Elections, the
COMELEC was provided with a total of Pl,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 'Current Operating Expenditures,' such appropriation
includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional functions x x x"28 The
Court considered the appropriation of P 1.4 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 COMELEC's
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 'enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of x x x recall.' Should the funds
appropriated in the 2014 GAA be deemed insufficient, then the COMELEC
Chairman may exercise his authority to augment such line item appropriation
from the COMELEC's existing savings, as this augmentation is expressly
authorized in the 2014 GAA. 30

There is no reason not to extend the Goh ruling to the present case. In fact,
Marmeto's second initiative petition was also filed in 2014; in dismissin~~
28
Goh v. Hon. Bayron, supra note 25 at 305. Emphasis ours.
29
Id. at 316.
30
Id. at 320.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 213953

Manneto' s petition for lack of 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
31
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 COMELEC's 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 COMELEC's MFO 1 should necessarily also cover
expenses for the conduct of initiative elections.

The Court also notes that, aside from the Pl .4 billion appropriation for the
"conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites," the
COMELEC was also given Pl.6 billion in the FY 2014 GAA for the
33
"management and supervision of elections and other electoral exercises."

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 Manneto' s second initiative petition on the
ground that there were no funds allocated for the purpose.

The COMELEC has the power to

review whether the propositions in an
initiative petition are within the power
ofthe concerned Sanggunian to enact

The resolution of the present case, however, does not end in applying the
Court's ruling in Goh to the present case. In its Comment and Memorandum, the
COMELEC defends the dismissal of Manneto's second initiative petition on the
ground that the propositions raised therein were matters that were not within the
powers of the Sangguiang Panlungsod to enact. This petition purportedly
proposed the creation of another legislative body separate from the Sangguni~ ~
composed of 12 appointive sectoral representatives. Not only does the L / v ...... ~

31
Department of Budget and Management, FY 2014 GAA - Annex A: Details of Budget, Volume 1, supra
note 27.
32
CONSTITUTION, Article IX-C, Section 11.
33
Department of Budget and Management, FY 2014 GAA - Annex A: Details of the Budget, Volume 1, supra
note 27.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 213953

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
Marmeto's 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 Marmeto'sfirst initiative
petition. Hence, he opines that the propriety of the propositions contained in his
second initiative petition, not being covered by the assailed COMELEC
resolution, cannot be reviewed in the present petition.

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
36
proposition approved pursuant to this Chapter 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 be~s ~~-/.d
question of which tribunal can review the sufficiency of an initiative petition?/ur- ~

34
Rollo, pp. 88-90.
35
See Martinez v. Buen, G.R. No. 187342, April 5, 2017; Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 744 Phil. 590, 602-
603 (2014); Dinio v. Hon. Laguesma, 339 Phil. 309, 318-319 (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.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 213953

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, 38 the Court ruled that-

while regular courts may take jurisdiction over 'approved propositions' 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 'capacity of the local legislative body to enact.' x x x
(Emphasis supplied)

The COMELEC's 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 COMELEC's "findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
petition for initiative or referendum xx x."

Marmeto 's propositions in his initiative

petition are beyond the powers of the
Sanggunian 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, Marmeto's pleadings and the annexes thereto (particularly the
Supplemental Petition39 ) refer to the significant propositions put forth in his
second initiative petition.

The Court also notes that the propositions in Marmeto' s 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
40
those in his first petition, 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. 13-09~~ ~
and to avoid a remand of the case that will prolong these proceedings, the 'tv' Co1/v'V'
38
330 Phil. 1082, 1111 (1996).
39
Rollo, pp. 41-45.
40
In fact, he refers to the second petition as the "re-filed proposed ordinance" (id. at 97), and done in
compliance with the COMELEC's advise to file his petition anew with the Sanggunian (id. at 37).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 213953

will proceed to rule on the issue of whether Manneto's propositions are within the
power of the Sanggunian to enact and thus be valid subjects of an initiative
petition.

Manneto's initiative petitions propose the following:

( 1) The creation of a sectoral council composed of 12 members from

various sectors who will serve as the people's representatives for the
implementation and management of livelihood programs and
41
projects;

(2) The sectoral council will also stand as the people's representatives that
will directly propose, enact, approve, or reject ordinances through
42
initiative or referendum;

(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
44
transparency and accountability in fund management.

These propositions, however, are either sufficiently covered by or violative of the

LGC for reasons explained below.

(A) The creation ofa separate local legislative body is ultra vires

Under the LGC, local legislative power within the city is to be exercised by
45
the sanggimiang panlungsod, which shall be comprised of elected district and
sectoral representatives. The sectoral representatives, more~~er, ~l be limited
46

to three members, coming from enumerated/identified sectors./~~

41
Id. at 30.
42
Id. Although Marmeto claims that the Sectoral Council will only facilitate the electorate's exercise of the
power of initiative and referendum, id. at 33, 122.
43
Id. at 43.
44 Id.
45
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 48.
46
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 41 (a) and (b).
47
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 41 (c).
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 213953

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 Marmeto's
claim that the sectoral council will not legislate but will merely "facilitate" the
people's 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 counciVMPP's proposed function overlaps with the Local
Development Council

The law recognizes the right of the people to organize themselves and
encourages the formation of non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations that aim to promote the nation's welfare. 48 Even the LGC promotes
relations between the LGUs and people's and non-governmental organizations
(PO/NGOs), and provides various ways by which they can be active partners in
pursmng. 1oca1autonomy. 49

The LGC, moreover, requires the establishment in each LGU of a local

development council, whose membership includes representatives of POs/NGOs
50
operating within the LGU. These local development councils are primarily
tasked with developing a "comprehensive multi-sectoral 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

. .
soc10-economic
development plans and policie~~

48
CONSTITUTION, Article Il, Section 23.
49
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Sections 34 to 36 provide:
SECTION 34. Role of People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. - Local
government units shall promote the establishment and operation of people's and
nongovernmental organi7.ations to become active partners in the pursuit oflocal autonomy.
SECTION 35. Linkages with People's and Non-Governmental Organizations. - Local
government units may enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with
people's 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 a1:,iriculture, spur rural industrialization,
promote ecological balance, and enhance the economic and social well-being of the people.
SECTION 36. Assistance to People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. - A local
government unit may, through its local chief executive and with the concurrence of the
Sanggunian concerned, provide a<>sistance, financial or otherwise, to such people's and
nongovernmental organizations for economic, socially-oriented, environmental, or cultural
projects to be implemented within its territorial jurisdiction.
50
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODF, Section 107.
"I LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section l 06.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 213953

(2) xxx;

(3) Appraise and prioritize socio-economic development programs and

projects;

(4) xx 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

52
authority.

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 purposes, and provides transparency and accountability
measures to ensure this end

The overlap in functions, by itself, does not suffice to turn down Marmeto's
proposal to create a sectoral council or any similar organization. What the Court
finds disturbing in Marmeto' s 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
54
funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes.

Marmeto' s 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 Marmeto's 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 ~ams and
projects that will eventually redound to the benefit of the public./~~

52
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 109(a).
53
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 305(a).
54
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 305(b).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 213953

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, Marmeto' s 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
COMELEC's 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. In as much as a
sanggu,nian does not have the power to create a separate local legislative body and
that other propositions in Marmeto's initiative petition clearly contravene the
existing laws, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction 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
datec!July22,2014isAFFIRMED. ~~

55
These Jaws 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 (2010).
Decision 15 G.R. No. 213953

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

ChiefJustice

(On official leave)

ANTONIO T. CARPIO 0 J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice

~~h~ I~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

~,~
ESTELA M.fERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

'
(On official leave)
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Decision 16 G.R. No. 213953

s
Associate Justice

ANDRE~YES, JR.
Ass%c~stice

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chi<:fJustice

CERTIFIED XEfWX COPY:

~~N~
CLF:RK Of. COUR.T, EN BANC
SUPREMC C0URT

~~