Marmeto v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto, representing the Muntinlupa People's Power (MPP), proposed an ordinance to the Muntinlupa City Sangguniang Panlungsod. This ordinance sought to create a sectoral council and appropriate P200 million for livelihood programs and projects. After the Sangguniang Panlungsod failed to act on the proposal within 30 days, Marmeto initiated a petition for initiative under Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991. Procedural History: The initial initiative petition was dismissed by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) through Resolution No. 13-0904, citing that the propositions were beyond the Sangguniang Panlungsod's powers and not in accordance with existing laws. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution No. 13-1039. Subsequently, Marmeto filed a second proposed ordinance, and upon the Sangguniang Panlungsod's inaction, filed a second initiative petition. This second petition was dismissed by the COMELEC via Resolution No. 14-0509, this time on the grounds of a lack of budgetary appropriation for the initiative process. The Petition: Marmeto filed a Petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, assailing COMELEC Resolution No. 14-0509. He argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing his initiative petition due to a lack of funds, contending that the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to conduct such proceedings. Marmeto asserted that citing budgetary constraints constitutes an evasion of this duty. The petition seeks to annul the COMELEC's resolution and compel the conduct of the initiative process.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Marmeto's second initiative petition for lack of budgetary appropriation. Whether the propositions in Marmeto's second initiative petition are within the legal powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED. COMELEC Resolution No. 14-0509 dated July 22, 2014 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of budgetary appropriation: The Court reiterated its ruling in Goh v. Hon. Bayron, holding that the COMELEC cannot defeat the exercise of the people's original legislative power for lack of specific budgetary allocation. The appropriation for the "conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites" in the FY 2014 General Appropriations Act (GAA) is comprehensive enough to include initiative elections. The COMELEC was provided with sufficient budgetary allocation for the conduct of initiative elections, and thus committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Marmeto's petition on this ground. The Court emphasized that funds certified by the COMELEC as necessary for electoral exercises shall be provided and released automatically once approved. On the issue of the Sangguniang Panlungsod's powers: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC has the power to review whether the propositions in an initiative petition are within the powers of the concerned Sanggunian to enact, as provided by Section 124(b) of the Local Government Code (LGC). The propositions in Marmeto's second initiative petition, which included the creation of a sectoral council with legislative powers and the appropriation of funds to be managed by a private organization (MPP), were found to be ultra vires. The LGC vests legislative power solely in the Sangguniang Panlungsod and limits sectoral representatives to three elected members. Furthermore, the proposed functions of the sectoral council overlapped with those of the Local Development Council, and the unfettered discretion given to the MPP to manage public funds contravened the LGC's principles of fiscal administration, transparency, and accountability. Therefore, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition on these substantive grounds.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot defeat the exercise of the people's original legislative power for lack of budgetary allocation for its conduct, as existing appropriations for elections, referenda, and plebiscites are deemed sufficient. However, the COMELEC has the power to review whether the propositions in an initiative petition are within the legal powers of the concerned Sanggunian to enact.