Electoral Rights vs Budgetary Constraints: Protecting People's Legislative Power in Local Governance

The power of the people to directly propose and enact local laws through initiative is a fundamental right under the Constitution. But what happens when the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refuses to conduct an initiative election because it claims there is no budget for it? In Marmeto v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 213953, September 26, 2017), the Supreme Court settled this question with an important distinction: lack of funds cannot defeat the people's exercise of legislative power, but the propositions must still be within the legal powers of the local legislative body.

The Facts of the Case

In 2013, Engr. Oscar Marmeto, representing the Muntinlupa People Power (MPP), filed a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa. The proposal sought to create a sectoral council and appropriate P200 million for livelihood programs. When the Sanggunian failed to act within 30 days, Marmeto filed a petition for initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160).

COMELEC dismissed the first petition, ruling the propositions were beyond the Sanggunian's powers. Marmeto re-filed a second petition in 2014. This time, COMELEC dismissed it not on the merits, but for lack of budgetary allocation in its FY 2014 appropriations to conduct the initiative process.

The Issue

The case presented two questions: (1) Can COMELEC refuse to conduct an initiative election merely because no specific budget was appropriated for it? (2) Were Marmeto's propositions valid subjects of initiative?

The Ruling on Budgetary Constraints

The Court ruled that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for lack of funds. Citing its earlier ruling in Goh v. Bayron (748 Phil. 282 [2014]), the Court held that the FY 2014 General Appropriations Act contained a line item appropriation for the conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes, and plebiscites. This appropriation is comprehensive enough to cover initiative elections.

The Court emphasized that the Constitution mandates that funds certified by COMELEC as necessary for elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls shall be provided in regular or special appropriations and released automatically upon the Chairman's certification. Initiative is an exercise of original legislative power—the people legislating directly—as opposed to the derivative legislative power delegated to Congress and local legislative bodies. This original power cannot be defeated by a mere claim of insufficient appropriation.

The Ruling on the Propositions

However, the Court did not stop there. It reviewed whether Marmeto's propositions were valid subjects of initiative. Under the Local Government Code, initiative extends only to subjects or matters within the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact.

The Court found the propositions defective on several grounds:

• Creation of a separate legislative body is ultra vires. The LGC allows only three elected sectoral representatives in the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Nothing in the law permits the creation of a separate body of 12 appointive sectoral representatives that would propose, enact, or reject ordinances.
• Overlapping functions with the Local Development Council. The proposed sectoral council's functions duplicated those already assigned by law to the city development council.
• Unlawful delegation of public fund management. The proposal gave a private organization—the MPP—almost complete discretion over P200 million in public funds, subject only to guidelines to be drafted later. This contravened the LGC's fundamental principles that local funds shall be spent solely for public purposes and that no money shall be paid out of the local treasury except pursuant to an appropriations ordinance.

The Court also clarified that COMELEC has the power, in its quasi-judicial and administrative capacity, to review whether propositions in an initiative petition are within the sanggunian's power to enact, citing Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC (330 Phil. 1082 [1996]).

Practical Takeaways

• Lack of budget is not a valid ground to deny an initiative petition. COMELEC's annual appropriations for the conduct of elections are broad enough to cover initiative elections, and the Commission may augment these from its savings.
• Initiative propositions must be within the sanggunian's legislative powers. The people cannot use initiative to create new governmental bodies or powers that the law does not grant to the local legislative body.
• Public funds cannot be turned over to private organizations. Proposals that give private entities discretion over public money, without clear guidelines and accountability mechanisms, will be struck down.
• COMELEC may review the substance of initiative petitions. While courts review approved ordinances, COMELEC can pass upon propositions that are patently and clearly outside the capacity of the local legislative body to enact.
• The people's original legislative power is protected but not unlimited. It remains subject to the Constitution and existing laws, including the Local Government Code.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.