Adormeo v.

COMELEC 157
GR No. 147927, 4 February 2002, Quisumbing, J.
Digested by Paula Filart • Law 154 – Local Government
Topic: Recall

Tagala was elected Mayor in the ’92-’95 elections and re- elected in ’95-’98 elections. He lost in 1998 election however was elected
into the office of Mayor in the recall election and served unexpired term of the former mayor. He now runs as a candidate for Mayor
of Lucena. His rival contends that he is disqualified because he has already served 3 consecutive terms. SC holds that he has not.

FACTS
 RESP Ramon Talaga Jr. was elected mayor of Lucena City in May 2002 for which he served the full term (1 st term). He was
re-elected in 1995, and served the full term again (2 nd term).
o In the 1998 elections, he lost to Bernard Tagarao.
o May 2000 – A recall election was held in and RESP won. He served the unexpired term of Tagarao until June 2001.
 In the May 2001 elections, PET Adormeo and RESP ran for the position of mayor of Lucena City.
 PET filed a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and/or Disqualification of RESP.
o He alleged that RESP was elected and had served as city mayor for 3 consecutive terms, the 3 rd term being the
unexpired term of Tagarao after winning the recall elections in 2000. Serving the unexpired term of office is
considered 1 term.
o Art. VIII of the Constitution speaks of “term” and does not mention “tenure”
o PET’s candidacy constituted a violation of Sec. 8, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution.
 RESP argues that he was not elected for 3 consecutive terms but only for 2.
o His defeat in the 1998 elections interrupted the consecutiveness of his years as mayor, and thus his mayorship was
not for 3 consecutive terms of 3 years each.
o “3 consecutive terms” means continuous service for 9 years and that the 2 years from 1998-2000 by Tagarao
prevented him from having 3 consevutive years of service.
 CEMELEC 1st division disqualified RESP. COMELEC en banc reversed and ruled in favor of RESP.
 RESP was proclaimed as the duly elected Mayor.

ISSUES & HOLDING

 W/N RESP was disqualified to run for mayor. – NO. He did not serve for 3 consecutive terms.

RATIO
The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to service in the
same elective position. (Borja Jr. v COMELEC)
 Two conditions for the application of the disqualification:
1. That the official concerned has been elected for 3 consecutive terms in the same local government post; and
2. That he has fully served 3 consecutive terms.
(Lonzanida v COMELEC)
 In this case, RESP was not elected for 3 consecutive terms.
o For nearly 2 years, he was a private citizen. The continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998
elections.
 His victory in the recall election cannot be deemed a violation of Sec. 8 Art. X as “voluntary renunciation”1 for clearly it
is not.
o Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term limit;
conversely, involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law
amounts to an interruption of continuity of service.
o Purpose of the provision is to bar any attempt to circumvent the 3-term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office.
 PET’s invocation of Fr. Bernas’ comment that “if one is elected representative to serve the unexpired term of another, that
unexpired term, no matter how short, will be considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive
terms allowed” is untenable.
o Fr. Bernas’ comment is pertinent only to members of the House of Representatives. Unlike local government
officials, there is not recall election provided for members of Congress.

DISPOSITIVE
Petition DISMISSED.

1
“Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for
the full term for which he was elected.”
Socrates v COMELEC 129/158
G.R. No. 154512, 12 Nov 1992, Carpio, J.
Digested by Janelle Gomendoza • Law 154 – Local Government
Topic: Term of Office/3 Term Limit Rule; Recall

Hagedorn ran in the recall election during the interim of his prohibitive period (aka supposed 4 th term). Court held that the limitation
in the Constitution and LGC is not a strict 3 yr limit or entire term, but only that there is a certain interruption. He became qualified
when Socrates was recalled as incumbent.

FACTS
 In 2002, 312 of 528 members of the incumbent barangay officers of Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a Preparatory
Recall Assembly (PRA) from 9am to 12nn
o It was convened to initiate a recall of incumbent Mayor Socrates who assumed office on June 30, 2011.
o The members of the PRA designated Mark Hagedorn, president of the Association of Brgy. Captains, as interim chair of
the PRA.
 On the same date, PRA passed a recall resolution which declared its loss of confidence in Socrates and called for his recall. PRA
requested COMELEC to conduct the recall election
 While Socrates filed a petition to deny the recall, the COMELEC gave due course and scheduled it.
 Aug. 23, 2002: Edward Hagedorn (Hagedorn) filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for mayor in the recall election
o Subsequently, Adovo and Gilo (and others) filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify Hagedorn from running
in the recall election and to cancel his CoC
 This case is a consolidation of several petitions:
o Socrates sought to nullify the COMELEC Resolution which gave due course to the recall because not all members of the
PRA were allegedly notified
o Sandoval sought an extension of the recall campaign period since the COMELEC resolution only gave 10 days. He
prayed for at least 15 days. (SC granted additional 15 days on top of the 10 days, thus this has become moot)
o Adovo and Gilo assailed the COMELEC Resolution which declared Hagedorn qualified to run. They prayed for a TRO
to enjoin the proclamation
 In the meantime, Hagedorn garnered the highest number of votes in the recall election as against Socrates and Sandoval.
o Hagedorn filed a motion to lift the order restraining the COMELEC from proclaiming the winning candidate and to
allow him to assume office.

ISSUES & HOLDING

1. WON the COMELEC Resolution giving due course to the PRA Recall Resolution is valid? YES. COMELEC findings showed
compliance with notice and majority required were obtained.
2. [Relevant] WON COMELEC committed GAD in upholding Hagedorn’s qualification to run for mayor in the recall election
despite the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against a 4th consecutive term? NO. The period before the recall election is
an interruption
RATIO
1. COMELEC findings of fact are accorded finality by the SC in absence of patently erroneous findings.
 Proponents for the recall sent notices of convening of the PRA to the members as shown by the Proof of Notice attached to
each notice sent
 Notices were also posted in conspicuous places particularly at the Brgy. Hall. The proponents also utilized broadcast mass
media in the dissemination.
 City Election Officer of Puerto Princesa City certified that majority of PRA members approved the Recall Resolution.
o Not a single member/signatory of the PRA complained or objected as to the veracity and authenticity of the
signatures
 Provincial Election Supervisor found everything to be in order.
 Acting Director IV of Region IV recommended that the “PRA was validly constituted and that majority of all members
approved the Recall Resolution against Mayor Socrates.”
 SC: we do not find any valid reason to hold that the COMELEC’s findings of fact are patently erroneous
 Socrates’s constitutional right to information was not violated since he was notified through notice of the PRA meeting. He
even sent his representative and counsel who were present during the entire PRA proceedings
2. Hagedorn was qualified to run for mayor in the recall election of Sept. 24, 2002
 Legal Basis of 3 term limit: Sec. 8, Art. X of 1987 Constitution 2 and Sec. 43 of 1991 LGC
 These provisions have 2 parts:
o 1st: elective local official cannot serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. The clear intent is that only consecutive
terms count.
o 2nd: voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time does NOT interrupt the continuity of service. The clear
intent is that involuntary severance for any length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service
before and after the interruption from being joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms.
 After 3 consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate re-election for a 4th term.
o The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the 3 rd consecutive
term
o Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition for 2 reasons:
 A subsequent election, like a recall election is no longer an immediate re-election after 3 consecutive terms
 The intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption
 Intention of the framers is only to prohibit an immediate re-election for a 4th term following 3 consecutive terms.
o The Constitution does NOT prohibit a subsequent re-election for a 4th term as long as it is not immediately after the
end of the 3rd consecutive term.
o A recall election, midway in the term following the 3 rd consecutive term, is a subsequent election but NOT an
immediate re-election after the 3rd term
 Neither does the Constitution prohibit one barred from seeking immediate re-election to run in any other subsequent election
involving the same term of office
o What the Constitution prohibits is a consecutive 4th term
 Hagedorn’s candidacy in the recall on Sept. 24, 2002 is not an immediate re-election after his 3rd consecutive term which
ended on June 30, 2001.
o The immediate re-election that the Constitution barred Hagedorn referred to the regular elections in 2001
o Hagedorn was elected consecutively in ’92, ’95, ’98 and served his full 3 consecutive terms as mayor of Puerto
Princesa. Thus under the law, he could no longer run in 2001.
 From June 30, 2001 until the recall election on Sept. 24, 2002, the mayor was Socrates. During the same period Hagedorn
was a private citizen.
o This period is clearly an interruption in the continuity of service not because of voluntary renunciation but because
of a legal prohibition.
o Hagedorn’s new recall term from Sept. 24, 2002 to Jun. 30, 2004 is NOT a seamless continuation of his previous 3
consecutive terms.
o One cannot stitch it together as to make the recall a 4 th consecutive term because factually it is not. An involuntary
interruption broke the continuity.
 “Voluntary renunciation rule” in the Constitution is to bar any attempt to circumvent the limit by voluntarily renouncing the
office and at the same time respect the people’s choice and grant their elected official full service of a term.
o Voluntary renunciation does not cancel the renounced term. Conversely, involuntary severance from office for any
length of time short of full term amounts to an interruption of continuity.
 CAB: Hagedorn was out of office for 15 months. Although short of the full 3 years, the Constitution did not intend the hiatus
to be the full 3 years (a term).
o The clear intent is that the interruption “for any length of time” as long as the cause is involuntary is sufficient to
break an elective local official’s continuity of service.
o Citing Adormeo v COMELEC, SC held that Hagedorn’s recall term does not retroact to include Socrates’s tenure.

2
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three
years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

“Section 43. Term of Office. – (a) x x x

(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the
elective official was elected.”
  The concept of term limits is in derogation of the sovereign will of the people to elect leaders of their own choosing. Term
limits must be construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the sovereign will of the people.
 HOWEVER, an official elected in recall election serves the unexpired term of the recalled official. This unexpired term is in
itself one term for purposes of counting the 3 term limit although less than 3 years.
 In summary:
1. Hagedorn is not running for immediate reelection following his three consecutive terms as mayor which ended on
June 30, 2001;
2. Hagedorn’s continuity of service as mayor was involuntarily interrupted from June 30, 2001 to September 24, 2002
during which time he was a private citizen;
3. Hagedorn’s recall term from September 24, 2002 to June 30, 2004 cannot be made to retroact to June 30, 2001 to
make a fourth consecutive term because factually the recall term is not a fourth consecutive term; and
4. Term limits should be construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the right of the electorate to choose their
leaders

DISPOSITIVE
WHERERFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED.

C.J. Davide Concurring & Dissenting

 Concurs on the COMELEC giving due course to the Recall election but dissents in allowing Hagedorn to run as Mayor
 The term of office covered by the recall is from May 2001 to June 2004 which is his prohibited 4 th term
 For one to be able to run again after three consecutive terms, he has to rest for the entire immediately succeeding fourth term.
 Hagedorn cannot have suffered involuntary severance from office because there was nothing to be severed. Disqualification is not
synonymous with involuntary severance.
 Involuntary severance should be one that took place during any of his 3 terms to be excluded in the computation. In Hagedorn’s
case, no such took place during his 3 terms.
 Voluntary renunciation is also one that should take place at any time during any of the 3 consecutive terms.
 A declaration allowing Hagedorn to be re-elected in a special election (also considered a term) is to subvert the rationale of the
limit.
 An elective official who is qualified to seek a 4 th term because of the limit but obsessed to hold on to power would spend the first
part of the 4th term campaigning for the recall of the incumbent especially if he has a solid following and strong political
machinery.
 Note that the President of the Association of Brgy. Captains is one Mark Hagedorn who was also designated by PRA as interim
Chairman.

- “May the 4th be with you” -

 Goh v. Bayron
November 25, 2014| Carpio, J| Recall
Digester: Mercado, Carlo Robert M.

SUMMARY: COMELEC issued Resolutions 9864 and 9882, the first raising an issue as to the funding of recall elections in Puerto
Princesa City for the position of City Mayor (a post currently held by Mayor Bayron.), and the second suspending recall elections on
the ground that the COMELEC does not have appropriations to conduct said election. In essence, COMELEC is arguing that since
there is no specific line-item appropriation, the COMELEC cannot have funds to conduct the recall election. Petitioner Goh assailed
these provisions before the SC.
The SC, in ruling for Goh, said that the 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its
constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections This is found in the Programs category of its 2014 budget.Moreover, in the
discharge of its functions, among which is to conduct recall elections, the item named “Current Operating Expenditures” may be
used. More importantly, the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No. 9882 that the COMELEC has “a line item for the” Conduct and
supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites” Thus, there is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the
COMELEC to conduct recall elections for 2014. Moreover, 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.
DOCTRINE:
Specific appropriation
To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose.
However, the purpose may be specific even if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the same nature.
For example, the purpose can be to “conduct elections,” which even if not expressly spelled out covers regular, special, or recall
elections.
The purpose of the appropriation is still specific - to fund elections, which naturally and logically include, even if not expressly stated,
not only regular but also special or recall elections.
The Constitution only requires a corresponding appropriation for a specific purpose or program, not for the sub-set of projects or
activities
Authority to augment through savings
This (an actual deficiency in its operating funds for the current year) is a situation that allows for the exercise of the COMELEC
Chairman’ss power to augment actual deficiencies in the item for the “Conduct and supervision of recall votes” in its budget
appropriation.

FACTS
 This case is about the COMELEC Resolutions No. 9864 and 9882
o 9864 found the petition seeking the recall (recall petition) of Mayor Lucilo R. Bayron (Mayor Bayron) 3, the incumbent
mayor of Puerto Princesa City, sufficient in form and substance. However, Resolution No. 9864 suspended all
proceedings under the recall petition because the Financial Services Department raised an issue as to the funding of the
entire process of recall
o 9882 suspended any proceeding relative to recall as the recall process, as stated in said Resolution, does not have an
appropriation in the General Appropriations Act of 2014 and the 2014 GAA does not provide the COMELEC with
legal authority to commit public funds for the recall process
 In other words, COMELEC is of the position that they do not have funds to conduct the recall election
 In this petition, Alroben J. Goh assails the aforementioned resolutions on the ff points:
o The 2014 GAA provides for an appropriation or line item budget to serve as a contingency fund for the conduct of recall
elections.
o COMELEC may lawfully augment any supposed insufficiency in funding for the conduct of recall elections by utilizing
its savings.
o The proper, orderly and lawful exercise of the process of recall is within the exclusive power and authority of the
respondent commission.

HELD The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of
conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall elections for
2014.

W/N COMELEC has the authority to a

Intro which is also the summary

3
The grounds of the petition for recall was loss of trust and confidence
brought about by gross violation of pertinent provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross violation of pertinent
provisions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, Incompetence, and other related gross inexcusable
negligence/dereliction of duty, intellectual dishonesty and emotional immaturity
 The 1987 Constitution expressly provides the COMELEC with the power to “[e]nforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.”
 The 1987 Constitution not only guaranteed the COMELEC’s fiscal autonomy, but also granted its head, as authorized by law, to
augment items in its appropriations from its savings
o The 2014 GAA provides such authorization to the COMELEC Chairman

The COMELEC’s budget in the 2014 GAA

Goh
 Goh asserts that the 2014 GAA provided COMELEC with an appropriation for the conduct of recall elections in the total amount
of Php2,735,321,000.
 As evidence, Goh
o Reproduced the COMELEC’s budget allocation in the 2014 GAA
o Pointed out that the COMELEC has Php1,483,087,000 appropriated under Operations, and that the Php1,401,501,000
for current operating expenditure is allocated per region
o Further states that COMELEC’s personnel themselves admitted to the existence of funds in the ff situations:
o Atty. Maria Lea R. Alarkon, Acting Director III of the COMELEC’s FSD, during the 3 September 2013 budget hearing
before the Senate’s Subcommittee A of the Committee on Finance,
 for the specifics of our MFO [Major Final Output] budget, x x x conduct and supervision of elections,
referenda, recall and plebiscites, 1,527,815,000;
o Online news article which quoted COMELEC spokesperson James Jimenez
 saying that “lack of budget (should) not (be) an issue. x x x We always have a ‘standby’ budget for recall,
plebiscite, etc.”
o Letter dated 28 May 2014 from Rep. Isidro T. Ungab, Chairman of the House of Representative’ Committee on
Appropriations, addressed to Hon. Douglas S. Hagedorn, Representative of the Third District of Palawan
 “[t]he FY 2014 budget of the COMELEC as authorized in the FY 2014 General Appropriations Act amounts to
P2,735,321,000, of which P1,401,501,000 is appropriated for the conduct and supervision of elections,
referenda, recall votes and plebiscites

COMELEC
 There is a lack of appropriation or line item for a contingency fund for the conduct of recall elections in the 2014 GAA
 The amount of Php1,483,087,000 referred to by [Goh] allegedly for the conduct and supervision of election, referenda, recall
votes and plebiscites, actually refers to operating expenditures for “Personnel Services” under the program “Regulation of
Elections.”
 The amount of Php1,401,501,000, on the other hand, is the total amount allotted for “Personnel Services” (Php1,360,975,000) and
“Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses”(Php40,526,000) for Regional Allocation.
 I think what COMELEC means here is that the appropriations were not specifically for recall elections
SC
I. On issue of absence of specific appropriation
Rule on appropriations
 To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose.
o However, the purpose may be specific even if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the same nature.
 For example, the purpose can be to “conduct elections,” which even if not expressly spelled out covers regular,
special, or recall elections.
 The purpose of the appropriation is still specific - to fund elections, which naturally and logically
include, even if not expressly stated, not only regular but also special or recall elections.
 The Constitution only requires a corresponding appropriation for a specific purpose or program, not for
the sub-set of projects or activities
As applied
 Despite Resolution No. 9882’s statement about the alleged failure of the 2014 GAA to provide for a line item appropriation
for the conduct of recall elections, we hold that the 2014 GAA actually expressly provides for a line item appropriation
for the conduct and supervision of recall elections.
o This is found in the Programs category of its 2014 budget, which the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No.
9882 is a line item for the “Conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites.”
 In addition, one of the specific constitutional functions of the COMELEC is to conduct recall elections. When the
COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its “Current Operating Expenditures” such appropriation includes
expenditures to carry out its constitutional functions, including the conduct of recall elections.
o Thus, in Socrates v. COMELEC, recall elections were conducted even without a specific appropriation for recall
elections in the 2002 GAA.
 More importantly, the COMELEC admits in its Resolution No. 9882 that the COMELEC has a line item for the “Conduct and
supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites”
II. On issue of authority of COMELEC Chairperson to augment the project of “recall elections” from their savings
COMELEC
 Despite the Php2 billion to Php10.7 billion savings existing in the COMELEC’s coffers, the COMELEC asserts that it cannot
legally fund the exercise of recall elections.
 COMELEC is authorized to augment only for deficiency in operating expenses, but in recall elections capital outlay is needed,
thus the situation cannot permit the COMELEC to augment the approproation
SC
 The power to augment from savings lies dormant until authorized by law. Flexibility in the use of public funds operates only upon
legislative fiat.
As applied
 The 2014 GAA provides a line item appropriation for the COMELEC’s conduct of recall elections. Since the COMELEC now
admits that it does not have sufficient funds from its current line item appropriation for the “Conduct and supervision of recall
votes” to conduct an actual recall election (see last roman numeral), then there is therefore an actual deficiency in its operating
funds for the current year.
 This (an actual deficiency in its operating funds for the current year) is a situation that allows for the exercise of the
COMELEC Chairman’ss power to augment actual deficiencies in the item for the “Conduct and supervision of recall
votes” in its budget appropriation.

Debunking COMELEC’s arguments

 The conduct of recall elections requires only operating expenses, not capital outlays.
o The COMELEC’s existing personnel in Puerto Princesa are the same personnel who will evaluate the sufficiency of the
recall petitions and conduct the recall elections.
 There is no constitutional requirement that the budgetary appropriation must be loaded in “contingent funds”
o The Congress has plenary power to lodge such appropriation in current operating expenditures

Summary-Conclusion
 Considering 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 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.
 MARMETO v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 213953 / SEP. 26, 2017 / DEL CASTILLO, J. / RECALL / ZEDY

NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari and Mandamus

PETITIONERS Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto
RESPONDENTS COMELEC
SUMMARY. Marmeto filed in behalf of the Muntinlupa People Power (MPP) a
proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Muntinlupa. 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. SP failed to act so Marmeto filed a petition
to invoke initiative power under LGC. Comelec denied petition for lack of SP’s
authority to enact such ordinance. Marmeto refiled proposed ordinance with the
newly constituted SP, which again remain unacted. Marmeto filed another petition
with Comelec. Comelec denied petition for alleged lack of appropriation to
conduct initiatives. SC ruled that the 2014 GAA appropriated funds to Comelec
for the “conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and
plebiscites,” which include the conduct of initiatives. Hence, funds were allocated
for the purpose of conducting initiatives. However, SC affirmed Comelec’s
dismissal of the first petition for lack of SP’s authority to enact the proposed
ordinance. SC ruled that:
(A) The creation of a separate local legislative body is ultra vires
(B) The sectoral council's proposed function overlaps with the Local
Development Council
(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

DOCTRINE. The term "election" in the GAA appropriation is

comprehensive enough to include other kinds of electoral exercises, including
initiative elections.

FACTS.
● Marmeto filed in behalf of the Muntinlupa People Power (MPP) a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of
Muntinlupa. 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 SP 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 LGC. (First Petition)
● (Here’s how the petition ended up with the Comelec) The secretary of SP of Muntinlupa wrote a letter 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, a new appropriation ordinance was needed to provide funds for the conduct of the initiative.
● COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-0904 (First Resolution) 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.
● Comelec denied Marmeto’s MR. Nonetheless, it noted that Marmeto might opt to re-file his initiative petition, since the then
newly-elected members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa might be more sympathetic to Marmeto' s propositions.
● Marmeto filed a second proposed ordinance with the SP. 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.
(Second Petition)
● On April 1, 2014, Marmeto filed a Supplemental Petition to comply with the requirements of COMELEC Resolution No.
2300, which provided the Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and
Referendum on National and Local Laws.
● On July 22, 2014, the COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution No. 14- 0509 (Second Resolution) which effectively dismissed
Marmeto's second initiative petition for lack of budgetary allocation, considering the absence of any provision in Comelec’s FY
2014 budget for the expenses for local initiative or any other election activity, that the power of local initiative cannot be invoked
by Engr. Marmeto will entail expenses on the part of the Comelec.
● Marmeto filed the present certiorari and mandamus petition.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON COMELEC is mandated to enforce and administer the laws on local

initiative and referendum – YES
● (See notes for the discussion on the concept of initiative)
● The Constitution 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."4 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.
● Since 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.
● 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.

2. WON COMELEC committed GAD for dismissing the second petition for alleged lack of budgetary allocation for its conduct –
YES
● SC discussed Goh v. Bayron and applied it to this case. (Dinelete ko na yung extensive discussion ng Goh kasi may digest naman
na tayo nung case)
● 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 dismissing Marmeto' 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 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." 5 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 ₱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."
● 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 Marmeto' s second initiative petition on the ground that there were
no funds allocated for the purpose.

3. WON COMELEC has the power to review whether the propositions in an

initiative petition are within the power of the concerned Sanggunian to enact - YES
● (SC first discussed why it may rule upon this issue)
● COMELEC: the propositions raised in Marmeto’s second petition were matters that were not within the powers of the SP to enact.
● Marmeto: The arguments the COMELEC now raises were not the grounds which the COMELEC cited in the Second Resolution
that is assailed in the present petition. He points that the second petition 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 First Resolution
which dismissed Marmeto's first 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.
● SC: 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.

● (SC now discussed the issue itself)

● 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." 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?

4 Article VI, Sec. 32.

5 Art. IX-C Sec. 11.
● 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 SBMA v. Comelec, 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”
● 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 x x x."

4. Marmeto 's propositions in his initiative petition are beyond the powers of the Sanggunian Panlungsod ng Muntinlupa to
enact – YES
● Marmeto'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 projects;
(2) The sectoral council will also stand as the people's representatives that will directly propose, enact, approve, or reject
ordinances through initiative or referendum;
(3) An appropriation of ₱200 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;
(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.
● These propositions, however, are either sufficiently covered by or violative of the LGC for reasons explained below.

● (A) The creation of a separate local legislative body is ultra vires

o Under the LGC, local legislative power within the city is to be exercised by the Sangguniang Panlungsod,6 which shall be
comprised of elected district and sectoral representatives. 7 The sectoral representatives, moreover, shall be limited to three
members, coming from enumerated/identified sectors. 8
o 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.
o 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 council's proposed function overlaps with the Local Development Council
o The LGC requires the establishment in each LGU of a local development council, whose membership includes
representatives of POs/NGOs operating within the LGU. 9 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 development plans and policies;
(2) xxx;
(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.
o 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
o The Court finds disturbing in Marmeto' s initiative petitions the authority of the proposed sectoral council to utilize, manage,
and administer public funds as it sees fit.
o The fundamental principles in local fiscal administration provided in the LGC state that no money shall be paid out of the

6 Sec. 48.
7 Sec. 41, (a) and (b).
8 Sec. 41, (c).
9 Sec. 107.
 local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations ordinance or law, 10 and that local government funds and monies shall
be spent solely for public purposes.11
o Marmeto' s petition proposes the appropriation of ₱200 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 programs and
projects that will eventually redound to the benefit of the public.
o Our laws have put in place measures to ensure transparency and accountability in dealing with public funds, 12 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."13 These measures may be subverted or rendered inapplicable when the management and utilization
of the funds is turned over to private persons or entities.
o 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.

DECISION.
Petition denied.

NOTES.
● 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.
● 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.

10 Sec. 305, (a).

11 Sec. 305 (b).
12 Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the Government Accounting Code of the Philippines, and Sections 335 to 354 of the LGC.
13 Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174, 188 (2010).