SBMA v. COMELEC

SBMA v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 125416 September 26, 1996

Panganiban, J.

Facts:

                On March 13, 1992, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7227 (The Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), which among others, provided for the creation of the Subic Economic Zone

RA 7227 likewise created petitioner to implement the declared national policy of converting the Subic military reservation into alternative productive uses.

On November 24, 1992, the American navy turned over the Subic military reservation to the Philippines government. Immediately, petitioner commenced the implementation of its task, particularly the preservation of the sea-ports, airport, buildings, houses and other installations left by the American navy.

In April 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its absolute concurrence, as required by said Sec. 12 of RA 7227, to join the Subic Special Economic Zone. On September 5, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong submitted Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993 to the Office of the President.

On May 24, 1993, respondents Garcia, Calimbas and their companions filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993.

The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition of respondents Garcia, Calimbas, et al. by promulgating Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye 1993, requesting Congress of the Philippines so amend certain provisions of RA 7227, particularly those concerning the matters cited in items (A), (B), (K), (E), and (G) of private respondent’s petition. The Sangguniang Bayan of Morong also informed respondents that items (D) and (H) had already been referred to and favorably acted upon by the government agencies concerned, such as the Bases Conversion Development Authority and the Office of the President.

Not satisfied, and within 30 days from submission of their petition, herein respondents resorted to their power initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991, ⁴ Sec. 122 paragraph (b) of which provides as follows:

Sec. 122. Procedure in Local Initiative. —

xxx xxx xxx

(b) If no favorable action thereon is taken by the sanggunian concerned, the proponents, through their duly authorized and registered representatives, may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the sangguniang concerned.

xxx xxx xxx

On July 6, 1993, respondent Commission En Banc in Comelec Resolution No. 93-1623 denied the petition for local initiative by herein private respondents on the ground that the subject thereof was merely a resolution (pambayang kapasyahan) and not an ordinance. On July 13, 1993, public respondent ComelecEn Banc (thru Comelec Resolution no. 93-1676) further directed its Provincial Election Supervisor to hold action on the authentication of signatures being solicited by private respondents.

Issue:

                Did respondent Comelec commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848?

Held:

                Yes. The process started by private respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent Comelec made preparations for a REFERENDUM only. In fact, in the body of the Resolution as reproduced in the footnote below, the word “referendum” is repeated at least 27 times, but “initiative” is not mentioned at all. The Comelec labeled the exercise as a “Referendum”; the counting of votes was entrusted to a “Referendum Committee”; the documents were called “referendum returns”; the canvassers, “Referendum Board of Canvassers” and the ballots themselves bore the description “referendum”. To repeat, not once was the word “initiative” used in said body of Resolution No. 2848. And yet, this exercise is unquestionably an INITIATIVE.

There are statutory and conceptual demarcations between a referendum and an initiative. In enacting the “Initiative and Referendum Act, Congress differentiated one term from the other, thus:

(a) “Initiative” is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose.

There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:

a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution;

a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and

a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.

(b) “Indirect initiative” is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action.

(c) “Referendum” is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. It may be of two classes, namely:

c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and

c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.

Justice Isagani A. Cruz defines initiative as the “power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls independent of the legislative assembly.” On the other hand, he explains that referendum “is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would without action on the part of electors become a law.” The foregoing definitions are echoed in the Local Government Code (RA 7160) substantially as follows:

Sec. 120. Local Initiative Defined. — Local initiative is the legal process whereby the registered voters of local government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance.

Sec. 126. Local Referendum Defined. — Local referendum is the legal process whereby the registered voters of the local government units may approve, amend or reject any ordinance enacted by the sanggunian.

The local referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the Comelec within sixty (60) days in case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities and thirty (30) days in case of baranggays.

The Comelec shall certify and proclaim the results of the said referendum.

Prescinding from these definitions, the initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given the opportunity to enact the proposal. If it refuses/neglects to do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the proponents through their duly-authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should the proponents be able to collect the number of signed conformities within the period granted by said statute, the Commission on Elections “shall then set a date for the initiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned . . .”.

On the other hand, in a local referendum, the law-making body submits to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution which is duly enacted or approved by such law-making authority. Said referendum shall be conducted also under the control and direction of the Commission on Elections.

In other words, while initiative is entirely the work of the electorate, referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making body. Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives, while referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body. Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative are understandably more complex than in a referendum where expectedly the voters will simply write either “Yes” of “No” in the ballot.

From the above differentiation, it follows that there is need for the Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely, its authority thereon extending not only to the counting and canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people is in the proper form and language so it may be easily understood and voted upon by the electorate. This is especially true where the proposed legislation is lengthy and complicated, and should thus be broken down into several autonomous parts, each such part to be voted upon separately. Care must also be exercised that “(n)o petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate,” although “two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative”.

In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration and supervision of the process itself, akin to its powers over the conduct of elections. These law-making powers belong to the people, hence the respondent Commission cannot control or change the substance or the content of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it may (in fact it should have done so already) issue relevant and adequate guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of these “people-power” features of our Constitution.