Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 125416 (September 26, 1996)

SC annulled Comelec Resolution 2848, affirming local initiatives must follow national law frameworks.

Facts:

The case revolves around the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) and its challenge against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding a local initiative and referendum in Morong, Bataan. The background begins with the enactment of Republic Act No. 7227, known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, which established the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ). This act required the concurrence of local government units, including the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, to join the SSEZ.

On April 13, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong passed a resolution (Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993) expressing its concurrence to join the SSEZ. However, on May 24, 1993, private respondents Enrique T. Garcia and Catalino A. Calimbas, along with others, filed a petition to annul this resolution, seeking to impose conditions for Morong's participation in the SSEZ.

Dissatisfied with the Sangguniang Bayan's response to their petition, the private respondents invoked their right to a local initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991. They sought to conduct a local initiative to annul the earlier resolution and impose conditions for Morong's participation in the SSEZ. The COMELEC initially denied their petition, stating that a municipal resolution could not be the subject of an initiative.

Subsequently, the COMELEC issued a resolution (Resolution No. 2848) to conduct a referendum on the proposed annulment of the earlier resolution. The SBMA contested this, arguing that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to schedule a local initiative that sought to amend a national law.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the COMELEC can be enjoined from conducting a local initiative proposing to annul a resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong.
  2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2848, which governed the conduct of the referendum.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (SBMA): The SBMA argued that the COMELEC acted beyond its jurisdiction by scheduling a local initiative that sought to amend a national law. They contended that the initiative was an attempt to withdraw concurrence from the SSEZ, which had already been established by national law. The SBMA claimed that the COMELEC's actions constituted grave abuse of discretion.

  • Respondents (Garcia and Calimbas): The private respondents contended that the SBMA failed to demonstrate an actual case or controversy and that the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction. They argued that the initiative was a valid exercise of the people's right to propose legislation and that the COMELEC's resolution was appropriate.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the SBMA, annulling COMELEC Resolution No. 2848 and remanding the matter for further proceedings. The Court held that the COMELEC had committed grave abuse of discretion by mischaracterizing the local initiative as a referendum. The Court emphasized the distinction between an initiative, which allows the electorate to propose legislation, and a referendum, which involves the electorate approving or rejecting legislation already enacted by a legislative body.

The Court clarified that the initiative process is initiated by the people when the legislative body fails to act on a proposal, while a referendum is initiated by the legislative body. The Court found that the COMELEC's failure to recognize this distinction led to an improper handling of the initiative process.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of whether the proposed initiative was within the powers of the Sangguniang Bayan to enact. It noted that the COMELEC has the authority to review the form and language of the proposed initiative to ensure it complies with legal standards.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Distinction Between Initiative and Referendum: The case clarified the legal definitions and procedural differences between initiatives and referendums, emphasizing that initiatives allow the electorate to propose legislation, while referendums involve voting on existing legislation.

  2. Jurisdiction of COMELEC: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC has the authority to oversee the initiative process, including reviewing the sufficiency of proposals in terms of form and language.

  3. People's Sovereignty in Law-Making: The decision reinforced the constitutional principle of direct democracy, allowing the electorate to exercise their rights to propose and enact laws through initiatives.