EN BANC

[G.R. No. 213953. September 26, 2017.]

ENGR. OSCAR A. MARMETO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

(COMELEC), respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J : p

Before the Court is a Petition for certiorari and mandamus 1 seeking to annul the
Resolution No. 14-0509 dated July 22, 2014 2 of the respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). The assailed resolution declared that the power of initiative could not be invoked
by the petitioner, Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto (Marmeto), for the passage of a proposed ordinance
in Muntinlupa City, citing the lack of budgetary appropriation for the conduct of the initiative
process. 3
THE FACTS
On January 21, 2013, Marmeto filed in behalf of the Muntinlupa People Power 4 (MPP)
a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa. 5 The proposal sought
the creation of a sectoral council and the appropriation of the amount of P200 million for the
livelihood programs and projects that would benefit the people of Muntinlupa City.
For failure of the Sanggunian Panlungsod 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 Republic Act (RA) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991 (LGC).
The secretary of Sanggunian Panlungsod of Muntinlupa wrote a letter dated June 11,
2013 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, the secretary claimed
that a new appropriation ordinance was needed to provide funds for the conduct of the
initiative.
On July 31, 2013, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 13-0904 setting aside
Marmeto's initiative petition because the propositions therein were beyond the powers of the
Sanggunian Panlunsod to enact and were not in accordance with the provisions of existing
laws and rules. 6
Marmeto sought reconsideration 7 of COMELEC's Resolution No. 13-0904 by
contending that the sectoral council sought to be created would not constitute as a legislative
body separate from the Sanggunian Panlungsod. He clarified that the sectoral council would
merely act as the people's representative, which would facilitate the exercise of the people's
power of initiative and referendum.
However, the COMELEC did not find Marmeto's motion for reconsideration meritorious
and issued Resolution No. 13-1039 dated September 17, 2013, 8 affirming its earlier ruling
dismissing the initiative petition. It ruled that the issues Marmeto raised in his motion were
mere reiterations of his petition which it had already addressed. 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Accordingly, on December 2, 2013, Marmeto filed a second proposed ordinance with the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa. 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 on February 10, 2014. 9
On April 1, 2014, Marmeto filed a Supplemental Petition to comply with the
requirements of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, 10 which provided the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on
National and Local Laws.
The Assailed COMELEC Resolution
On July 22, 2014, the COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution No. 14-0509 11 which
effectively dismissed Marmeto's second initiative petition for lack of budgetary allocation.
The pertinent portion of the assailed resolution reads as follows:
Considering the absence of any provision in the Commission's FY 2014
budget for the expenses for local initiative or any other election activity x x x the
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to adopt the foregoing
recommendation x x x that the power of local initiative cannot be invoked by Engr.
Oscar A. Marmeto x x x for the passage of an ordinance for the appropriation of funds
for livelihood projects for the residents of Muntinlupa City since the setting up of
signature stations, verification of signatures, the certification of the number of
registered voters, and all other acts to be done in exercise thereof will entail expenses
on the part of the Commission. 12 (Emphasis supplied)
Disagreeing with Resolution No. 14-0509, Marmeto filed the present certiorari and
mandamus petition contending that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed his second initiative petition.
THE PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Marmeto assails the COMELEC's Resolution No. 14-0509, contending that the denial of
an initiative petition due to lack of appropriated funds constitutes a gross neglect and
abandonment of the COMELEC's duties under the Constitution. 13
Marmeto believes that the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to conduct the initiative
proceedings under pertinent laws upon compliance with the legal requirements for the
exercise of the right. He asserts that the COMELEC evaded its mandated duty by citing
unavailability of funds as ground to frustrate the conduct of local initiative. 14
The COMELEC, on the other hand, claims that the denial of Marmeto's initiative petition
was proper, since the propositions therein were beyond the legal powers of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod to enact. 15 Section 124 (b) of the LGC provides that the "[i]nitiative shall extend
only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact."
According to the COMELEC, Marmeto's second initiative petition proposed the creation of a
council composed of 12 sectoral representatives. This sectoral council will act as a legislative
body that will directly propose, enact, approve, or reject any ordinance through the power of
initiative and referendum. 16
The COMELEC refers to Section 458 of the LGC which enumerates the powers and
duties of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, noting that nothing in the provision grants the
Sanggunian the power to create a separate local legislative body. Moreover, Section 457 of
the LGC allows only three sectoral representatives to become members of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod. These sectoral representatives are to be elected by the residents of the city as
members of the Sanggunian, and cannot be appointed through an initiative election.
THE COURT'S RULING
The Court dismisses the Petition.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 The COMELEC is mandated to enforce
and administer the laws on local
initiative and referendum
Initiative has been described as an instrument of direct democracy whereby the citizens
directly propose and legislate laws. 17 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, 18 as opposed to that of derivative legislative power which has been
delegated by the sovereign people to legislative bodies such as the Congress. 19
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. 20
The Constitution further 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." 21 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. To implement RA No. 6735, the COMELEC
promulgated Resolution No. 2300 on January 16, 1991, which provided the rules and
regulations governing the conduct of initiative on the Constitution, 22 and initiative and
referendum on national and local laws. Since the LGC codified all laws pertaining to local
governments, 23 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. Naturally, the conduct of initiative and referendum (as with any election
exercise) will entail expenses on the part of the government. The budget for the conduct of the
exercise of political rights, specifically those on suffrage and electoral rights, is given to the
COMELEC, whose approved annual appropriations are automatically and regularly released.
24

The COMELEC cannot defeat the

exercise of the people's original
legislative power for lack of budgetary
allocation for its conduct
I n Goh v. Hon. Bayron , 25 the Court has definitely ruled the question of whether the
COMELEC may prevent the conduct of a recall election for lack of specific budgetary
allocation therefor. In as much as the issue resolved in Goh is similar to the present one
before the Court, a brief summary thereof is necessary.
In 2014, Alroben Goh commenced the proceedings for the conduct of recall elections
against Puerto Princesa City Mayor Lucilo Bayron. Although the COMELEC found Goh's
petition sufficient in form and substance, it resolved to suspend the recall election because
there was no appropriation provided for the conduct of recall elections in the FY 2014 General
Appropriations Act (GAA). As there was no line item in the GAA for recall elections, there could
likewise be no augmentation according to the COMELEC.
Contrary to the COMELEC's assertions, the Court ruled that the FY 2014 GAA "actually
expressly provides for a line item appropriation for the conduct and supervision of recall
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 elections." 26 Under the Program category of the COMELEC's 2014 budget, 27 the following
amounts were provided:
XXXII. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
For general and administration support, and operations, including locally-funded projects, as indicated
hereunder — P2,735,321,000

New Appropriations, by Programs/Activities/Projects, by Operating Units

Current Operating Expenditures

Maintenance
Personnel and Other Capital
Totals
Services Operating Outlays
Expenses

PROGRAMS

100000000 General Administration and

Support

100010000 General management and

supervision
P454,457,000 P276,749,000 P731,206,000
National Capital Region (NCR)
454,457,000 276,749,000 731,206,000
Central Office
454,457,000 276,749,000 731,206,000
Sub-total, General Administration and
Support
454,457,000 276,749,000 731,206,000
300000000 Operations

301000000 MFO 1: REGULATION OF

ELECTIONS
1,483,087,000 174,188,000 1,657,275,000
301010000 Management and supervision of
elections and other electoral
exercises
1,437,272,000 172,058,000 1,609,330,000
301010001 Conduct of voter's education
and information campaign thru
print/radio/television and social
media
10,141,000 1,363,000 11,504,000
National Capital Region (NCR)

10,141,000 1,363,000 11,504,000

Central Office
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 Central Office
10,141,000 1,363,000 11,504,000
301010002 Preparation of maps of
territorial units of voting centers,
the establishment of new voting
centers, and the transfer,
merger or abolition of existing
ones
21,662,000 2,161,000 23,823,000
National Capital Region (NCR)
21,662,000 2,161,000 23,823,000
Central Office
21,662,000 2,161,000 23,823,000
301010003 Development of software
system and procedures
6,432,000 5,674,000 12,106,000
National Capital Region (NCR)
6,432,000 5,674,000 12,106,000
Central Office
6,432,000 5,674,000 12,106,000
301010004 Monitoring the implementation
on the conduct of election and
other political exercises and
development of measures to
improve the registration and
election systems including the
dissemination of election results
of previous elections

10,379,000 120,644,000 131,023,000

National Capital Region (NCR)
10,379,000 120,644,000 131,023,000
Central Office
10,379,000 120,644,000 131,023,000
301010005 Conduct and supervision of
elections, referenda, recall
votes and plebiscites
1,360,975,000 40,526,000 1,401,501,000
National Capital Region (NCR)
67,917,000 6,439,000 74,356,000
Central Office
67,917,000 6,439,000 74,356,000
Notably, for its Major Final Output (MFO) 1 on the Regulation of Elections, the
COMELEC was provided with a total of P1,401,501,000 for the "Conduct and supervision of
elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites," which amount was subdivided among
the 15 administrative regions in the country.
The Court added that "[w]hen the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for
its 'Current Operating Expenditures,' such appropriation includes expenditures to carry
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 out its constitutional functions x x x" 28 The Court considered the appropriation of P1.4
billion as specific enough to fund elections, which includes both regular and special elections,
including recall elections.
Further, the allocation of a specific budget for the conduct of elections constituted as "a
line item which can be augmented from the COMELEC's savings to fund the conduct of recall
elections in 2014." 29 Thus, the Court concluded that —
[c]onsidering 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 x x x 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. 30
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 P1.4 billion appropriation
under the FY 2014 GAA was for the "conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall
votes and plebiscites." 31 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." 32
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 P1.4 billion appropriation for the "conduct and
supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes and plebiscites," the COMELEC was also
given P1.6 billion in the FY 2014 GAA for the "management and supervision of elections and
other electoral exercises." 33
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.
The COMELEC has the power to
review whether the propositions in an
initiative petition are within the power
of the concerned Sanggunian to enact
The resolution of the present case, however, does not end in applying the Court's ruling
i n Goh to the present case. In its Comment and Memorandum, the COMELEC defends the
dismissal of Marmeto's second initiative petition on the ground that the propositions raised
therein were matters that were not within the powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact.
This petition purportedly proposed the creation of another legislative body separate from the
Sanggunian, composed of 12 appointive sectoral representatives. Not only does the LGC
denies to the Sanggunian the power to create a separate legislative body, but it also limits the
number of sectoral representatives in the Sanggunian itself to only three elected members. 34
For these reasons, the COMELEC argues that the dismissal of Marmeto's second initiative
petition was proper.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 Marmeto counters that the arguments the COMELEC now raises were not the grounds
which the COMELEC cited in Resolution No. 14-0509 that is assailed in the present certiorari
and mandamus petition. He points out that Resolution No. 14-0509 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
Resolution Nos. 13-0904 and 13-1039 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.
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. 35 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.
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
Chapter 36 for violation of the Constitution or want of capacity of the sanggunian concerned
to enact the said measure." 37
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?
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 Subic
Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections, 38 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 (Emphasis supplied)
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."
Marmeto's propositions in his initiative
petition are beyond the powers of the
Sanggunian Panlungsod ng
Muntinlupa to enact
Accordingly, a review of the propositions put forth by Marmeto in his second initiative
petition becomes imperative.
Unfortunately, the records do not contain a copy of the proposed ordinance itself.
Nevertheless, Marmeto's pleadings and the annexes thereto (particularly the Supplemental
Petition) 39 refer to the significant propositions put forth in his second initiative petition.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 The Court also notes that the propositions in Marmeto's second petition are closely
related to those in his first petition, which are mentioned in the COMELEC Resolution Nos. 13-
0904 and 13-1039. As Marmeto never denied that the propositions in his second initiative
petition are completely different from those in his first petition, 40 it is not implausible to
presume that the propositions contained in both petitions are more or less the same. Since the
COMELEC had already ruled on the propriety of these propositions in its Resolution No. 13-
0904 and to avoid a remand of the case that will prolong these proceedings, the Court will
proceed to rule on the issue of whether Marmeto's propositions are within the power of the
Sanggunian to enact and thus be valid subjects of an initiative petition.
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; 41
(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; 42
(3) An appropriation of P200 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; 43
(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. 44
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
Under the LGC, local legislative power within the city is to be exercised by the
sangguniang panlungsod, 45 which shall be comprised of elected district and sectoral
representatives. 46 The sectoral representatives, moreover, shall be limited to three members,
coming from enumerated/identified sectors. 47
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. 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/MPP's proposed function overlaps with the Local
Development Council
The law recognizes the right of the people to organize themselves and encourages the
formation of non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that aim to
promote the nation's welfare. 48 Even the LGC promotes relations between the LGUs and
people's and non-governmental organizations (PO/NGOs), and provides various ways by
which they can be active partners in pursuing local autonomy. 49
The LGC, moreover, requires the establishment in each LGU of a local development
council, whose membership includes representatives of POs/NGOs operating within the LGU.
50 These local development councils are primarily tasked with developing a "comprehensive
multi-sectoral development plan" 51 in their respective LGUs. City development councils are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 specifically tasked to exercise the following functions:
(1) Formulate long-term, medium-term, and annual socio-economic development
plans and policies;
(2) x x x;
(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.
52

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
The overlap in functions, by itself, does not suffice to turn down Marmeto's proposal to
create a sectoral council or any similar organization. What the Court finds disturbing in
Marmeto's initiative petitions is the authority of the proposed sectoral council to utilize,
manage, and administer public funds as it sees fit.
The fundamental principles in local fiscal administration provided in the LGC state that
no money shall be paid out of the local treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations
ordinance or law, 53 and that local government funds and monies shall be spent solely for
public purposes. 54
Marmeto's petition proposes the appropriation of P200 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.
Our laws have put in place measures to ensure transparency and accountability in
dealing with public funds, 55 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." 56 These measures
may be subverted or rendered inapplicable when the management and utilization of the funds
is turned over to private persons or entities. 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.
CONCLUSION
Initiative and referendum are the means by which the sovereign people exercise their
legislative power, and the valid exercise thereof should not be easily defeated by claiming lack
of specific budgetary appropriation for their conduct. The Court reiterates its ruling in Goh that
the grant of a line item in the FY 2014 GAA for the conduct and supervision of elections
constitutes as sufficient authority for the COMELEC to use the amount for elections and other
political exercises, including initiative and recall, and to augment this amount from the
COMELEC's existing savings.
Nonetheless, as the Court ruled in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, the COMELEC is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 likewise given the power to review the sufficiency of initiative petitions, particularly the issue of
whether the propositions set forth therein are within the power of the concerned sanggunian to
enact. In as much as a sanggunian does not have the power to create a separate local
legislative body and that other propositions in Marmeto's initiative petition clearly contravene
the existing laws, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition and cannot be ordered to conduct and
supervise the procedure for the conduct of initiative elections.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari and mandamus is DISMISSED. The Resolution
No. 14-0509 of the Commission on Elections dated July 22, 2014 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe,
Leonen, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Carpio * and Jardeleza, * JJ., are on official leave.

Footnotes

* On official leave.

1. Filed under Rules 65 of the Rules of Court, rollo, pp. 3-16.

2. Id. at 17-18, signed by COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., Commissioners Lucenito N.
Tagle, Christian Robert S. Lim, Al A. Parreño, and Luie Tito F. Guia.

3. Id. at 18.

4. The MPP is an informal association of residents and registered voters of Muntinlupa City, and is
represented by Marmeto, see rollo, p. 38.

5. Id. at 4.

6. Id. at 32.

7. Id. at 33-35.

8. Id. at 36-37.

9. Id. at 38-40.

10. Dated January 16, 1991.

11. Rollo, pp. 17-18.

12. Id. at 18.

13. Id. at 8, 11.

14. Id. at 13.

15. Id. at 77.

16. Id. at 79, 87-88.

17. Christopher A. Coury, Direct Democracy through Initiative and Referendum: Checking the
Balance, 8 Notre Dame J Law, Ethics & Pub. Policy 573 (1994), available at
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=ndjlepp (last visited 11
September, 2017).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 18. Garcia v. Commission on Elections, 307 Phil. 296, 303 (1994).

19. Id.

20. Id. at 303, 305.

21. CONSTITUTION, Article VI, Section 32.

22. The Supreme Court nullified the provisions on initiative on the amendment of the Constitution
under Republic Act No. 6735 in Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 336 Phil. 848 (1997).
23. Pursuant to Section 3, Article X of the Constitution.

24. CONSTITUTION, Article IX-A, Section 5. See also Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 11, which
states that:
Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission 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 upon
certification by the Chairman of the Commission.

25. 748 Phil. 282 (2014).

26. Id. at 305.

27. Department of Budget and Management, FY 2014 GAA — Annex A: Details of the Budget,
Volume 1, available at http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/GAA/GAA2014%20ANNEXES/Vol%201/COMELEC/COMELEC.pdf (last
visited 11 September 2017). Emphasis ours.

28. Goh v. Hon. Bayron, supra note 25 at 305. Emphasis ours.

29. Id. at 316.

30. Id. at 320.

31. Department of Budget and Management, FY 2014 GAA — Annex A: Details of Budget, Volume 1,
supra note 27.

32. CONSTITUTION, Article IX-C, Section 11.

33. Department of Budget and Management, FY 2014 GAA — Annex A: Details of the Budget,
Volume 1, supra note 27.

34. Rollo, pp. 88-90.

35. See Martinez v. Buen, G.R. No. 187342, April 5, 2017; Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc., 744 Phil.
590, 602-603 (2014); Dinio v. Hon. Laguesma, 339 Phil. 309, 318-319 (1997).

36. Referring to Chapter II — Local Initiative and Referendum of Title IX — Other Provisions
Applicable to Local Government Units, Book I of the LGC.

37. Emphasis ours.

38. 330 Phil. 1082, 1111 (1996).

39. Rollo, pp. 41-45.

40. In fact, he refers to the second petition as the "re-filed proposed ordinance" i(d. at 97), and done in
compliance with the COMELEC's advise to file his petition anew with the Sanggunian (id. at
37).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 41. Id. at 30.

42. Id. Although Marmeto claims that the Sectoral Council will only facilitate the electorate's exercise
of the power of initiative and referendum, id. at 33, 122.

43. Id. at 43.

44. Id.

45. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 48.

46. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 41 (a) and (b).

47. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Article 41 (c).

48. CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 23.

49. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Sections 34 to 36 provide:

SECTION 34. Role of People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. — Local government

units shall promote the establishment and operation of people's and nongovernmental
organizations to become active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy.

SECTION 35. Linkages with People's and Non-Governmental Organizations. — Local

government units may enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with
people's and nongovernmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic
services, capability-building and livelihood projects, and to develop local enterprises designed
to improve productivity and income, diversify agriculture, spur rural industrialization, promote
ecological balance, and enhance the economic and social well-being of the people.

SECTION 36. Assistance to People's and Nongovernmental Organizations. — A local

government unit may, through its local chief executive and with the concurrence of the
Sanggunian concerned, provide assistance, financial or otherwise, to such people's and
nongovernmental organizations for economic, socially-oriented, environmental, or cultural
projects to be implemented within its territorial jurisdiction.

50. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 107.

51. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 106.

52. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 109 (a).

53. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 305 (a).

54. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 305 (b).

55. These laws include Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the Government Accounting Code of the
Philippines, and Sections 335 to 354 of the LGC.

56. Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174, 188 (2010).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2024 cdasiaonline.com