187 Garcia V Comelec
187 Garcia V Comelec
*
G.R. No. 111230. September 30, 1994.
_______________
* EN BANC.
280
281
VOL. 237, SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 281
282
circumstance that was made worse when the COMELEC granted the same
without affording the petitioners any fair opportunity to oppose it.—Finally,
it cannot be gainsaid that petitioners were denied due process. They were
not furnished a copy of the letter-petition of Vice Mayor Edilberto M. de
Leon to the respondent COMELEC praying for denial of their petition for a
local initiative on Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993. Worse,
respondent COMELEC granted the petition without affording petitioners
any fair opportunity to oppose it. This procedural lapse is fatal for at stake is
not an ordinary right but the sanctity of the sovereignty of the people, their
original power to legislate through the process of initiative. Ours is the duty
to listen and the obligation to obey the voice of the people. It could well be
the only force that could foil the mushrooming abuses in government.
PUNO, J.:
_______________
283
The municipality of Morong did not take any action on the petition
within thirty (30) days after its submission. Petitioners then resorted
to their power of initiative under the Local Government Code of
3 4
1991. They started to solicit the required number of signatures to
cause the repeal of said resolution. Unknown to the petitioners,
however, the Honorable Edilberto M. de Leon, Vice-Mayor and
Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Bayan ng
_______________
284
Morong, wrote a letter dated June 11, 1993 to the Executive Director
of COMELEC requesting the denial of “x x x the petition for a local
initiative and/or referendum because the exercise
5
will just promote
divisiveness, counter productive and futility.” We quote the letter,
viz:
S i r:
In view of the petition filed by a group of proponents headed by Gov.
Enrique T. Garcia, relative to the conduct of a local initiative and/or
referendum for the annulment of Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye
1993, may we respectfully request to deny the petition referred thereto
considering the issues raised by the proponents were favorably acted upon
and endorsed to Congress and other government agencies by the
Sangguniang Bayan of Morong.
For your information and guidance, we are enumerating hereunder the
issues raised by the petitioners with the corresponding actions undertaken
by the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, to wit:
_______________
285
286
“5. This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus. 5.01 For certiorari,
conformably to Sec. 7, Art. IX of the Constitution, to set aside Comelec
Resolution Nos. 93-1676 and 93-1623 (Annexes “E” and “H”) insofar as it
disallowed the initiation of a local initiative to annul PAMBAYANG
KAPASYAHAN BLG. 10, SERYE 1993 including the gathering and
authentication of the required number of signatures in support thereof.
_______________
287
VOL. 237, SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 287
Garcia vs. Commission on Elections
‘If the required number of signatures is obtained, the Comelec shall then set a date for the
initiative during which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local
government unit concerned for their approval within sixty (60) days from the date of
certification by the Comelec, as provided in subsection (g) hereof, in case of provinces and
cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays.
The initiative shall then be held on the date set, after which the results thereof shall be
certified and proclaimed by the Comelec. (Sec. 22, par. (h) R.A. 7160)’ ”
_______________
288
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Garcia vs. Commission on Elections
______________
289
_______________
290
15
Funds Therefor.” Liberally borrowed from American laws, 16
R.A.
No. 6735, among others, spelled out the requirements for the
exercise of the power of initiative17 and referendum, the conduct of
national initiative
18
and referendum; 19procedure of local initiative and
referendum; and their limitations. Then came Republic Act No.
7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991.
Chapter 2, Title XI, Book I of the Code governed the conduct of
local initiative and referendum.
In light of this legal backdrop, the essential issue to be resolved
in the case at bench is whether Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
serye 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan is the
proper subject of an initiative. Respondents take the negative stance
as they contend that under the Local Government Code of 1991 only
an ordinance can be the subject of initiative. They rely on section
120, Chapter 2, Title XI, Book I of the Local Government Code of
1991 which provides: “Local Initiative Defined.—Local initiative is
the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local
government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any
ordinance.”
We reject respondents’ narrow and literal reading of the above
provision for it will collide with the Constitution and will subvert
the intent of the lawmakers in enacting the provisions of the Local
Government Code of 1991 on initiative and referendum.
The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but
resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative. Section 32 of
Article VI provides in luminous language: “The Congress shall, as
early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum,
and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part
thereof passed by the Congress,20 or local legislative body x x x” An
act includes a resolution. Black defines an act as
_______________
291
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.” (Emphasis
ours)
_______________
21 Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 2nd ed., 1990 ed., p. 189 citing PLDT v.
Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674; Hebron v. Reyes, 104 Phil. 175;
Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 1.
22 24 Phil. 37, 47 [1913].
292
293
proceed.
MR. ALBANO. I heard the sponsor say that the only difference in
the two bills was that in the Senate version there was a provision
for local initiative and referendum, whereas the House version
has none.
MR. ROCO. In fact, the Senate version provided purely for local
initiative and referendum, whereas in the House version, we
provided purely for national and constitutional legislation.
MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding, therefore, that the two
provisions were incorporated?
MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ALBANO. So that we will now have a complete initiative and
referendum both in the constitutional amendment and national
legislation.
MR. ROCO. That is correct.
MR. ALBANO. And provincial as well as municipal resolutions?
MR. ROCO. Down to barangay, Mr. Speaker.
MR. ALBANO. And this initiative and referendum is in consonance
with the provision of the Constitution whereby it mandates this
Congress to enact the enabling law, so that we shall have a
system which can be done every five years. Is it five years in the
provision of the Constitution?
MR. ROCO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. For constitutional 23
amendments to the 1987 Constitution, it is every five years.”
_______________
23 Journal of the House of Representatives, Vol. VIII, June 8, 1989, p. 960; see
also Vol. VII, June 7, 1990, p. 762, sponsorship remarks of Rep. Acosta; Vol. I, July
24, 1990, p. 92, sponsorship remarks of Rep. Puzon.
294
“Sec. 124. Limitations on Local Initiatives. (a) The power of local initiative
shall not be exercised than once a year.
(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the
legal powers of the Sanggunians to enact.
x x x.”
_______________
24 The Local Government Code of 1991, The Key to National Development, pp.
229-230.
295
______________
25 Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 37 A, p. 6, citing Conley v. Texas Division
of United Daughters of the Confederacy, Tex., 164 S.W. 24, 26; see also Allen v. Wise, 50 S.E.
2d 69, 71, 204 Ga. 415.
26 122 ALR, Annotated, p. 770 citing Hopping v. Richmond, 170 Cal. 605, 150 p. 977.
296
(a) Within the framework and subject to the mandate and limitations of
the Constitution and the pertinent provisions of the Local
Government Code, the Subic Special Economic Zone shall be
developed into a self-sustaining, industrial, commercial, financial
and investment center to generate employment opportunities in and
around the zone and to attract and promote productive foreign
investments;
(b) The Subic Special Economic Zone shall be operated and managed
as a separate customs territory ensuring free flow or movement of
goods and capital within, into and exported out of the Subic Special
Economic Zone, as well as provide incentives such as tax and duty-
free importations of raw material, capital and equipment. However,
exportations or removal of goods from the territory of the Subic
Special Economic Zone to the other parts of the Philippine territory
shall be subject to customs duties and taxes under the Customs and
Tariff Code and other relevant tax laws of the Philippines;
(c) The provision of existing laws, rules and regulations to the contrary
notwithstanding, no taxes, local and national, shall be imposed
within the Subic Special Economic Zone. In lieu of paying taxes,
three percent (3%) of the gross income earned by all businesses and
enterprises within the Subic Special Economic Zone shall be
remitted to the National Government, one percent (1%) each to the
local government units affected by the declaration of the zone in
proportion to their population area, and other factors. In addition,
there is hereby established a development fund of one percent (1%)
of the gross income earned by all businesses and enterprises within
the Subic Special Economic Zone to be utilized for the
development of municipalities outside the City of Olongapo and the
Municipality of Subic, and other municipalities contiguous to the
base areas.
In case of conflict between national and local laws with respect to
tax exemption privileges in the Subic Special Economic Zone, the
same shall be resolved in favor of the latter;
(d) No exchange control policy shall be applied and free markets for
foreign exchange, gold, securities and futures shall be allowed and
maintained in the Subic Special Economic Zone;
297
(e) The Central Bank, through the Monetary Board, shall supervise and
regulate the operations of banks and other financial institutions
within the Subic Special Economic Zone;
(f) Banking and finance shall be liberalized with the establishment of
foreign currency depository units of local commercial banks and
offshore banking units of foreign banks with minimum Central
Bank regulation;
(g) Any investor within the Subic Special Economic Zone whose
continuing investment shall not be less than Two hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000), his/her spouse and dependent children
under twenty-one (21) years of age, shall be granted permanent
resident status within the Subic Special Economic Zone. They shall
have freedom of ingress and egress to and from the Subic Special
Economic Zone without any need of special authorization from the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. The Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority referred to in Section 13 of this Act may
also issue working visas renewable every two (2) years to foreign
executives and other aliens possessing highly-technical skills which
no Filipino within the Subic Special Economic Zone possesses, as
certified by the Department of Labor and Employment. The names
of aliens granted permanent residence status and working visas by
the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority shall be reported to the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation within thirty (30) days
after issuance thereof.
(h) The defense of the zone and the security of its perimeters shall be
the responsibility of the National Government in coordination with
the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority. The Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority shall provide and establish its own internal security and
fire fighting forces; and
(i) Except as herein provided, the local government units comprising
the Subic Special Economic Zone shall retain their basic autonomy
and identity. The cities shall be governed by their respective
charters and the municipalities shall operate and function in
accordance with Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the
Local Government Code of 1991.”
“Sec. 14. Relationship with the Conversion Authority and the Local
Government Units.—
298
(b) In case of conflict between the Subic Authority and the local
government units concerned on matters affecting the Subic Special
Economic Zone other than defense and security, the decision of the
Subic Authority shall prevail.”
299