Garcia vs. Commission on Elections

A local resolution, being an "act" of a local legislative body, is a proper subject of a people's initiative under Section 32, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the implementing laws, particularly Republic Act No. 6735 and the Local Government Code of 1991. The COMELEC's ministerial duty in the initiative process includes supervising the signature drive and setting the date for the plebiscite once the required number of signatures is obtained.

The Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, concurring in the municipality's inclusion in the Subic Special Economic Zone pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227. Petitioners, led by then-Governor Enrique T. Garcia, sought to annul this resolution through a petition for local initiative, proposing alternative conditions for the inclusion. After the Sangguniang Bayan failed to act on their petition within thirty days, petitioners commenced gathering the required signatures. The municipal Vice Mayor, however, sent a letter to the COMELEC requesting denial of the initiative, which the COMELEC granted without hearing the petitioners.

• Nature of the Action: The case is a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus seeking to nullify COMELEC resolutions that halted a local initiative process.
• The Subject Resolution: The Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993, expressing its concurrence for Morong's inclusion in the Subic Special Economic Zone created by R.A. No. 7227.
• The Initiative Petition: On May 24, 1993, petitioners filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan seeking to annul the said resolution and replace it with a new resolution containing specific conditions for the inclusion. The petition enumerated ten conditions, including the return of certain lands, job allocation based on land area, and infrastructure projects.
• Failure to Act and Signature Drive: The Sangguniang Bayan did not act on the petition within the thirty-day period prescribed by law. Petitioners then began soliciting signatures to initiate a local referendum to repeal the resolution.
• COMELEC Intervention: Unbeknownst to petitioners, the Vice Mayor of Morong wrote to the COMELEC Executive Director requesting denial of the initiative, arguing it would promote divisiveness and was futile as the issues had been addressed. The COMELEC en banc subsequently issued two resolutions: one denying the initiative because its subject was "merely a resolution," and another directing the halt of signature authentication.
• Petitioners' Deprivation of Due Process: Petitioners were not furnished a copy of the Vice Mayor's letter to the COMELEC and were not given an opportunity to be heard before the COMELEC issued its adverse resolutions.

• Due Process: Petitioners argued that the COMELEC resolutions were issued ex parte without affording them a chance to be heard, violating their right to due process, especially given the sovereign nature of the people's legislative power.
• Scope of Initiative: Petitioners maintained that a Sangguniang Bayan resolution is a proper subject of initiative, citing Section 32, Article VI of the Constitution which allows initiatives on "any act or law" passed by a local legislative body.
• Ministerial Duty of COMELEC: Petitioners contended that the COMELEC's role in an initiative is merely ministerial—to supervise the signature gathering and set the plebiscite date once the signature threshold is met.

• Statutory Limitation: The COMELEC and the Sangguniang Bayan countered that under Section 120 of the Local Government Code of 1991, a local initiative is defined as the power to propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. They argued this expressly excludes resolutions.
• Futility and Divisiveness: The Sangguniang Bayan, through the Vice Mayor's letter, argued that the initiative was unnecessary and counter-productive because the issues raised had already been acted upon through other governmental channels and requests for legislative amendment.

• Constitutional and Statutory Scope: Whether a municipal resolution is a valid subject of a local initiative under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the initiative without giving the petitioners notice and an opportunity to be heard.

• Constitutional and Statutory Scope: The initiative was improperly denied. The constitutional grant of the people's power of initiative under Section 32, Article VI covers "any act or law" passed by a local legislative body. A resolution is an "act" within this contemplation. This constitutional mandate was implemented by R.A. No. 6735, which explicitly includes "resolution" as a subject of initiative on local legislation. While Section 120 of the Local Government Code defines initiative with the word "ordinance," the operative provision on its scope (Section 124) states that initiative extends to all "subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunians to enact," which includes resolutions. A restrictive interpretation limiting initiatives to ordinances would contravene the Constitution.
• Procedural Due Process: The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The resolutions denying the initiative were issued ex parte, based on a letter from the Vice Mayor of which the petitioners were not notified. This deprived them of their right to be heard on a matter involving the sovereign people's original power to legislate.

• People's Power of Initiative — The 1987 Constitution installed the system of people's initiative as a direct exercise of original legislative power by the sovereign people, intended as a check against government excess. This power is broader than derivative legislative power vested in representative bodies. The Court emphasized that this power should not be trivialized by narrow statutory construction.
• Statutory Construction in Harmony with the Constitution — If a statute is susceptible to two interpretations, one that would render it unconstitutional and another that would uphold its validity, the latter must be adopted. Here, interpreting the Local Government Code's use of "ordinance" in its definition of initiative to the exclusion of "resolution" would collide with the Constitution's broader term "act." Thus, the harmonious construction was preferred.

• "The 1987 Constitution is borne of the conviction that people power can be trusted to check excesses of government. One of the means by which people power can be exercised is thru initiatives where local ordinances and resolutions can be enacted or repealed. An effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives ought to be rejected."
• "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."
• "Considering the lasting changes that will be wrought in the social, political, and economic existence of the people of Morong by the inclusion of their municipality in the Subic Special Economic Zone, it is but logical to hear their voice on the matter via an initiative. It is not material that the decision of the municipality of Morong for the inclusion came in the form of a resolution for what matters is its enduring effect on the welfare of the people of Morong."

• In Re Guarina, 24 Phil. 37 (1913) — Cited for the principle that if a statute is fairly susceptible of two constructions, that interpretation will be adopted which avoids unconstitutionality.

• Section 32, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Mandates Congress to provide a system of initiative and referendum whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject "any act or law" passed by Congress or a local legislative body. The Court held this includes resolutions.
• Section 3(a), Republic Act No. 6735 — Defines "initiative on local legislation" as a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution, or ordinance. This expressly implements the constitutional provision.
• Sections 120, 124, & 125, Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) — While Section 120 defines initiative with the word "ordinance," Section 124 limits initiatives only to matters within the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact (which includes resolutions), and Section 125 protects "any proposition" approved by initiative from repeal for six months, indicating a broader scope than just ordinances.

Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices Cruz, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Vitug, Kapunan, and Mendoza.

N/A — The decision was unanimous among the justices who participated. Justices Feliciano, Padilla, and Bidin were on leave.