[G.R. No. 125416. September 26, 1996.]
FACTS:
Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7227 (The Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), which among others, provided for the creation of the Subic Special Economic Zone
R.A. No. 7227 likewise created petitioner to implement the declared national policy of converting the Subic military reservation into alternative productive uses. 2Petitioner was organized with an authorized capital stock of P20 billion which was fully subscribed and fully paid up by the Republic of the Philippines with, among other assets, “(a)ll lands embraced, covered and defined in Section 12 hereof, as well as permanent improvements and fixtures upon proper inventory not otherwise alienated, conveyed, or transferred to another government agency.” 3
On November 24, 1992, the American navy turned over the Subic military reservation to the Philippine government. Immediately, petitioner commenced the implementation of its task, particularly the preservation of the seaports, airports buildings, houses and other installations left by the American navy.
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 R.A. No. 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. 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 of Morong acted upon the petition of respondents Garcia, Not satisfied, and within 30 days from submission of their petition, herein respondents resorted to their power of initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991. Respondent Comelec issued Resolution No. 2845, adopting therein a “Calendar of Activities for local referendum on certain municipal ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan,” and which indicated, among others, the scheduled Referendum Day (July 27, 1996, Saturday). On June 27, 1996, the Comelec promulgated the assailed Resolution No. 2848 providing for “the rules and guidelines to govern the conduct of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan.”
ISSUE: whether the Comelec acted properly and juridically in promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848.
HELD: NO. To begin with, 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 11 as reproduced in the footnote below, the word “referendum” is repeated at least 27 times, “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.1Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and
c.2Referendum 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.
DIFFERENTIATED. — 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. Along these statutory definitions, 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, which are based on Black’s and other leading American authorities, are echoed in the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160).
“SEC. 120. 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.
“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 barangays.
The Comelec shall certify and proclaim the results of the said referendum.”
Prescinding from these definitions, we gather that 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” or “No” in the ballot.
COMELEC EXERCISES ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION ON THE CONDUCT THEREOF. — 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.” It should be noted that under Sec. 13 (c) of R.A. 6735, the “Secretary of Local Government or his designated representative shall extend assistance in the formulation of the proposition.” 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.
ID.; ID.; ID.; THE COURT CANNOT PASS UPON A PROPOSED INITIATIVE UNTIL THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR IT AND IT HAS BECOME AN APPROVED ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION. — Deliberating on this issue, the Court agrees with private respondent Garcia that indeed, the municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage. It is not yet an approved law. Should the people reject it, then there would be nothing to contest and to adjudicate. It is only when the people have voted for it and it has become an approved ordinance or resolution that rights and obligations can be enforced or implemented thereunder. At this point, it is merely a proposal and the writ of prohibition cannot issue upon a mere conjecture or possibility. Constitutionally speaking, courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases. We also note that the Initiative and Referendum Act itself provides that “(n)othing in this Act shall prevent or preclude the proper courts from declaring null and void any proposition approved pursuant to this Act . . ..” So too, the Supreme Court is basically a review court. It passes upon errors of law (and sometimes of fact, as in the case of mandatory appeals of capital offenses) of lower courts as well as determines whether there had been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any “branch or instrumentality” of government. In the present case, it is quite clear that the Court has authority to review Comelec Resolution No. 2848 to determine the commission of grave abuse of discretion. However, it does not have the same authority in regard to the proposed initiative since it has not been promulgated or approved, or passed upon by any “branch or instrumentality” or lower court, for that matter. The Commission on Elections itself has made no reviewable pronouncement about the issues brought by the pleadings. The Comelec simply included verbatim the proposal in its questioned Resolution No. 2848. Hence, there is really no decision or action made by a branch, instrumentality or court which this Court could take cognizance of and acquire jurisdiction over, in the exercise of its review powers.
ID.; ID.; ID.; THE COMELEC MAY PASS UPON SUCH PROPOSAL INSOFAR AS TO ITS FORM AND LANGUAGE ARE CONCERNED AND WHETHER THE SAME IS PATENTLY AND CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE CAPACITY OF THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY TO ENACT. — Having said that, we are in no wise suggesting that the Comelec itself has no power to pass upon proposed resolutions in an initiative. Quite the contrary, we are ruling that these matters are in fact within the initiatory jurisdiction of the Commission — to which then the herein basic questions ought to have been addressed, and by which the same should have been decided in the first instance. In other words, 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, as discussed earlier; 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.” Accordingly, the question of whether the subject of this initiative is within the capacity of the Municipal Council of Morong to enact may be ruled upon by the Comelec upon remand and after hearing the parties thereon.
JUST IN CASE.. (^_~) 