Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Marmeto V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Baisy Villanoza
    The petitioner opposed the COMELEC's dismissal of his initiative petition claiming it was due to lack of funds. The COMELEC claimed it was dismissed because the propositions were beyond the legal powers of the local legislative body. The Supreme Court ruled that while the COMELEC must enforce initiative and referendum laws, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because the proposals contravened existing laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marmeto V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Baisy Villanoza
    53 views1 page
    The petitioner opposed the COMELEC's dismissal of his initiative petition claiming it was due to lack of funds. The COMELEC claimed it was dismissed because the propositions were beyond the legal powers of the local legislative body. The Supreme Court ruled that while the COMELEC must enforce initiative and referendum laws, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because the proposals contravened existing laws.

    Original Title

    Marmeto v COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner opposed the COMELEC's dismissal of his initiative petition claiming it was due to lack of funds. The COMELEC claimed it was dismissed because the propositions were beyond the legal powers of the local legislative body. The Supreme Court ruled that while the COMELEC must enforce initiative and referendum laws, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because the proposals contravened existing laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    Marmeto V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Baisy Villanoza
    The petitioner opposed the COMELEC's dismissal of his initiative petition claiming it was due to lack of funds. The COMELEC claimed it was dismissed because the propositions were beyond the legal powers of the local legislative body. The Supreme Court ruled that while the COMELEC must enforce initiative and referendum laws, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because the proposals contravened existing laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GR No. 213953 Sept.

    26, 2017
    Marmeto v. COMELEC

    Facts:
    Marmeto, the petitioner opposed the COMELEC's Resolution No. 14-0509, stating that the
    refusal of an initiative petition due to lack of appropriated funds constitutes a gross neglect
    and abandonment of the COMELEC's duties under the Constitution. He insisted that the
    COMELEC evaded its required duty by citing unavailability of funds as ground to frustrate
    the conduct of local initiative. The COMELEC, on the other hand, claimed that the refusal of
    Marmeto's initiative petition was the appropriate, since the propositions therein were beyond
    the legal powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to act upon. The COMELEC referred 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. The petition allegedly proposed the creation of another
    legislative body separate from the Sanggunian, composed of 12 appointive sectoral
    representatives. Not only does the GC 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.

    Issue:
    Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction when it dismissed his second initiative petition.

    Whether the COMELEC is mandated to enforce and administer the laws on local initiative
    and referendum

    Ruling:
    No, the COMELEC did not acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
    of jurisdiction when it dismissed the second initiative petition of the petitioner.

    Yes, the COMELEC is mandated to enforce and administer the laws on local initiative and
    referendum.

    Application/Analysis:
    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 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."

    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.

    Conclusion:
    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.

    You might also like