G.R. No. 213953 , September 26, 2017
ENGR. OSCAR A. MARMETO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioner Engr. Oscar A. Marmeto, on behalf of the Muntinlupa People Power, filed a proposed ordinance with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Muntinlupa City seeking to create a sectoral council and appropriate ₱200 million for livelihood programs. After the Sanggunian failed to act within 30 days, Marmeto invoked the local initiative process under the Local Government Code (LGC). The City Secretary informed the COMELEC that the city’s budget for 2013 had been enacted, necessitating a new appropriation to fund the initiative process. The COMELEC initially dismissed the petition, ruling the proposal was beyond the Sanggunian’s powers. Following a suggestion from the COMELEC, Marmeto re-filed the proposal with the newly elected Sanggunian in December 2013. Again, receiving no action, he filed a second initiative petition in February 2014.
The COMELEC, through the assailed Resolution No. 14-0509 dated July 22, 2014, dismissed the second petition. It cited the absence of any budgetary allocation in the COMELEC’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget for the expenses related to conducting a local initiative, such as setting up signature stations and verifying signatures. Marmeto filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by evading its ministerial duty to conduct initiative proceedings due to lack of funds.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Marmeto’s initiative petition solely on the ground of lack of a specific budgetary appropriation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court clarified that while the COMELEC has a constitutional and statutory mandate to enforce and administer laws on initiative and referendum, this duty is not absolute and is subject to the availability of funds appropriated by law. The Court emphasized that no government agency can incur obligations or spend public funds without a corresponding appropriation, as this would violate constitutional and statutory provisions on fiscal management.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle that the COMELEC’s power to act is contingent upon a prior legislative grant of funds. The General Appropriations Act (GAA) for FY 2014 contained no specific line-item allocation for local initiative activities. Consequently, the COMELEC could not legally undertake the resource-intensive processes (e.g., signature verification, certification) required by the initiative without violating laws prohibiting unauthorized expenditures. The Court distinguished the COMELEC’s ministerial duty to act upon a proper petition from its operational capacity to execute the process, which is inherently discretionary and budget-dependent. Therefore, the COMELEC’s refusal to proceed due to the lack of a specific appropriation was a valid exercise of its discretion and a necessary adherence to fiscal responsibility laws, not an evasion of duty. The dismissal was proper as agencies cannot perform functions that entail expenditures without the requisite budgetary support.