G.R. No. 111230. September 30, 1994
ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF MORONG, BATAAN, RESPONDENTS.
PUNO, J.:
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initiatives where local ordinances and resolutions can be enacted or repealed.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.
In its Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993,[1]
the Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong, Bataan agreed to the inclusion of the
municipality of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accord
with Republic Act No. 7227.
On May 24, 1993, petitioners filed a petition[2] with
the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye
1993. The petition states:
“I. Bawiin,
nulipikahin at pawalang-bisa ang Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 ng
Sangguniang Bayan para sa pag-anib ng Morong sa SSEZ na walang kondisyon.
II. Palitan ito ng
isang Pambayang Kapasiyahan na aanib lamang ang Morong sa SSEZ kung ang mga
sumusunod na kondisyones ay ipagkakaloob, ipatutupad at isasagawa para sa
kapakanan at interes ng Morong at Bataan:
‘(A). Ibalik sa Bataan
ang “Virgin Forests” — isang bundok na hindi nagagalaw at
punong-puno ng malalaking punong-kahoy at iba’-ibang halaman.
(B). Ihiwalay ang
Grande Island sa SSEZ at ibalik ito sa Bataan.
(K). Isama ang mga
lupain ng Bataan na nakapaloob sa SBMA sa pagkukuenta ng salaping
ipinagkakaloob ng pamahalaang national o “Internal Revenue Allotment”
(IRA) sa Morong, Hermosa at sa Lalawigan.
(D). Payagang magtatag
rin ng sariling “special economic zones” ang bawat bayan ng Morong,
Hermosa at Dinalupihan.
(E). Ibase sa laki ng
kanya-kanyang lupa ang pamamahagi ng kikitain ng SBMA.
(G). Ibase rin ang
alokasyon ng pagbibigay ng trabaho sa laki ng nasabing mga lupa.
(H). Pabayaang bukas
ang pinto ng SBMA na nasa Morong ng 24 na oras at bukod dito sa magbukas pa ng pinto sa hangganan
naman ng Morong at Hermosa upang magkaroon ng pagkakataong umunlad rin ang mga
nasabing bayan, pati na rin ng iba pang bayan ng Bataan.
(I). Tapusin ang
pagkokonkreto ng mga daang Morong-Tala-Orani at Morong-Tasig-Dinalupihan para
sa kabutihan ng mga taga-Bataan at tuloy makatulong sa pangangalaga ng mga
kabundukan.
(J). Magkaroon ng
sapat na representasyon sa pamunuan
ng SBMA ang Morong, Hermosa at Bataan.'”
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 1991.[3] They
started to solicit the required number of signatures[4] 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 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 will just promote divisiveness, counter productive and futility.”[5]
We quote the letter, viz:
“The Executive Director
C O M E L E C
Intramuros, Metro Manila
Sir:
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:
ISSUES RAISED BY
PROPONENTS
I. Pawalang-bisa ang Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
Serye ng taong 1993.
II. Palitan ito ng isang Kapasyahang Pag-anib sa SSEZ kung;
a)
Ibabalik sa Morong ang pag-aaring Grande Island, kabundukan at Naval
Reservation;
b)
Ibase sa aring lupa ng LGU ang kikitain at mapapasok na
manggagawa nila sa SSEZ;
c)
Isama ang nasabing lupa sa pagkukuwenta ng ‘IRA’ ng Morong, Hermosa at
Dinalupihan;
d)
Makapagtatag ng sariling ‘economic zones’ ang Morong, Hermosa
at Dinalupihan;
e)
Pabayaang bukas ang pinto ng Morong patungong SSEZ at magbukas
ng dalawang (2) pinto pa;
f)
Konkretohin ang daang Morong papunta sa Orani at Dinalupihan;
g)
Pumili ng SBMA Chairman na taga-ibang lugar.
ACTIONS
UNDERTAKEN BY THE SB OF MORONG
1. By virtue of R.A. 7227, otherwise known as the
Bases Conversion Development Act of 1992,
all actions of LGU’s correlating on the above issues are merely recommendatory
in nature when such provisions were already embodied in the statute.
2. Corollary to the notion, the Sangguniang Bayan
of Morong passed and approved Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye 1993,
requesting Congress of the Philippines to amend certain provisions of R.A.
7227, wherein it reasserted its position embodied in Pambayan Kapasyahan Blg.
08 and Blg. 12, Serye ng taong 1992, (Attached and marked as Annex “A:)
which tackled the same issues raised by the petitioners particularly items a),
b), c), e), and g).
3. Item d) is already acted upon by BCDA Chairman
Arsenio Bartolome III in its letter to His Excellency President Fidel V. Ramos,
dated May 7, 1993 (Attached and marked as Annex “B”) with clarifying
letter from BCDA Vice-Chairman Rogelio L. Singson regarding lands on Mabayo and
Minanga dated June 3, 1993 that only lands inside the perimeter fence are
envisioned to be part of SBMA.
4. Item f), President Ramos in his marginal note
over the letter request of Morong, Bataan Mayor Bienvenido L. Vicedo, the
Sangguniang Bayan and Congressman Payumo, when the Resolution of Concurrence to
SBMA was submitted
last April 6, 1993, order the priority implementation of completion of
Morong-Dinalupihan (Tasik-Road) Project, including the Morong-Poblacion-Mabayo
Road to DPWH. (Attached and marked as Annex
“C”).
Based on the foregoing facts, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Morong had accommodated the clamor of the petitioners in
accordance with its limited powers over the issues. However, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong cannot afford to wait
for amendments by Congress of R.A. 7227 that will perhaps drag for several
months or years, thereby
delaying the development of Morong, Bataan.
Henceforth, we respectfully reiterate our
request to deny the petition for a local initiative and/or referendum because
the exercise will just promote divisiveness, counter productive and futility.
Thank you and more power.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDILBERTO M. DE LEON
Mun. Vice Mayor/Presiding Officer”
In its session of July 6, 1993, the
COMELEC en banc resolved to deny the petition for local initiative on the
ground that its subject is “merely a resolution (pambayang kapasyahan) and
not an ordinance.”[6] On
July 13, 1993, the COMELEC en banc further resolved to direct Provincial
Election Supervisor, Atty. Benjamin N. Casiano, to hold action on the
authentication of signatures being gathered by petitioners.[7]
These COMELEC resolutions are sought to be set aside in the
petition at bench. The petition makes the
following submissions:
“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.
5.01.1 As an
administrative agency, respondent Comelec is bound to observe due process in
the conduct of its proceedings. Here,
the subject resolutions, Annexes “E” and “H”, were issued ex
parte and without affording petitioners and the other proponents of the
initiative the opportunity to be heard thereon. More importantly, these resolutions and/or directives were issued
with grave abuse of discretion. A
Sangguniang Bayan resolution being an act of the aforementioned local
legislative assembly is undoubtedly
a proper subject of initiative. (Sec. 32, Art. VI, Constitution)
5.02 For mandamus,
pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 65, Rules of Court, to command the respondent Comelec
to schedule forthwith the continuation of the signing of the petition, and
should the required number of signatures be obtained, set a date for the
initiative within forty-five (45) days thereof.
5.02.1 Respondent
Comelec’s authority in the matter of local initiative is merely
ministerial. It is duty-bound to
supervise he gathering of signatures in support of the petition and to set the
date of the initiative once the required number of signatures are obtained.
‘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.'”
Respondent COMELEC opposed the
petition. Through the Solicitor
General, it contends that under the Local Government Code of 1991, a resolution
cannot be the subject of a local initiative. The same stance is assumed by the respondent Sangguniang Bayan of
Morong.[8]
We grant the petition.
The case at bench is of transcendental significance because it
involves an issue of first impression -delineating the extent of the all
important original power of the people to legislate. Father Bernas explains that “in republican systems, there
are generally two kinds of legislative
power, original and derivative. Original legislative power is possessed by the sovereign people. Derivative legislative power is that which
has been delegated by the sovereign people to legislative bodies and is
subordinate to the original power of the people.”[9]
Our constitutional odyssey shows that up until 1987, our people
have not directly exercised legislative power, both the constituent power to
amend or revise the Constitution or the power to enact ordinary laws. Section 1, Article VI of the 1935
Constitution delegated legislative power to Congress, thus “the
legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines, which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” Similarly, section 1,
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, provided that “the
Legislative power shall be vested in a Batasang Pambansa.”[10]
Implicit in the set up was the trust of the people in Congress to
enact laws for their benefit. So total was their trust that the people did not reserve for themselves
the same power to make or repeal laws. The omission was to prove unfortunate. In the 70’s and until the EDSA revolution, the legislature failed the
expectations of the people especially when former President Marcos wielded
lawmaking powers under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. Laws which could have bridled the nation’s
downslide from democracy to authoritarianism to anarchy never saw the light of
day.
In February 1986, the people took a direct hand in the
determination of their destiny. They
toppled down the government of former President Marcos in a historic bloodless
revolution. The Constitution was
rewritten to embody the lessons of their sad experience. One of the lessons is the folly of
completely surrendering the power to make laws to the legislature. The result, in the perceptive words of
Father Bernas, is that the new Constitution became “less trusting of
public officials than the American Constitution.”[11]
For the first time in
1987, the system of people’s initiative was thus installed in our fundamental
law. To be sure, it was a late
awakening. As early as 1898, the state
of South Dakota has adopted initiative
and referendum in its
constitution[12]
and many states have followed suit.[13]
In any event, the framers of our 1987 Constitution realized the value of
initiative and referendum as an ultimate weapon of the people to negate
government malfeasance and misfeasance and they put in place an overarching
system. Thus, thru an initiative, the
people were given
the power to amend the Constitution itself. Sec. 2 of Art. XVII provides: “Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
therein.” Likewise, thru an initiative, the people were also endowed with
the power to enact or reject any
act or law by
congress or local legislative body. Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI provide:
“Section
1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of
the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.
x x x.
Section
32. 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
or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed
by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters thereof.
The COMELEC was also empowered to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative
and referendum.[14]
Worthwhile noting is the scope of coverage of an initiative or referendum as
delineated by section 32 Art. VI of the Constitution, supra – any act or law passed by
Congress or local legislative body.
In due time, Congress responded to the mandate of the
Constitution. It enacted laws to put
into operation the constitutionalized concept of initiative and
referendum. On August 4, 1989, it
approved Republic Act No. 6735 entitled “An Act Providing for a System of
Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor.” Liberally borrowed
from American laws,[15] R.A.
No. 6735, among others, spelled out the requirements[16]
for the exercise of the power of initiative and referendum, the conduct of
national initiative and referendum;[17] the
procedure of initiative and referendum;18 and their limitations.19
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, or local legislative body x x x” An act includes a
resolution. Black20 defines an
act as “an expression of will or purpose … it may denote something
done… as a legislature, including not merely physical acts, but also decrees,
edicts, laws, judgments, resolves, awards,
and determinations x x x.” It is basic that a law should be construed in
harmony with and not in violation of the Constitution.21 In line
with this postulate, we held in Re Guarina that “if there is doubt or
uncertainty as to the meaning of the legislative, if the words or provisions
are obscure, or if the enactment is fairly susceptible of two or more
constructions, that interpretation will be adopted which will avoid the effect
of unconstitutionality, even though it may be necessary, for this purpose, to
disregard the more usual or apparent import of the language used.”22
The constitutional command to include acts (i.e., resolutions)
as appropriate subjects of initiative was implemented by Congress when it
enacted Republic Act No. 6735 entitled “An Act Providing for a System of
Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor.” Thus, its
section 3(a) expressly includes resolutions as subjects of initiatives on local
legislations, viz:
“Sec. 3. Definition of
Terms – For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean:
(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.” (Emphasis ours)
Similarly, its section 16 states: “Limitations Upon Local Legislative Bodies – Any proposition
on ordinance or resolution approved through the system of initiative and referendum as
herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended, by the local
legislative body concerned within six (6) months from the date therefrom x x x.” On January 16, 1991, the
COMELEC also promulgated its Resolution No. 2300 entitled “In Re Rules and
Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and
Initiative and Referendum, on National and Local Laws.” It likewise recognized
resolutions as proper subjects of initiatives. Section 5, Article I of its Rules states: “Scope of power of initiative – The power of initiative may
be exercised to amend the Constitution, or to enact a national legislation, a
regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay law, resolution or
ordinance.”
There can hardly be any doubt that when Congress enacted Republic
Act No. 6735 it intended resolutions to be proper subjects of local
initiatives. The debates confirm this
intent. We quote some of the
interpellations when the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing
provisions between Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 were being
considered in the House of Representatives, viz:
“THE SPEAKER PRO
TEMPORE. The Gentleman from Camarines
Sur is recognized.
MR. ROCO. On the Conference Committee Report on
the disagreeing provisions between Senate Bill No. 17 and the consolidated
House Bill No. 21505 which refers to
the system providing for the initiative ad referendum, fundamentally, Mr. Speaker,
we consolidated the Senate and the House versions, so both versions are totally
intact in the bill. The Senators
ironically provided for local
initiative and referendum and the House of Representatives correctly provided
for initiative and referendum on the Constitution and on national legislation.
I move that we approve the consolidated bill.
MR. ALBANO. Mr Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What is the pleasure of the Minority
Floor Leader?
MR. ALBANO. Will the distinguished sponsor answer just a few questions?
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What does the sponsor say?
MR. ROCO. Willingly, Mr.
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The
Gentleman will please 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 amendments to the 1987 Constitution, it is every five
years.”23
Contrary to the submission of the respondents, the subsequent
enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 which also dealt with local
initiative did not change the scope of its coverage. More specifically, the Code did not limit the coverage of local
initiatives to ordinances alone. Section
120, Chapter 2, Title IX Book I of the Code cited by respondents merely defines
the concept of local initiative as the legal process whereby the registered
voters of a local government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance. It does not, however, deal with the
subjects or matters that can be taken up in a local initiative. It is section 124 of the same Code which
does. It states:
“Sec. 124. Limitations
on Local Initiatives. (a) The power of
local initiative shall not be exercised more 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.”
This provision clearly does not limit the
application of local initiatives to ordinances, but to all “subjects or
matters which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunians to enact,”
which undoubtedly includes resolutions. This interpretation is supported by section 125 of the same Code which
provides: “Limitations upon
Sanggunians. – Any proposition or
ordinance approved through the system
of initiative and referendum as herein provided shall not be repealed, modified
or amended by the sanggunian concerned within six (6) months from the date of
the approval thereof x x x.” Certainly, the inclusion of the word proposition is inconsistent with respondents’ thesis that
only ordinances can be the subject of local initiatives. The principal author of the Local Government
Code of 1991, former Senator Aquilino Pimentel, espouses the same
view. In his commentaries on the said
law, he wrote, viz:24
“4. Subject Matter Of
Initiative. All sorts of measures may
be the subject of direct initiative for as long as these are within the
competence of the Sanggunian to enact. In California, for example, direct initiatives were proposed to enact a
fishing control bill, to regulate the practice of chiropractors, to levy a
special tax to secure a new library, to grant a franchise to a railroad
company, and to prevent discrimination in the sale of housing and similar
bills.
Direct initiative on the local level may, therefore, cover all
kinds of measures provided that these are within the power of the local
Sanggunians to enact, subject of course to the other requisites enumerated in
the section.
5. Form of
Initiative. Regarding the form of the
measure, the section speaks only of “ordinance,” although the measure
may be contained in a resolution. If
the registered voters can propose ordinances, why are they not allowed to
propose resolutions too? Moreover, the
wording of Sec. 125, below, which deals not only with ordinances but with
“any proposition” implies the inclusion of resolutions. The discussion hereunder will also show
support for the conclusion that resolutions may indeed be the subject of local
initiative.”
We note that respondents do not give any reason why resolutions
should not be the subject of a local initiative. In truth, the reason lies in the well known distinction between a
resolution and an ordinance – i.e., that a resolution is used whenever the
legislature wishes to express an opinion which is to have only a temporary
effect while an ordinance is intended to permanently direct and control matters
applying to persons or things in general.25 Thus,
resolutions are not normally subject to referendum for it may destroy the
efficiency necessary to the successful administration of the business affairs
of a city.26
In the case at bench, however, it can not be argued that the
subject matter of the resolution of the municipality of Morong merely
temporarily affects the people of Morong for it directs a permanent rule of
conduct or government. The inclusion of
Morong as part
of the Subic Special Economic Zone has far reaching implications in the
governance of its people. This is
apparent from a
reading of section 12 of Republic Act No. 7227 entitled “An Act
Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive
Uses, Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority For This Purpose,
Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes.” to wit:
“Sec. 12. Subic
Special Economic Zone. – Subject to the
concurrence by resolution of the sangguniang panlungsod of the
City of Olongapo and the sangguniang bayan of the Municipalities of Subic,
Morong and Hermosa, there is hereby created a Special Economic and Free-port
Zone consisting of the City of Olongapo and the Municipality of Subic, Province
of Zambales, the lands occupied by the Subic Naval Base and its contiguous
extensions as embraced, covered, and defined by the 1947 Military Bases
Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America as amended,
and within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipalities of Morong and
Hermosa, Province of Bataan, hereinafter referred to as the Subic Special
Economic Zone whose metes and bounds shall be delineated in a proclamation to
be issued by the President of the Philippines. Within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Act, each local
government unit shall submit its resolution of concurrence to join the Subic
Special Economic Zone to the Office of the President. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines shall issue a
proclamation defining the metes and bounds of the zone as provided herein.
The abovementioned zone shall be subject to the following policies:
(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;
(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.”
In relation thereto, section 14 of the same law provides:
“Sec. 14. Relationship with the
Conversion Authority and the Local Government Units. ?
(a) The provisions of
existing laws, rules and regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Subic
Authority shall exercise administrative powers, rule making and disbursement of
funds over the Subic Special Economic Zone in conformity with the oversight
function of the Conversion Authority.
(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.”
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.
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.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED and COMELEC Resolution
93-1623 dated July
6, 1993 and Resolution 931676 dated July 13, 1993 are ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,
Melo, Quiason, Vitug, Kapunan, and
Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, Padilla, and
Bidin, JJ., on leave.
[1]
Annex “B,” Petition.
[2]
Annex “A,” Petition.
[3]
Sec. 122, par. (b) of R.A. No. 7160.
[4]
Sec. 122, par. (e) of R.A. No. 7160.
[5]
Annex “G,” Petition.
[6]
Annex “H,” Petition, embodying Res. 93-1623 of the COMELEC en banc.
[7]
Annex “E,” Petition, embodying Res. 93-1676 of the COMELEC en banc.
[8]
Comment, pp. 61-63, Records.
[9]
Constitutional Structure and Powers of Government, 1991 ed., p. 39.
[10]
Section 1, Article VIII of the original
1973 Constitution provides: “The
Legislative power shall be vested in a National Assembly.” Under Amendment
No. 6 of the same Constitution, legislative power was shared by the President.
[11]
Sounding Board, Today’s issue of September 6, 1994.
[12]
State ex rel. Wagner v. Summers, 33 SD 40, 144 NW 730.
[13]
Among them, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
[14]
Section 2(1) C, Art. IX of the 1987 Constitution.
[15]
Vol. VI, Journal of the House of Representatives, Second Regular Session,
1988-89, February 14, 1989, p. 141 Sponsorship Speech of then Congressman, now
Senator Raul Roco of H.B. No. 21505.
[16]
Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 6735.
[17]
Sec. 8, ibid.
20 Law Dictionary, 5th ed.,
p. 24
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].
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.
24 The Local Government Code
of 1991, The Key to National Development, pp. 229-230.
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.