MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the President, Senate, House of Representatives and Commission on Elections (Comelec) have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss lawyer Romulo Macalintal’s petition seeking to revive the 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE), insisting that the law moving the polls to 2028 is a valid exercise of Congress’ constitutional power.
In a 64-page comment filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the respondents argued that Republic Act (RA) 12326 is not an election-postponement law disguised as a term-fixing measure, but a legitimate law extending the term of barangay and SK officials from four to five years.
RA 12326, signed on Sept. 24, 2026, resets the next BSKE to the second Monday of November 2028 and provided that elections would be held every five years thereafter. Following the law’s publication, the Comelec stopped activities related to the Nov. 2 elections.
The respondents said Congress was expressly empowered under Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution to determine the term of barangay officials. They argued that this authority necessarily includes the power to determine when the term begins and ends and, consequently, when elections should be held.
They also cited the Court’s November 2025 ruling in an earlier Macalintal case, which upheld RA 12232, the law that set a four-year term for barangay and SK officials and moved the BSKE to 2026.
According to the respondents, the 2025 ruling is crucial because the Court had distinguished between a law whose primary purpose is to fix officials’ terms and one whose principal purpose is to postpone elections.
“RA No. 12326 is a valid term-fixing law,” the respondents maintained, arguing that the resulting movement of the 2026 elections is merely an incidental consequence of extending the officials’ terms.
They further rejected Macalintal’s argument that the law violates the people’s right to vote. The respondents said the Constitution did not prescribe a specific election frequency or term length for barangay and SK officials, as long as elections remain regular and periodic.
The government side also defended the five-year term on policy grounds. It said Congress considered the villages' (barangay) five-year development planning cycle, the limited resources of many barangay, the time needed to complete projects, and the cost of holding elections.
The comment noted that more than 70 percent of barangay have annual budgets below ₱5 million, while elections cost roughly ₱19 billion per cycle. A five-year term, the respondents argued, would mean two elections over a 10-year period instead of three under a four-year cycle.
Congress also considered terms ranging from three to 10 years before settling on five, the respondents said. The measure received support from the Liga ng mga Barangay, the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the National Youth Commission.
The respondents likewise rejected Macalintal’s claim that the law effectively constituted a legislative appointment of incumbent barangay officials through holdover. They argued that the holdover provision merely ensured continuity of government service until successors are elected and qualified.
“Hold-over ensures continuity of public service until successors are duly elected and qualified,” the respondents said, stressing that the incumbents were originally elected and therefore their continued service does not amount to an appointment.
They also asked the Court to reject Macalintal’s challenge based on the Constitution’s one-subject, one-title rule. The respondents said the adjustment of the election calendar is directly related to the law’s central purpose of fixing the five-year term and was openly debated during congressional deliberations.
On Macalintal’s request for a status quo ante order, temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the respondents argued that he has no clear legal right to a Nov. 2, 2026 BSKE because that election date was already amended by RA 12326.
