WITHIN a non-extendible period of five days, the Supreme Court has ordered the Office of the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to comment on lawyer Romulo Macalintal’s petition for certiorari and prohibition, as well as his prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or status quo ante order.
Macalintal challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 12326 that fixes the tenure of office of incumbent barangay (village) officials from three to five years. He argues that since the law, in effect, postponed the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) scheduled in November 2026, it violates the electorate’s constitutional right to vote, defeats the opportunity of those eligible to be elected, and unfairly allows current officials to hold over their positions.
It was a postponement disguised as an extension.
The Supreme Court, in the cases of Macalintal vs. Comelec (GR 263590) and Hidalgo et al. vs. Executive Secretary et al. (GR 263673), has set forth guidelines and principles for the information of the courts, lawyers and the public pertaining to any government action that seeks to postpone any election.
The postponement of regularly scheduled elections, the Supreme Court said, may be justified if it serves “sufficiently important, substantial and compelling” reasons, including national emergency situations that tend to prevent the conduct of free, honest, orderly and safe elections.
There are no such national emergency situations.
The Supreme Court likewise emphasized that any postponement should be based on “genuine reasons and only on objective and reasonable criteria,” and not on “other superficial or farcical reasons.”
The BSKE timelines and schedules have been set; logistics, as well as the funds, are ready and available.
That is why we all expressed optimism that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. would see through the machinations of this and previous postponements of the BSKE. We had hoped that he would veto the enrolled bill. But we were wrong.
The ‘wisdom’ behind the legislation
Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, as one of the proponents, argues that RA 12326 will provide “institutional stability” by not subjecting the barangay elections to a cycle of postponements. Other advocates of the law claim that a longer term affords continuity in the planning, execution, and sustainment of long-term community developmental projects. The Department of the Interior and Local Government contends that a longer period to govern promotes greater accountability and transparency in governance. And finally, President Marcos believes that giving barangay officials a five-year term maximizes their service to their constituents in the village.
Solicitor General Darlene Berberabe is yet to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to comment on behalf of the respondents. But I am sure she will argue that, firstly, this is not a postponement of the BSKE but a valid exercise of legislative power to fix the term of barangay officials vested in Congress under the 1987 Constitution. And second, there are legitimate government interests and objectives that the legislative measure seeks to support.
We must beg to disagree.
We argue that it was not mere fixing the term of office of barangay officials; it is a term extension, plain and simple, that was meant to create political indebtedness on the part of incumbent barangay officials. Because if the legislative intent is purely to fix a new term of office for barangay officials, Congress could have given the law a prospective application. But it did not.
Thus, no matter how hard the authors attempt to sugarcoat the passage of this law, they fail to bury its ugly head.
The legislators who drafted the bill and the president who signed it into law never intended to serve the interest of the people but themselves. Term extension is a “political investment,” and the dividend will be delivered by grateful barangay officials through electoral support in the 2028 presidential elections.
Quid pro quo. A deal that shrewd politicians struck at the expense of the people who will endure another two years under corrupt and inept barangay officials.
The timing is likewise suspect. RA 12326 was passed on Sept. 24, four days before the filing of certificates of candidacy from Sept. 28 to Oct. 5. The law was enacted 39 days before the scheduled elections on Nov. 2, leaving almost no time to challenge the constitutionality of the law before the high court.
So what?
Let us be vigilant of our rights the way Macalintal zealously does.
There is always a sinister way for shrewd politicians to perpetuate themselves to power while invoking the Constitution. This apparent abuse of congressional power to fix the term of barangay officials reveals yet another mistake that former constitutional commissioner Christian Monsod admits: underestimating the greed of the politicians.
We should exercise seriously and conscientiously our sacred rights to vote. In a republican representative democracy like ours, we are the ones who stand to suffer the consequences and endure the punishment of electing corrupt and incompetent political leaders. As it is now, we were the ones who elected these same legislators and the same president who willed us to suffer more than we already had by this term extension of barangay officials.
As sovereign Filipino people, we have the power to determine who will govern us and for how long. And should they fail to meet our expectations, we wield the power to remove them by impeachment or through the ballot. We should not surrender those powers or allow our rights to be set aside by the same political leaders we elected.
We hope that the Supreme Court, our last bastion of democracy, will rule in favor of the people and toward the preservation of our rights to choose our leaders in fixed, regular intervals. And for the Supreme Court to issue its ruling with dispatch, since the BSKE sought to be postponed is scheduled in less than a month from today.
And come Election Day, let us not waste our votes then curse government later for the kind of leaders we ourselves put into office.
atty.edarevalo@gmail.com
