SC upholds constitutionality of law extending Barangay, SK officials' terms

Make this your preferred source to get more updates from this publisher on Google.

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of the law extending the term of office of Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials to five years, while scheduling the next Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) for November 2028.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Republic Act No. 12326 into law in September, which effectively postponed the BSKE, established the five-year term, and rescheduled the polls to 2028.

In a 33-page decision, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal challenging the constitutionality of the law.

The SC stated that the law's primary purpose is to set the term of office rather than to postpone the election, and therefore the guidelines established in the 2023 Macalintal decision—cited by the petitioner—do not apply.

“It sets a new five-year interval between elections. Its principal purpose, as gleaned from its text, is to fix the term of barangay and SK officials. Setting the next BSKE for November 2028 implements the new term, and is not an independent objective,” the decision read.

The High Court noted that rescheduling the BSKE to November 2028 merely implements the new term, adding that an adjustment to the election schedule does not automatically classify the legislation as an election postponement law.

The SC also underscored Congress's power to fix, modify, and extend the term of barangay officials as necessary, provided the transition period before the new term takes effect remains reasonable.

With incumbent barangay officials having been elected on October 30, 2023, the Court found the November 2028 schedule reasonable, not unduly long, and consistent with the five-year term prescribed under RA 12326.

Additionally, the Court considered lawmakers' concerns that conducting the BSKE in 2027 could disrupt the Commission on Elections’ preparations for the May 2028 National and Local Elections, while a five-year cycle starting in 2026 would cause future BSKEs to overlap with the 2031 national polls.

The High Court also rejected the argument that the law infringes upon the public's right to vote, emphasizing that the key requirement of suffrage is that elections take place regularly at fixed and predictable intervals established by law.

“Republic Act No. 12232 did not abolish or indefinitely postpone the BSKE but changed the statutory term and established a new and definite electoral cycle. We ruled that such legislation did not violate the right of suffrage,” the court said.

Finally, the SC clarified that the law does not grant incumbent officials a new term, but rather allows them to remain in office in a holdover capacity, which does not constitute a legislative appointment.

“The incumbents themselves were elected in the October 2023 BKSE. Their continuation in office pending the election of their successors is not an appointment by Congress, but the operation of a hold-over provision that the Court has repeatedly sustained,” the decision noted.

Macalintal previously filed a petition seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order or a status quo ante order directing the Office of the President, through the Executive Secretary, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to refrain from implementing RA No. 12326. He also asked the SC to declare the law inoperative, invalid, and/or unconstitutional insofar as it pertains to the postponement of the BSKE.

Accordingly, the SC denied Macalintal’s prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order, and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the law, ultimately dismissing his petition for lack of merit.

The decision was penned by then Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and promulgated on October 14, 2026.

Comelec

For its part, the Comelec expressed its appreciation for the prompt resolution of the issue, clearing any doubts about the constitutionality of the term-fixing law.

“Although not unanimous, the SC decision is already a jurisprudence forming part of the law of the land. Our deepest appreciation to the highest court for resolving promptly the controversy and clearing any doubt as to the legality of the law,” Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia told reporters in a message.—LDF, GMA News