Reset of barangay, SK polls questioned at SC
An election lawyer has challenged before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12232 or the law postponing the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections (BSKE) and extending the term of incumbent officials.
In a 34-page petition filed on Friday, Romulo Macalintal sought a temporary restraining order and/or status quo ante order directing the Office of the President (OP) to cease and desist from implementing RA 12232 or to observe the status quo before the law’s passage.
The new law, which was signed by President Marcos last Wednesday, has moved the BSKE elections to Nov. 2, 2026, and extended the term of office of all village and youth officials to four years from three.
Macalintal, however, said this move could have been mere political accommodation.
No justification
“Those are political promises,” Macalintal said in a mix of Filipino and English in an interview with reporters after filing the petition.
“[The postponement law] is to fulfill the promise made by legislators who ran in the past election to barangay officials to gain their patronage and assistance in the 2025 elections. That if they win, they will postpone the elections and extend the term of office of the barangay officials,” Macalintal added.
He also said that setting the term of office for BSKE officials “is not a valid ground to postpone the election.”
He cited the 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court which states that declaring a postponement must be justified by “sufficiently important, substantial, or compelling reasons to safeguard the right of suffrage.”
Four subjects
“In the case of RA 12232, the 2025 BSKE was sought to be rescheduled and postponed to another date, not for any important, substantial, or compelling reason, but merely on account of perceived shortness of the incumbent BSK officials’ term of office,” Macalintal said.
He added that the new law violates the “one subject-one title” rule enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
The petition states that RA 12232’s title, “An Act Postponing the December 2025 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, Providing for a New Term of Office for Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Officials, and for Other Purposes,” is misleading and attempts to bundle multiple, disparate subjects into a single legislative measure.
According to the legal filing, the law contains at least four distinct and “inconsistent” subjects: setting a new term of office for barangay officials; setting a new term of office for Sangguniang Kabataan officials; postponing the December 2025 BSKE; and extending the tenure of incumbent BSKE officials.
The petitioner argued that the postponement of the elections and the extension of incumbent officials’ terms were “inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject” of merely setting a new term of office.
Cloud of uncertainty
Macalintal said the provisions were “merely log-rolled” into the law, a practice the one subject-one title rule is designed to prevent. This constitutional provision, found in Section 26(1), Article VI, mandates that “every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”
He, meanwhile, asked the court to direct the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to continue with preparations for the scheduled elections on Dec. 1 this year.
In a statement, Comelec Chair George Garcia said he welcomed the filing, adding that the “cloud of uncertainty should be removed outright.”
“Early filing of petition means early determination whether to proceed or not with our preparations,” Garcia said.
Named as respondents of the petition were the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Comelec and the OP, through Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.
