Philippine Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Suit vs. Barangay, SK Election Postponement Law
Key Takeaways
- •The Office of the Solicitor General filed a 59-page comment on Oct. 5 asking the Supreme Court to reject election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal's petition against Republic Act No. 12326.
- •Republic Act No. 12326, signed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. on Sept. 24, rescheduled the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections and extended the terms of their officials to five years.
- •The OSG argued that the Constitution leaves barangay term lengths to statutory law, so the measure is a valid legislative policy judgment rather than an unconstitutional election postponement.
- •Under the five-year cycle, the government projected P12 billion in savings from holding one fewer election per decade, with overlap with national midterm elections limited to a single instance in 2043.
- •The OSG said the petition improperly bypasses the hierarchy of courts and warned that a status quo ante order would destabilize election administration, which the Commission on Elections already disrupted by suspending preparations on Sept. 25.
The Philippine Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a legal challenge to Republic Act (RA) No. 12326, arguing that Congress acted within its constitutional mandate when it rescheduled the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections (BSKE) and extended the terms of its officials to five years.
In a 59-page comment filed on Oct. 5, Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe urged the high tribunal to deny the petition filed by election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal, who sought a temporary restraining order and the nullification of RA No. 12326 for allegedly violating voter rights under the guise of term setting.
The measure was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. on Sept. 24.
Barangays are the smallest administrative units in Philippine local government, and the Sangguniang Kabataan is the youth council elected alongside them. How often Filipinos vote for these grassroots posts — and whether incumbents hold them longer in the meantime — sits at the heart of the petition.
State lawyers argued that RA 12326 constitutes a valid legislative policy judgment rather than an unconstitutional postponement of elections. They noted that while the Constitution fixes the tenure of other local elective officials at three years, it expressly leaves barangay term lengths to statutory law.
“The Constitution thus reserved for the people’s representatives a question that only experience on the ground can answer: how long those who govern at the grassroots must serve in order to govern well,” the OSG said.
The government added that shifting to a five-year cycle removes one election over a ten-year horizon, generating projected state savings of P12 billion and limiting overlaps with national midterm elections to a single instance in 2043. Either way, the ruling will shape the cost and cadence of the country’s grassroots elections for the next decade.
On procedural grounds, state legal counsel argued that the petition violates the hierarchy of courts by raising disputed factual claims directly before the Supreme Court. It added that a status quo ante order would destabilize election administration, following the Commission on Elections’ suspension of preparations on Sept. 25.
“The harm from a hiatus in barangay governance is incapable of measurement and irreparable,” OSG said.
Attention now turns to the Supreme Court, which may act on Macalintal’s request for a temporary restraining order, require further pleadings, or take up the petition for full adjudication — steps that will determine whether the BSKE proceeds on its original schedule or under the new five-year calendar.
Original reporting by Erika Mae P. Sinaking.
Source: BusinessWorld Online
