Who gave barangay execs 5 years? Supreme Court dissenters say not voters

MANILA, Philippines — Five Supreme Court justices warned that extending the terms of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials to five years and moving the elections to November 2028 improperly curtails the people's right to vote.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Ramon Paul Hernando, Ricardo Rosario and Antonio Kho Jr. dissented from the majority decision upholding the constitutionality of Republic Act 12326. Leonen, Caguioa and Kho issued separate opinions, with Hernando and Rosario joining Leonen's dissent.

The majority held that RA 12326 is primarily a term-setting law rather than an election-postponement measure and that Congress has the authority to determine the terms of barangay officials. It also found the November 2028 election schedule reasonable.

The decision, penned by then Associate Justice and now Chief Justice Rodil Zalameda, was promulgated on October 14 and released to the public on November 6.

Caguioa: No compelling reason for extension

Caguioa cautioned that allowing the law to stand would permit Congress to evade judicial review by packaging constitutionally questionable election postponements as term-setting measures.

"I register anew my strong dissent. The Court should not countenance, for a second time, a legislative maneuver that unduly curtails the people's right of suffrage. Republic Act No. 12326 must be declared unconstitutional," Caguioa said.

He also argued that no compelling government interest was shown to justify extending the terms of barangay and SK officials from four to five years so soon after the previous extension.

"If 'effective local governance' is the objective, what has changed in the past year to warrant yet another term extension? Without any study or evidence showing that the four-year term is inadequate or ineffective, the further extension to five years can only be described as whimsical and arbitrary and unduly lengthens the intervals between elections without any demonstrated necessity," Caguioa said.

Kho: Law also postpones elections

Kho argued that RA 12326 is not merely a term-setting law but also an election-postponement measure and should therefore have been subjected to the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in its 2023 Macalintal v. Comelec ruling.

Under that ruling, the postponement of elections must be supported by an important, substantial or compelling reason.

Kho said RA 12326 failed to present a sufficiently important or compelling justification for moving the elections to 2028.

"The postponement of the BSK elections to November 2028 is unreasonably long that the authority of the incumbents to discharge the functions of the office no longer continue to be based on the free expression of the will of the electorate," Kho said.

He also criticized the majority for declining to strike down the law.

"Verily, the Court must not remain passive. The Court should not shirk from its duty in declaring unconstitutional a law that evidently violates the Constitution," Kho said.

"In doing so, the Court will not claim to exercise authority over Congress. Far from it. It would be merely fulfilling its solemn duty to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution. This, the ponencia unfortunately blatantly fails to perform."

Leonen: New term should not apply to incumbents

Leonen, meanwhile, agreed that Congress has the authority to change the terms of barangay officials but said it cannot apply the new five-year term to incumbents elected under a shorter term.

"I regret that I cannot fully join the majority. Postponing the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections abuses the inherent sovereign right to suffrage. This undermines our democracy and the concept of a republican government," Leonen said.

"While the Constitution allows Congress to modify the terms of office of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials, it cannot, however, apply that change to incumbents. Otherwise, our right to suffrage will be infringed," he added.

Leonen likened the vote to a sacred covenant and a public act through which "sovereign" people, the voters, confer authority on officials for a defined period.

"Unlike a contract, which ordinarily arises from private agreement between parties, an election is a public act through which the sovereign people confer authority upon their chosen representatives," he said.

"Through this act, the electorate entrusts the exercise of governmental authority to particular officials for a period prescribed by law. In turn, the candidate elected assume office pursuant to the same legal framework," he added.

Leonen also raised concerns about the effect of the postponement on young voters and prospective SK candidates. Because SK membership and candidacy are subject to age limits, some who would have been eligible to participate in the November 2026 elections may no longer qualify by 2028.

He closed his opinion by urging the court to "do better and protect the sacred fundamental covenant of suffrage."