The logo of the Supreme Court at the Supreme Court Building in Manila.Philstar.com / Ian Laqui

Election lawyer seeks TRO vs law moving barangay, SK polls to 2028

by · philstar

MANILA, Philippines — Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law postponing the November 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections to November 2028.

Macalintal filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on Monday, September 28 challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act 12326, naming the Office of the President, Senate, House of Representatives and Commission on Elections as respondents.

He also sought an immediate status quo ante order, temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to halt the law's implementation.

"I thought 'forever' was only in love. Turns out 'forever' also exists in barangay election postponements," Macalintal told reporters in Filipino at the Supreme Court grounds.

"That is why we will fight this, because this postponement is far too long. And our right to vote was taken away from us by our lawmakers," he added.

'Whimsical' 3-year delay

Macalintal argued that the law infringes on the electorate's right of suffrage under the guise of "fixing" the term of barangay officials at five years.

The last BSKE was held on Oct. 30, 2023, while the next elections were originally scheduled for December 2025.

Congress later moved the polls to November 2026 through Republic Act 12232, which also adjusted the term of office to four years.

Republic Act 12326, meanwhile, postpones the elections by another two years to November 2028, resulting in a cumulative three-year delay from the original December 2025 schedule.

Macalintal argued that the repeated deferrals deprives voters of their right to vote for an unreasonably long period.

The delay, he said, is a "very clear grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Congress." He also called the postponement "very apparent arbitrary and whimsical," citing Macalintal v. Senate and Macalintal v. COMELEC.

'Lightning speed'

Macalintal also questioned how quickly the law was enacted.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Republic Act 12326 on September 24, with the law taking effect immediately upon its publication the following day.

"It was practically enacted at lightning speed, mabilis pa sa kidlat, or in apparent haste, and with the clear and direct effect of shutting the courthouse doors to Petitioner and similarly situated citizens, leaving them with a dangerously narrow window to study, research, and draft a well-founded petition, considering that the November 2, 2026 BSKE is barely one month and a few days away," Macalintal said.

He also challenged the administration's justifications for postponement, including the use of incumbent officials to help fight crime, manage floods and coordinate garbage disposal.

Macalintal argued that these are routine administrative functions that do not meet what he described as the strict constitutional standards for postponing elections established in Macalintal v. Comelec.

He also questioned justifications raised during congressional deliberations involving funding risks from the global oil crisis and conflicts in the Middle East.

Macalintal pointed out that those external crises did not prevent the government from holding the Sept. 14, 2026 elections in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

He also cited the Comelec's declaration that it was fully prepared for the November 2026 BSKE, arguing that postponement would waste billions of pesos already spent on preparations.

Holdover provision challenged

Beyond the postponement itself, Macalintal also challenged the law's transitory provision, which treats the holdover period of incumbent officials as a completed term.

He argued that the provision conflates "term of office" with "tenure of office" and effectively amounts to the legislative appointment of holdover officials, contrary to the constitutional requirement that barangay officials be elected.

The law, he said, effectively creates a "two-year term extension" without clearly identifying the provision that grants it.