Not to be cited for contempt or be accused of sub judice, political pundits are betting whether or not the latest petition of veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal will get the majority support of the 15-man Supreme Court (SC). Macalintal earlier sought the SC’s intervention to pass upon and declare unconstitutional and invalid Republic Act (RA) 12326, or “An Act Fixing the Term of Office of Barangay Officials and Members of the Sangguniang Kabataan to Five (5).”
RA 12326 effectively postponed the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections (BSKE) from Nov. 2, 2026 to November 2028. A staunch advocate against postponement of BSKE, Macalintal’s petition came three days after President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) inked RA 12326 on Sept. 24. PBBM merely announced the next day he had already approved the Congress-approved legislation without the usual signing ceremonies at Malacañang Palace.
As a veteran election lawyer, Macalintal decried to the SC RA 12326 for violating “the electorate’s right to vote” by postponing the 2026 BSKE. He counts upon outgoing Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo to act expeditiously on his petition before the latter retires next month. Macalintal believes there is still enough time though for the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to catch up and resume their preparations for the BKSE without further delays.
Macalintal bewailed RA12326 allowed the “hold over” of positions of barangay and SK officials for another three years under the guise of fixing the officials’ term of office. Thus, he fervently asked the SC to issue a certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an order for status quo ante (or the way things were before).
Macalintal had filed before similar petitions at the SC against previous attempts by Congresses past to postpone the holding of BKSEs. He won certain similar petitions but he also lost some of them. In a dzBB radio interview a day after the SC resolution came out on his petition, Macalintal believed the SC would rule on his latest petition against the postponement of the BKSE within a matter of “two to three weeks.”
His bold optimism was anchored on the fact that the SC ordered respondents Office of the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives of the 20th Congress and the Comelec to file their respective comments on Macalintal’s petition within “a non-extendible period of five calendar days from notice” issued last Wednesday.
As far as Macalintal is concerned, the SC expedited the process based on the arguments he raised in his latest petition. For him, he considers the SC wording in this resolution favorable to his cause.
“A good sign that my petition (to the SC) has substance,” Macalintal pointed out.
Further, he noted, the SC held a special session to consider his petition when the justices supposedly were taking a break from writing decisions last month. “This means the Supreme Court wants to resolve my petition and motion for TRO,” Macalintal surmised.
Macalintal filed at the SC in Padre Faura in Manila the hard copies of his urgent petition at the first hours of office last Monday Sept. 28. He was most pleasantly surprised when the SC swiftly acted two days later on his petition. So it was not surprising that Macalintal sounded very hopeful and optimistic on the possible outcome of his latest petition, since it was acted upon with unusual speed.
Macalintal maintained the Comelec could reschedule the BSKE even after the original schedule of Nov. 2 this year. “Under existing laws, if there are any supervening events beyond the control of Comelec, it has the power to adjust the election period depending upon the order of the Supreme Court,” he explained.
In fact, he added, the High Court may “consider the days lost in tackling the petition in setting a new schedule for the election” for the Comelec to observe, in compliance with existing laws, to ensure the constitutional right of suffrage of voters would not be compromised.
At our Kapihan sa Manila Bay forum last week, Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia confirmed the seven-man poll body exercisea these mandates under the 1985 Omnibus Election Code. Himself a veteran election lawyer, Garcia specifically cited Article 1, Section 5 on postponement of election. He quoted in part: “When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure and other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible.”
In case the SC upholds RA 12326, Garcia stressed the Comelec has motu proprio (or on its own) power to act upon a verified petition “to postpone the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.”
According to Garcia, the Comelec has already spent around P8 billion out of this year’s P19.57-billion budget to conduct the nationwide BSKE, with the P11-billion unreleased balance still at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
Garcia recalled the previous postponement of the BSKE to November 2026 and set a fixed four-year term for village and youth officials under RA 12232 signed by PBBM on Aug. 13, 2025. Eight SC justices voted “Yes” to uphold RA 12232 as a valid term-setting measure rather than an unconstitutional postponement of elections. Five SC justices, however, cast “No” votes while two abstained.
Garcia further recalled citing force majeure or acts of God can justify election postponement at the oral arguments at the SC on RA 12232. “Or by the act of gods of Faura,” Garcia quipped. It elicited controlled guffaws but he got away from being cited for contempt.
With precedent BKSE cases, the betting is now on how the SC rules this time around, based on that 8-5-2 decision.