Supreme Court upholds 5-year term for barangay, SK officials

MANILA — The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 12326, which extends the terms of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials to five years.

In a decision promulgated on Oct. 14 and released to the public on Friday, the en banc dismissed the petition of election lawyer Romulo Macalintal challenging the constitutionality of RA 12326.

It also denied his plea for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and status quo ante order that would have temporarily blocked the law from being implemented while the case was pending.

The decision also moves the next barangay and SK elections (BSKE) from Nov. 2026 to Nov. 2028.

Macalintal previously argued that RA 12326 is a postponement law in disguise and must meet the guidelines in the SC’s 2023 ruling which allow postponements only for “important, substantial, or compelling” reasons.

However, the high court said in its decision that the law’s title, structure, and purpose show it is a term-setting measure.

“An incidental effect does not convert a term-setting law into a postponement law,” read the decision penned by then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Rodil Zalameda.

The SC also denied Macalintal’s plea to revisit its 2025 ruling, noting that he raised the same theory then and gave no “compelling countervailing consideration.”

It also cited lawmakers’ concerns that holding the BSKE in 2027 would clash with preparations for the May 2028 national elections.

“These considerations do not make November 2028 the only possible date, but the Constitution does not require Congress to prove that no other date could work,” it said.

Citing its 2025 ruling, the court said an election is regular “if it occurs at fixed, predictable intervals established by law.”

It also rejected Macalintal’s argument that moving the election twice in 13 months made it neither regular nor certain.

The law setting the intervals may be amended, it said, “but that does not make the election irregular.”

The court also ruled that letting incumbents stay in office until their successors are elected and qualified is not a legislative appointment.

The Court said a hold-over is “not technically an extension of term of the officer but a recognition of the incumbent as a de facto officer.”

It said the reference to an “extension” in Section 5 of RA 12326 describes the effect of the transition and “does not independently appoint incumbents to a new term.”

In a statement, Comelec Chairman George Garcia welcomed the high court’s decision.

“The SC decision is already a jurisprudence forming part of the law of the land. Our deepest appreciation to the highest court of the land for resolving promptly the controversy and clearing any doubt as to the legality of the law,” Garcia said.