G.R. No. 263590, June 27, 2023
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 263673] ATTY. ALBERTO N. HIDALGO, ATTY. ALUINO O. ALA, ATTY. AGERICO A. AVILA, ATTY. TED CASSEY B. CASTELLO, ATTY. JOYCE IVY C. MACASA, AND ATTY. FRANCES MAY C. REALINO, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS SENATE PRESIDENT, JUAN MIGUEL ZUBIRI, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, FERDINAND MARTIN ROMUALDEZ, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 11935, which postponed the December 5, 2022 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) to the last Monday of October 2023. During the oral arguments, the Chairperson of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), George Erwin M. Garcia, admitted and confirmed that the reason advanced by Congress for the postponement, as stated in the explanatory notes of the original Senate Bills, was to enable the government to realign a portion of the P8.44 billion appropriations for the BSKE towards interventions addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and socioeconomic objectives. The COMELEC Chairperson further clarified that, under the Constitution, the COMELEC enjoys fiscal autonomy and the funds, once released and earmarked for the election, cannot be realigned by Congress or any other body except the COMELEC itself.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 11935 is unconstitutional for violating substantive due process and the equal protection clause.

RULING

The assailed law is unconstitutional. A law with an invalid reason for its enactment is unreasonable and violates substantive due process. The real reason for the postponement—to realign BSKE funds for other government projects—is unconstitutional and illegal, as the COMELEC’s fiscal autonomy means only it can realign its earmarked funds. This reason cannot constitute a compelling governmental interest. Furthermore, statutes restricting the regular exercise of the constitutional right of suffrage, such as this postponement, must pass the strict scrutiny test. The State failed to prove a compelling interest, and the means employed were not the least restrictive. The law also violates the equal protection clause as it makes a classification based only on present conditions (the incumbent barangay officials at the time of passage) and not on future ones, which is invalid.