GR 263590 Dimaampao (Digest)
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
The consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 11935, an act which postponed the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) originally scheduled for December 5, 2022, to the last Monday of October 2023. The main issue is whether this postponement is unconstitutional.
ISSUE
Whether the proper level of judicial scrutiny to determine the constitutionality of RA No. 11935, a law postponing elections, is the strict scrutiny test or the intermediate scrutiny test.
RULING
In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Justice Dimaampao agrees with the ponencia’s result that RA No. 11935 was enacted with grave abuse of discretion. However, he diverges on the applicable test, arguing that the strict scrutiny test must apply, not the intermediate scrutiny test used by the ponencia. He posits that any law postponing an election interferes with the fundamental right of suffrage. Citing jurisprudence, he states the strict scrutiny test applies when a classification interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights. He argues that regulating the time of the election constitutes an adequate interference with the right to vote, warranting strict scrutiny. He rejects the notion that only a “direct and undue burden” or an “undue and unjustifiably prolonged restriction” triggers strict scrutiny, asserting that any impingement, even if temporary, on the sovereign people’s constitutional right of suffrage demands strict scrutiny review.