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

Before the Supreme Court are consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. (RA) 11935, entitled “An Act Postponing the December 2022 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9164 , As Amended, Appropriating Funds therefor, and for Other Purposes.” The law, approved on October 10, 2022, postponed the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) scheduled for December 5, 2022, to the last Monday of October 2023. It also authorized incumbent barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials to remain in office in a hold-over capacity until their successors are duly elected and qualified.
In G.R. No. 263590 , petitioner Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal argues that RA 11935 is unconstitutional on several grounds: (1) Congress has no power to postpone a scheduled election, as this power belongs to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) under the Omnibus Election Code; (2) the law effectively makes a “legislative appointment” of barangay officials by allowing them to hold over, circumventing the requirement that they be elected; (3) it amends the Omnibus Election Code in violation of the one-title-one-subject rule; (4) it deprives the electorate of their right of suffrage by extending the term of incumbents; (5) Congress has the power to fix but not to extend the term of office; (6) it violates equal access to opportunities for public service; and (7) it results in barangay officials having a term longer than their administrative superiors.
In G.R. No. 263673, petitioners Atty. Alberto N. Hidalgo, et al., also challenge the constitutionality of RA 11935, asserting that the passage of the law constitutes grave abuse of discretion. They argue as lawyers, taxpayers, and registered voters, they have legal standing, and that the law infringes on the people’s right to vote and equal access to public service.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the respondents, counters that the petitions fail to allege grave abuse of discretion necessary for the Court’s expanded judicial review. Substantively, the OSG defends RA 11935 as a valid exercise of Congress’s plenary legislative power, arguing it does not infringe on the COMELEC’s powers, the right of suffrage, or equal access to public service, and that hold-over provisions are legal and necessary for government continuity.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 11935 , which postponed the December 2022 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections to October 2023 and authorized incumbent officials to hold over, is unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and declared Republic Act No. 11935 CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Court held that Congress possesses the plenary legislative power to fix the terms of office of barangay officials and to determine the date of their elections. This power includes the authority to postpone a scheduled election and to provide for hold-over incumbents to ensure continuity in government service and prevent a hiatus in public office. The postponement of the BSKE from December 2022 to October 2023 was a legitimate exercise of this power.
The Court ruled that the law does not violate the constitutional mandate on the COMELEC’s exclusive power to enforce election laws. Congress’s power to legislate on the date of elections is distinct from the COMELEC’s administrative power to execute and administer them. RA 11935 did not amend the Omnibus Election Code’s provision on COMELEC’s power to postpone elections due to serious causes but merely exercised Congress’s legislative prerogative to set a new election date.
The hold-over provision in Section 3 of RA 11935 was deemed not a legislative appointment but a recognized legal mechanism to maintain the orderly functioning of government until a new election is held. It does not deprive the people of their right of suffrage, as the postponement merely reschedules the exercise of that right. Furthermore, the law does not violate the principle of equal access to opportunities for public service, as it does not impose restrictions on who may run in the rescheduled elections.
The Court also found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the passage of RA 11935 was attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The law was passed in the legitimate exercise of legislative power, and its constitutionality is presumed.