Macalintal asks SC to void law resetting BSKE to 2028

Veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal has asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the law postponing the 2 November 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections to November 2028 and setting subsequent elections every five years.

In a petition filed electronically on Sunday night, 27 September, Macalintal challenged Republic Act No. 12326, which President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed into law on 24 September. The law moves the next BSKE to the second Monday of November 2028 and fixes the terms of barangay and SK officials at five years.

Macalintal asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order or status quo ante order against the implementation of the law and to direct the Commission on Elections to continue preparations for the 2 November polls “in a manner that will ensure clean, honest, and credible elections.”

He also asked the Court to order the elections held on a date reasonably close to 2 November 2026 should time constraints make the original schedule impossible.

The petition was co-signed by lawyers Antonio Carlos Bautista, James Kenneth Adolor and William Kyle Santos. Named as respondents were the Office of the President through the Executive Secretary, the Senate, the House of Representatives and Comelec.

Macalintal argued that the law effectively gives incumbent barangay and SK officials another two years in office after the elections had already been moved from 2025 to 2026. The previous law had set the next BSKE for the first Monday of November 2026 and provided four-year terms thereafter.

He maintained that while Congress has the authority to determine the terms of barangay and SK officials, that power does not necessarily include extending the tenure of incumbents by repeatedly postponing scheduled elections.

Macalintal argued that any five-year term should apply prospectively to officials elected in the 2026 BSKE rather than extending the tenure of those already in office.

He also questioned what he described as the rushed passage and publication of RA 12326 and argued that the law violates the constitutional requirement that every measure embrace only one subject expressed in its title.

According to the petition, describing the measure as one “fixing” five-year terms effectively masks what Macalintal characterized as another postponement of the elections.

He further questioned the law’s transitory provisions, arguing that they could prevent some incumbent barangay officials from seeking another term because of what he described as a failure to distinguish between “term of office” and “tenure of office.”

Under the measure approved by Congress, barangay officials are limited to two consecutive five-year terms, while SK officials remain limited to one term. Incumbent barangay officials serving a third consecutive term are barred from running for the same position in the 2028 elections.

Macalintal argued that without injunctive relief, voters would continue to be governed by incumbent officials for another two years without a fresh electoral mandate.

“Hence, Petitioner respectfully seeks this Honorable Court to exercise its inherent authority to issue the injunctive reliefs prayed for herein so as to preserve the exercise of its jurisdiction and ensure that its judgment will not be a mere paper victory,” the petition stated.