SC petitioned to set oral arguments vs. BSKE postponement

Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal filed a motion asking the Supreme Court (SC) to set for oral arguments the petition challenging the constitutionality of the law postponing the 2 November 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE).

The urgent motion had been electronically filed, seeking immediate resolution of his plea for a Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO) or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the implementation of the law.

In his 10-page motion, the petitioner asked the court to set the petition for oral arguments at the earliest available date.

“This Motion is filed in utmost good faith and not for purposes of delay. Petitioner is prepared to argue on any date this Honorable Court may set,” the motion reads in part.

The law effectively cancels the upcoming 2 November 2026 BSKE, extending the terms of incumbent officials by two years.

The filing underscores that the law is not genuinely a term-setting measure but a postponement act designed to bypass established constitutional and legal guidelines.

The petitioner warned that the law could set a dangerous precedent, noting that if Congress can unilaterally postpone barangay elections without explicit constitutional backing, the same rationale could be used to tamper with the May 2028 national and local elections and move them to another year or years.

Macalintal said Congress may be emboldened to postpone the May 2028 presidential election, as the Constitution gives it the power to pass a law changing the election date.

Earlier, the SC had required the respondents – the Office of the President through the Executive Secretary, both Houses of Congress, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) – to comment both on the petition and the plea for an injunctive relief.

The respondents, in their comment, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought the dismissal of Macalintal’s petition and argued: “The determination of the term of barangay (village) officials is a political question. The legislative record enumerates the several governance reasons which led Congress to the policy decision of fixing the term of barangay officials to five years.”

It also said that the hold-over of incumbent barangay and SK officials is an incidental consequence of Congress’ valid exercise of its authority to fix the term of their office.

It was refuted by Macalintal in his reply to the comment raised by the OSG on behalf of the respondents in the petition.

Macalintal pointed out that while government lawyers argued that the law does not extend the terms of incumbent officials, “this claim is flatly belied by Section 5 of R.A. No. 12326 which states: “Considering the extension of their terms to two years, incumbent barangay officials shall be regarded as having completed one term….”

The high bench was told by Macalintal that the Comelec had told the Senate Committee on Local Government that it was fully prepared to conduct the 2 Nov. 2026 BSKE and had spent approximately P8 billion in preparations.

He said: “The materials exist; the voters are registered; the electoral boards are constituted. What remains is the execution of the electoral calendar.”

The SC was also told by Macalintal that if the 2 Nov. 2026 BSKE could no longer be conducted, “the respondent Comelec should be directed to conduct the BSKE on a date reasonably close to 2 Nov. 2026 pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code."