SC upholds BSKE election postponement, five year term

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 12326, which sets the term of office of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials at five years and schedules the next elections for November 2028.

In a decision penned by then Associate Justice and now Chief Justice Rodil V. Zalameda dated October 14, 2026, the SC dismissed a petition filed by veteran election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal, who challenged the law for allegedly postponing elections without compelling state reasons and violating the public's right to suffrage.

Enacted on 24 September 2026, RA 12326 extends the term of barangay and SK officials from four to five years, amending the previous term established under RA 12232. It also reduces the maximum number of consecutive terms from three to two.

In addressing Macalintal's arguments, the SC ruled that the strict standards established in the landmark 2023 Macalintal v. COMELEC case do not apply, emphasizing that RA 12326 is primarily a term-fixing measure rather than an election postponement law.

The high court explained that Congress has the constitutional authority to determine and adjust the terms of local officials, adding that an incidental change in the election calendar does not automatically classify a term-fixing measure as an election postponement.

The SC also found the November 2028 election schedule reasonable, noting that barangay and SK officials elected in October 2023 would complete a five-year term in accordance with the new law.

It also recognized lawmakers' concerns that holding local elections in 2027 could disrupt the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) preparations for the May 2028 national and local elections. Meanwhile, following a five-year cycle from the 2026 schedule would cause the next polls to coincide with the 2031 general elections.

On claims involving substantive due process and democratic representation, the SC ruled that the law serves legitimate state objectives, including ensuring continuity in grassroots development programs and promoting the efficient allocation of local government funds.

The court further clarified that the constitutional right to vote does not guarantee a specific election frequency or term length, provided elections remain regular, fixed, and predictable.

It also stressed that incumbent officials who will remain in office until November 2028 are serving in a holdover capacity under RA 12232, rather than through a legislative appointment.

The ruling drew separate opinions from several justices.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen concurred with the ruling on Congress' authority to fix terms but maintained that extending the tenure of incumbent officials infringes on the people's right to vote.

In a separate dissent, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa argued that administrative continuity does not constitute a compelling state interest. He maintained that the five-year term should apply prospectively without changing the previously scheduled election date.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. also dissented, arguing that RA 12326 functions as both a term-fixing and election postponement measure and should therefore have complied with the legal standards established in the 2023 ruling.