NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
2022 Barangay Election Postponement Unconstitutional - Supreme Court
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the country has ruled the postponement of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) as unconstitutional. The elections were initially scheduled for December 5, 2022 but were postponed to the last Monday of October 2023 by virtue of Republic Act No. 11935 (RA 11935).
The Court, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., granted the consolidated petitions of Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal and Attys. Alberto N. Hidalgo, Aluino O. Ala, Agerico A. Avila, Ted Cassey B. Castello, Joyce Ivy C. Macasa, and Frances May C. Realino. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 11935, which sought to postpone the elections and allocate the budget originally intended for the elections to the executive branch for other purposes.
The Court made several important points in its decision. First, it emphasized that the right to vote is protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, and genuine periodic elections are necessary to ensure the free expression of the will of electors. Second, it clarified that the power to postpone elections on a nationwide basis lies with Congress and not with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Court also rejected the argument that the provision for "hold-over" capacity amounted to an unconstitutional "legislative appointment."
The Court declared that the case was not moot, as the transgression on the people's right to suffrage continued even after the original election date had passed. It asserted its power of judicial review, stating that the case involved a novel and unprecedented issue affecting the people's right to suffrage at the grassroots level.
Furthermore, the Court found that RA 11935 violated the freedom of suffrage and exceeded the bounds of Congress' legislative power. It determined that there was no legitimate government interest to support the postponement and that the means employed by Congress were unreasonably unnecessary and arbitrary.
Despite declaring the unconstitutionality of RA 11935, the Court recognized it as an operative fact, meaning that its consequences and effects cannot be reversed or ignored. The Court ruled that the pronouncement on the constitutionality of RA 11935 would retroact to the date of its enactment. Consequently, the BSKE scheduled for October 2023 would proceed, but the term of office of sitting officials would be deemed to have ended on December 31, 2022, in accordance with the previously enacted law, RA 11462.
The Court also outlined guidelines and principles for future government actions seeking to postpone elections. It emphasized that the right to suffrage requires honest, genuine, regular, and periodic elections, and postponement should be the exception. The reasons for postponement must be sufficiently important, substantial, or compelling, and must primarily aim to safeguard the right of suffrage or other fundamental rights or be necessitated by a public emergency situation.
The Supreme Court's Decision will be uploaded to the Supreme Court website by the Supreme Court Public Information Office upon receipt from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc.
The Court, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., granted the consolidated petitions of Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal and Attys. Alberto N. Hidalgo, Aluino O. Ala, Agerico A. Avila, Ted Cassey B. Castello, Joyce Ivy C. Macasa, and Frances May C. Realino. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 11935, which sought to postpone the elections and allocate the budget originally intended for the elections to the executive branch for other purposes.
The Court made several important points in its decision. First, it emphasized that the right to vote is protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, and genuine periodic elections are necessary to ensure the free expression of the will of electors. Second, it clarified that the power to postpone elections on a nationwide basis lies with Congress and not with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Court also rejected the argument that the provision for "hold-over" capacity amounted to an unconstitutional "legislative appointment."
The Court declared that the case was not moot, as the transgression on the people's right to suffrage continued even after the original election date had passed. It asserted its power of judicial review, stating that the case involved a novel and unprecedented issue affecting the people's right to suffrage at the grassroots level.
Furthermore, the Court found that RA 11935 violated the freedom of suffrage and exceeded the bounds of Congress' legislative power. It determined that there was no legitimate government interest to support the postponement and that the means employed by Congress were unreasonably unnecessary and arbitrary.
Despite declaring the unconstitutionality of RA 11935, the Court recognized it as an operative fact, meaning that its consequences and effects cannot be reversed or ignored. The Court ruled that the pronouncement on the constitutionality of RA 11935 would retroact to the date of its enactment. Consequently, the BSKE scheduled for October 2023 would proceed, but the term of office of sitting officials would be deemed to have ended on December 31, 2022, in accordance with the previously enacted law, RA 11462.
The Court also outlined guidelines and principles for future government actions seeking to postpone elections. It emphasized that the right to suffrage requires honest, genuine, regular, and periodic elections, and postponement should be the exception. The reasons for postponement must be sufficiently important, substantial, or compelling, and must primarily aim to safeguard the right of suffrage or other fundamental rights or be necessitated by a public emergency situation.
The Supreme Court's Decision will be uploaded to the Supreme Court website by the Supreme Court Public Information Office upon receipt from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc.
Jun 28, 2023
