E-08557 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 3 G.R. No. E-08557 recognized that the right to vote encompasses expressing political preferences and influencing the choices of others.|” Thus, the constitutional protection of suffrage extends beyond the opportunity to cast a ballot. Suffrage, ifit is a bedrock of democracy, requires genuine, periodic elections through which the people may meaningfully exercise their sovereign authority and hold their representatives accountable....... I The State’s power to enact laws and regulations is subject to the requirement of due process, as guaranteed under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution: SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the ‘equal protection of the laws. As the majority notes, substantive due process requires that legislation serves a legitimate governmental purpose and employs means that are. reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, without being unduly oppressive.!? : In Aguilar v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,'* this Court stated that a law is. presumed valid and constitutional absent proof of clear. and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. Accordingly, every presumption is indulged in favor of a .law’s constitutionality, and the burden rests upon the party challenging its validity to establish its incompatibility with the Constitution beyond a reasonable doubt.'* In this case, petitioner has not sufficiently discharged this burden. His objections principally question the adequacy of the legislative reasons for extending the terms of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials, the absence of a study demonstrating the insufficiency of the previous term, and the availability of an alternative arrangement that would preserve’ the November 2026 elections. '® Petitioner’s present objections are insufficient to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. They principally raise questions concerning . the wisdom of the legislative measure, without sufficiently demonstrating, 2 {d. at 332. 5 Ponencia, p. 17. See also Flores-Concepcion v. Judge Castaneda, 884 Phil. 66, 94 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. st , ‘ ‘ 4 962 Phil. 61 (2025) [Per SAJ. Leonen, Second Division]. 'S Id. at 92-93. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, pp. 18-19.