An independent Philippine legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
Court decisionSource checked

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

G.R. No. E-08557 — Promulgated October 14, 2026 · 2026 · Supreme Court 2026 / Separate opinion

Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.

SCANNED TEXT · CHECK ORIGINAL WORDING · DIGITAL P. 7 / 16
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion 7 G.R. No. E-08557 That the deferment of the conduct of elections and the electorate’s opportunity to exercise their right to elect their representatives are incidental to a term-setting legislation’s purpose does not diminish its constitutional implications. The electorate is deprived, for an additional period, of the opportunity to renew or withdraw its mandate. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 12326 expressly recognizes the extension of incumbent barangay officials’ terms by two years. The extension of an incumbent’s tenure is thus not merely an unforeseen consequence of the legislation, but an expressly contemplated feature of its implementation. Its constitutionality cannot be presumed solely. from Congress’s. authority to determine the duration of public office. Undoubtedly, Congress possesses the constitutional authority to-"~ determine and fix the terms of barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials.22 However, to pass constitutional scrutiny, any change to the term of office must be applied prospectively, rather than extend the tenure of incumbents who were elected under a previously prescribed term. As previously emphasized in my separate concurring opinion in Macalintal v. Commission on Elections,?? the exchange between Justice |. Ramon Paul Hernando and Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal during the oral arguments illustrates the relationship between an electoral mandate and the _ term of office contemplated by voters. : In that exchange, Atty. Macalintal likened the electoral relationship to acontract: When voters elect an official for a prescribed three-year term, their mandate does not necessarily authorize that official to remain in office beyond - that period: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HERNANDO: “Genuine periodic elections.” Well, it's a convention that’s new to you but having heard that, how would you interpret that, petitioner Macalintal? “Genuine periodic elections”? d . ' 1 1 SECTION 5. Transitory Provision. — Considering the extension of their terms by two [{] years, incumbent elective barangay officials shall be regarded as having completed one [] term in their respective positions. Incumbent officials serving their last term in the same position in accordance with Section | hereof shall be ineligible to run for the same position in the November 2028 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. 28 Consr7. Art. X, sec. 8 states: SECTION 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than thrée consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. 29 943 Phil. 212 (2023) [Per J. Kho, Jr., En Banc].