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].
If your browser cannot display the PDF, use Download original. Original access follows the same document permissions.