Romulo B. Macalintal v. Office of the President, et al. — Decision — Official PDF

Decision 20 G.R. No. E-08557 intervals established by law, regardless of whether those intervals are two, three, four, or five years.” Republic’ Act ‘No: 12326 does not abolish, suspend, or indefinitely postpone the BSKE. It fixes the next BSKE on a date certain and every five years thereafter. It establishes a definite schedule: the next BSKE is in November 2028, followed by elections every five years. The electorate therefore retains a definite and periodic opportunity to select its barangay and SK representatives. This was the distinction drawn by the Court in 2025 Macalintal: Republic Act No. 12232 did not abolish or indefinitely postpone the BSKE but changed the statutory term and established a new and definite electoral cycle. We ruled that such legislation did not violate the right of suffrage. Macalintal argues that an election date that has been moved twice in thirteen months is neither regular nor certain.‘ But regularity, in the constitutional sense, refers to fixed intervals established by law, as Republic Act No. 12326 provides. The law establishing those intervals may be amended, but that does not make the election irregular, as every statutory election is subject to amendment by a later law, within the limits of the Constitution and prevailing jurisprudence. Moreover, the argument that the electorate will have gone approximately five years between BSKEs does not alter the analysis. We reiterate that the Constitution does not fix the term for barangay officials. Whether five years is the most apt period is primarily a matter of legislative policy, and not judicial wisdom. The reasons respondents put forward, such as continuity in local governance, completion of multi-year programs, fiscal considerations, reducing the frequency and cost of elections, and aligning terms with local planning cycles, are not prohibited by the Constitution. Indeed, the Court has no duty to substitute its policy judgment for that of Congress. Our review is warranted only upon a clear showing that Congress crossed a constitutional boundary. No such showing has been made here. VI... The hold-over of incumbent officials does not constitute a _ tlegislutive appoiniment Petitioner argues that the hoid-over of incumbent officials is tantamount to a legislative appointment, and violates the constitutional provision that barangay officials must be elected and not appointed.** The 45 Omnibus Motion, p. 5. 48 Petition, pp. 9, 19-20.