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

Decision 21 : G.R. No. E-08557 Court has already rejected this argument in 2023 Macalintal. There, the Court explained that “a [hold-over] is not technically an extension of term of the officer but a recognition of the incumbent as a de facto officer, which is made imperative by the necessity for a continuous performance of public functions,”*’ and that it “essentially extends the tenure, or the actual holding of office, of the officer, not the term which should be deemed to have concluded at the appointed date.”“* The Court further held: Since the power to prescribe the term of office of barangay officials is expressly lodged in Congress by the Constitution, its decision to prescribe the new term of office of barangay officials, the commencement thereof, as well as the manner of ensuring the continuity of service in the meantime, such as through hold-over of incumbents, are policy decisions that the Court will not lightly interfere with.” Republic Act No. 12326 does not alter the hold-over provision of Republic Act No. 12232. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 12232, which remains in force, provides that incumbent officials shall remain in office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. The incumbents themselves were elected in the October 2023 BKSE. Their continuation in office pending the election of their successors is not an appointment by Congress, but the operation of a hold-over provision that the Court has repeatedly sustained. The present situation is materially different from a statute or directive that designates individuals to occupy elective offices without an election. , : Section 5 of Republic Act No. 12326 must be read together with the hold-over provision retained in Republic Act No, 12232. The reference to an “extension” describes the practical effect of the transition to the new electoral schedule, but it does not independently appoint incumbents to a new term. The hold-over provision remains the legal basis for their continued. service until their successors have been elected and qualified. Indeed, Section 5 separately determines how the transition is counted for purposes of eligibility under the new term-limit structure. It treats incumbent elective barangay officials as having completed one term and disqualifies those serving their last term from seeking the same position in November 2628. This construction gives effect to the statutory language without treating the transitional period as a new electoral mandate. It also preserves the distinction recognized in 2023 Macalintal between the legal term of an office and an incumbent’s continued tenure pending the election and qualification of a successor. This Court should take heed cf the pronouncement in Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan: # Macalintal v. COMELEC, 943 Phil. 212, 305 (2023) {Per J. Kho, Jr., £n Banc}. 8 Ig . - Id. at 309-310.