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

Decision 7 24 oo G.R. No. E-08557 IX. Macalintai is not entitled to the issuance of a TRO, SOAO, and/or WPI The dismissal of the Petition necessarily carries with it the denial of the prayer for injunctive relief. Nonetheless, because Macalintal urgently reiterates his prayer for a TRO and/or SQAO in his Omnibus Motion, the Court explains why, even apart from the merits, no TRO should issue. Petitioner claims that unless respondents are enjoined, his rights and the rights of those similarly situated will be irreparably damaged, as they will continue to be governed for another two years by officials without their mandate, who will be paid with public funds, and without any assurance that this will be the last, postponement of the BSKE; that the postponement is unreasonable and unduly iong under the guidelines laid down in 2023 Macalintal; that the COMELEC will stop all preparations for the November 2026 BSKE, thereby rendering the Petition moot; that the OP may undertake measures to enforce the hold-over provision in favor of the incumbents; and that injunctive relief is needed to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and ensure that its judgment will not be a mere paper victory. No one disputes that the right of suffrage lies at the heart of our democratic and republican order. The question on the prayer for interim relief is narrower. It is whether petitioner has shown the clear right and the irreparable injury that justifies suspending the operation of a duly enacted statute of the same character as the one this Court sustained less than a year ago in 2025 Macalintal.>> He has not. The right he seeks to protect through a TRO resis on a premise that this Court declined to adopt in 2025 Macalintal, and the urgency he invokes cannot supply what that premise lacks. Moreover, to issue the TRO, the Court would have to weigh the sufficiency ‘of Congress’s reasons for a policy that the Constitution expressly commits to Congress. A. The issuance of a TRO against the implementation of a statute calls for the greatest circumspection Whatever its form, interim injunctive relief issues only upon a showing of the following requisites: (a) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse; (b) there is a material and substantial invasion of suck right; (c) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and (d) no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.>° * Petition, pp. 21-23. 55 GR. Nos. 8-02002, 8-02010, 8-02!42 & B-32276, November 11, 2025 [Per J. Lopez, J., En Banc]. °° Bureau of Customs ¥. Court of Appeals: 900 Pri 24 (2021) [Per J. Hernando, Third Division]. (Citation omitted) o