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

Decision 25 G.R. No. E-08557 The burden is heavier still when what is sought to be restrained is the enforcement of a law. Every law enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, in that “to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.”*’ Thus, the Court has cautioned that the suspension of the operation of a law “is a matter of extreme delicacy” because it interferes with the official acts of the duly elected representatives of the people, and that “[t]he possible unconstitutionality of a statute, on its face, does not of itself justify an injunction against good faith attempts to enforce it, unless there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief.” ** Petitioner alleges no bad faith or harassment in the enforcement of Republic Act No.12326. What he alleges is that the law is unconstitutional. That, without more, does not suffice. The requisite instances when a TRO may issue are: (1) when great or irreparable injury would result before the application can be heard; and (2) when the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. These instances describe when a court may act before a hearing. They do not dispense with the requirement that the applicant first establish a clear and unmistakable right. Urgency is a reason to act quickly. It is not, by itself, a reason to act. B. Petitioner has not shown a clear and unmistakable right i. The right invoked rests on an election date fixed by statute, which Congress has since amended The right that petitioner seeks to protect is the right to vote in the BSKE on November 2, 2026. That date is not fixed by the Constitution. It was fixed by Section 2 of RA 12232, which Congress enacted on August 13, 2025. What one statute has fixed, a later statute may change, and Republic Act No. 12326 changed it. . : Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution leaves the term of office of barangay officials to be “determined by law.” In 2025 Macalintal, the Court read this provision as establishing that “Congress possesses the discretion to fix, modify, and extend the ierm of office of barangay officials as circumstances and public welfare dictate,” including the power “to determine when the new term of office starts, provided that such determined period is reasonable and should not be unduly long from the time of the 5? Macalintal v. Senate of the Philippines, 11, 2025 [Per §. Lopez, J., En Banc}. 38 Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeais, 473 Phil. 27 (2004) [Per J. 'Callejo, Sr., Second Division]. CLR Nos. £-02002, £-02010, B-02142 & F-02276, November