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

Decision 28 G.R. No. E-08557 Macalintal dismisses the reasons offered for Republic Act No. 12326 as baseless.°° That argument applies the requirement under the. 2023 Macalintal guidelines that a postponement be justified by reasons “gufficiently important, substantial, or compelling.”®° As already discussed, 2025 Macalintal held that standard inapplicable to term-setting laws. More fundamentally, the length of term of barangay officials is a matter that the Constitution has entrusted to, Congress. As the Court explained in 2025 Macalintal, Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution “reflects a constitutional judgment that term length involves policy considerations appropriately resolved through the legislative process. It reflects the political tension of balancing continuity against accountability, weighing administrative efficiency against democratic changes, considering local governance needs, and responding to changing circumstances.” Deference of this kind is not abdication. It recognizes that the remedy for an unwise policy lies, in the first instance, with the people, who may call their representatives to account at the polls. The Court’s responsibility is to determine, after full deliberation, whether Congress has crossed a constitutional! line. Until that determination is made, the presumption that it has not must stand. iv. The injury alleged is not irreparable, and the Petition will not be rendered moot Petitioner argues that, unless the Court restrains Republic Act No. 12326, the COMELEC will stop all preparations for the November 2026 BSKE, potentially rendering the Petition moot”! before the issues are fully addressed. This Court’s experience in the 2023 and 2025 Macalintal cases shows that the lapse of a scheduled election date does not necessarily preclude effective judicial review. The Court may still resolve the constitutionality of the challenged statute and formulate the appropriate relief for 2 meritorious petition. There is no diminution of the democratic significance of a missed election. Voting in a regular election is central io suffrage, and a later election cannot restore the chance to vote on an earlier date. The question now is whether Macalintal has established a clear and unmistakable right to compel an election on the date set by Republic Act No. 12232 despite Republic Act No. "12326, and whether he met the requirements for extraordinary interim relief. Since precedent recognizes Congress’s 8. Petition, p. 22. ® Macalintal vy. COMELEC, 934 Phil. 2 % Macalintal v. Senate of the Philippines, 11, 2025 [Per 3. Lopez, J., Ba Barc. 7. Petition, p. 23 317 (2023) [Per J. Kho, Jr., Za Banc}. 3.R. Nes. BE 2002, E-02010, E-02142 & E-02276, November