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

Decision 30 G.R. No. E-08557 As to the concern over the waste of public funds, the record does not clearly support it either. Respondents cite the explanation of the Senate sponsor that, of the funds appropriated for the BSKE, only about PHP 8 billion had been obligated, of which about PHP 200 million would be unrecoverable, and that the ballots printed may still be used for the 2028 elections.”° These representations are cited not to resolve any factual question, but to-show that the equities on this point do not tilt clearly in petitioner’s favor. The requested relief would do more than preserve the status quo. It would require the COMELEC to resume preparations for an election whose date Congress has subsequently changed by statute, and would substantially suspend the operation of Republic Act No. 12326 before the Court has determined that the law is unconstitutional. Such relief is: not justified merely by the urgency of the petition. The applicant must still establish a clear and unmistakable right, a substantial invasion of that right, and the need for extraordinary relief to prevent irreparable injury. Because the asserted right to compel the November 2026 BSKE is genuinely disputed under 2025 Macalintal, the requisites for the requested interim relief have not been established. Provisional remedies cannot be used to accomplish this. Injunctive relief cannot be employed to protect a right that is merely contingent or disputed, nor may it serve as a means to prejudge the merits of the principal action.” Conclusion The Court is mindful that the right of suffrage is indispensable to our democratic and republican order. The safeguards articulated in 2023 Macalintal remain essential against laws whose primary purpose is to postpone elections and impair the electorate’s opportunity to choose its representatives. But those safeguards must be applied consistently with Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution, which expressly commits the determination of the term of barangay officials to law. in 2025 Macalinial, the Court neld that the power to determine the term includes the authority to determine its commencement, subject to the constitutional requirement that the interval be reasonable and not unduly long. Republic Act No. 12326 must be assessed under that framework. Though Congress’s choice may be disputed as policy, petitioner has not shown that the choice exceeds-the constitutional limit recognized in 2025 Macalintal. % Id. at 30. 7 See Evy Construciion and Deve ilo} 6 *poretion y » Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corporation, 820 Phil. 123 (2027) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division}.