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

Decision 7 G.R. No. E-08557 IV. The law violates the constitutional requirement of one subject expressed in the title.!° In a Resolution dated September 30, 2026, the Court required respondents to comment on the Petition and on the prayer for injunctive relief within a non-extendible period of five days from notice. ~ The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the OP, Senate, HOR, and the COMELEC (collectively, respondents), argued for the dismissal of the Petition and applications for preliminary injunctive reliefs in its Comment dated October 5, 2026. The following grounds were submitted: I. The petition violates the hierarchy of courts. Il. The determination of the term of barangay officials is a political question. III. Republic Act No. 12326 is a valid term-fixing law. a. The [2023] Macalintal guidelines do not apply to Republic Act No. 12326. b. Republic Act No. 12326 is a valid exercise of legislative power satisfying substantive due process. . c. Republic Act No. 12326 does not infringe on the electorate’s right to suffrage. IV. Republic Act No. 12326 does not constitute a legislative appointment through hold-over. V. Republic Act No. 12326 does not violate the “one-subject, one-title" tule in Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution [sic]. VI. Petitioner is not entitled to a status quo ante order and/or temporary restraining order."! Macalintal then filed an Omnibus Motion: (1) For Leave of Court to File and Admit the Herein Incorporated Reply to the Comment of the Respondents; and (2) Urgently Reiterating the Prayer for TRO and/or Status Quo Ante Order." He maintains that Section 5 of Republic Act No. 12326 belies respondents’ claim that the lew does not extend the terms of incumbent officials; that the power of Congress to determine the term of barangay officials does not inciude the power to prolong the terms of sitting officials; that 2025 Macalinta/ does xo bar the Petition under the doctrine of stare decisis because Republic Act No. 12326 involves a different interval, a different effect on the incumbents, and different justifications; 10 Petition, pp. 14-15. "Comment, pp. 7-8. 2 Omnibus Motion, pp. 1-12.