An independent Philippine legal research libraryRead with context. Verify with confidence.
PHILIPPINE LAW LIBRARY Philippine laws · Court decisions · Official issuances
← Back to library
Court decisionSource checked

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

G.R. No. E-08557 — Promulgated October 14, 2026 · 2026 · Supreme Court 2026 / Decision or signed resolution

Read all on one pageDownload text (.txt) Download original Visit recorded source ↗

Source checked. The source check identifies the document; it does not verify every transcribed word or its current legal effect. Recovered or scanned text may contain errors. Compare the wording and subsequent history with the linked legal source.

SCANNED TEXT · CHECK ORIGINAL WORDING · DIGITAL P. 9 / 33
Decision 5 GR. No. E-08557 5. Whether the November 2028 date set by Republic Act No. 12326 is reasonable and not unduly long: 6. Whether Republic Act No. 12326 violates substantive due process and the right of suffrage; 7. Whether the hold-over of incumbent barangay officials under Republic Act No. 12326 constitutes a legislative appointment; 8. Whether Republic Act No. 12326 violates the one subject-one title rule under Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution; and 9. Whether Macalintal is entitled to the issuance of a TRO, SQAO, and/or WPI. Ruling of the Court The Petition lacks merit. Larida’s intervention must likewise be denied. The Court resolves the issues in the order presented above. I. Direct resort to the Court is justified, and the requisites for the exercise of judicial review are present Respondents argue that the Petition violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts because it raises factual issues, such as the alleged waste of public funds, the public’s opposition to the postponement, and the alleged lack of study supporting the law.!” The Court does not agree. Direct resort to tne Court is allowed when the issues raised are pure questions of law.'* The constitutional questions in this case are of that kind. Whether Republic Act No. 12326 is a term-fixing law, whether it infringes the right of suffrage, whether its hold-over provision amounts to a legislative appointment, and whether it complies with the one subject-one title rule may all be resolved on the basis of the text of the law, the undisputed legislative record, and prevailing jurisprudence. The factual matters that respondents identify are not essential to the resolution of these questions. As in 2025 Macaiintal, the Court can resolve whether the assailed law is unconstitutional without presenting evidence. ' Comment, pp. 9-10. 18 Macalintal v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 8-02002. B-02010, E-02142 & E-02276, November 11, 2025 [Per J. J. Lopez, Ex Banc}.