THE Supreme Court has declared the law postponing the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (BSK) Elections as unconstitutional as it recognizes the practicality and necessity of proceeding with the conduct of the elections on the last Monday of October 2023.
In a decision authored by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC granted the consolidated petitions of Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal and Attys. Alberto N. Hidalgo, Aluino O. Ala, Agerico A. Avila, Ted Cassey B. Castello, Joyce Ivy C. Macasa, and Frances May C. Realino. These petitions challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11935 (RA 11935), also known as “An Act Postponing the December 2022 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9164, as amended, Appropriating Funds therefore, and for Other Purposes.”
In granting the petitions, the Supreme Court highlighted the following key points:
Firstly, the Court emphasized that the right to vote, as protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, necessitates the holding of genuine periodic elections at reasonable intervals. This ensures that the authority of the government is derived from the free expression of the will of the electors.
Secondly, the power to postpone elections nationwide rests with Congress, not the Commission on Elections. This power is derived from Congress’s plenary power to legislate and its authority to determine the term of office for barangay officials under Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court ruled that Congress did not unconstitutionally encroach on the power of the Commission on Elections when it enacted RA 11935. Moreover, the provision for “hold-over” capacity did not amount to an unconstitutional “legislative appointment.”
Thirdly, the Court asserted that the case has not become moot, as the violation of suffrage rights by RA 11935 persists beyond the December 5, 2022 election schedule. Therefore, the Court maintained its jurisdiction to exercise judicial review.
Additionally, the Court underlined the significance of the case, which addresses a novel and unprecedented issue affecting the people’s right to suffrage at the grassroots level.
Lastly, the Court emphasized the importance of establishing controlling principles to guide the judiciary, legal professionals, and the public, given the potential for the constitutional issue to recur while evading review.
Furthermore, the Court found that RA 11935 violated the freedom of suffrage by failing to meet the requirements of the substantive aspect of the due process clause of the Constitution. It concluded that there was no legitimate government interest or objective justifying the legislative measure, and that the law exceeded the Congress’s power to legislate.
The Court also criticized Congress for employing means that were unreasonably unnecessary and oppressive to the electorate’s right to suffrage.
