THE Liga ng mga Barangay ng Pilipinas on Friday said it would defend before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 12232, which sets the term of office for barangay (village) and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials, amid a pending challenge filed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal.
Liga national president Maria Katrina Jessica Dy, village head of San Fabian, Echague, Isabela, announced that the national league, together with the Leyte Provincial Liga Chapter and 50 barangay captains, would file a Petition-in-Intervention through their counsel, Alberto Agra. The intervention seeks to oppose Macalintal’s petition in Macalintal vs. Senate of the Philippines, House of Representatives, Office of the President, and the Commission on Elections (GR E-02002).
Local execs defend law on term of office
Macalintal’s petition, filed on Aug. 15, assails the constitutionality of RA 12232, also known as An Act Setting the Term of Office of Barangay Officials and Members of the Sangguniang Kabataan, and for Other Purposes.
He argued that the measure, which moves the Dec. 1, 2025 Barangay and SK Elections (BSKE) to Nov. 2, 2026, effectively postpones the polls and violates the people’s right to suffrage. He cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that declared unconstitutional a similar attempt to postpone the BSKE under RA 11935.
But the Liga countered that RA 12232 was a valid exercise of Congress’ legislative power and did not constitute an election postponement.
“RA 12232 is about setting the term of office. The word ‘postponement’ is not in the law,” the group said in its statement. It maintained that the rescheduling of the 2025 polls was only a consequence of fixing the new term, which aims to ensure stability and continuity in barangay governance.
Pro, contra arguments
The Liga contrasted its positions with Macalintal’s stance across several issues.
Regarding the interest of parties, Macalintal asserted his standing as a taxpayer and voter. The Liga argued it had a direct legal interest as the official organization representing 42,011 villages nationwide, along with its provincial chapter and member barangay captains.
On the validity of elections, Macalintal said there were no compelling grounds to defer the December 2025 BSKE, stressing that election fatigue, short terms, or upcoming regional polls in BARMM were not valid reasons.
The Liga replied that since RA 12232 did not explicitly postpone elections, there was no need to show extraordinary grounds such as force majeure, calamity, or terrorism. It added that even if considered a postponement, the extension was justified to allow barangay and SK officials — still in only their second year after the 2023 elections — to fulfill their multifarious functions.
Local execs defend law on term of office, This news data comes from:http://www.aichuwei.com
On the applicability of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, Macalintal maintained that the earlier decision should apply to RA 12232. The Liga disagreed, stressing that the 2023 case dealt with postponement, while RA 12232 dealt with fixing terms of office — a legislative prerogative.
On suffrage, Macalintal warned that the right of voters was violated by the postponement of elections. The Liga countered that suffrage was not infringed since RA 12232 merely redefined the electoral cycle without abolishing regular elections. “Only the timing is adjusted, and only for one year,” it said.
On Congress’ power, Macalintal argued that barangay and SK officials already had fixed terms and accused lawmakers of “toying around” with the tenure. The Liga replied that under the Constitution, Congress is the sole authority empowered to set the term of barangay and SK officials.
“To declare RA 12232 unconstitutional will negate and abrogate the constitutional power of Congress,” it said, adding that legislative history shows terms for barangay officials had varied between three, five, and six years.
On the hold-over provision, Macalintal described it as retroactive, favoring incumbents and meddling with existing terms. The Liga insisted that hold-over is an interim measure applied prospectively, ensuring continuity in governance and avoiding a power vacuum until successors are elected.
On equal protection, Macalintal claimed the law unduly favored barangay and SK officials by allowing them to remain in office. The Liga countered that the two sets of officials serve the same community and are therefore similarly situated, making the measure consistent with the equal protection clause.
On the “one-subject, one-title rule,” Macalintal argued that RA 12232 covers unrelated topics — terms of barangay officials, SK terms, election schedules, and hold-over provisions. The Liga countered that all these provisions fall under the single subject of prescribing a new term for barangay and SK officials.
Finally, on timing, the Liga noted that Macalintal’s petition was premature since RA 12232 had not yet been published and therefore had not taken effect when the case was filed.
Next steps
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the arguments in the consolidated petitions challenging RA 12232 in the coming days.
For now, the Liga maintained that Congress’ authority to set terms of village and SK officials must be respected. “The law is presumed constitutional. Petitioner did not present a clear breach of the Constitution,” the group pointed out.
- Xi says China 'unstoppable' in parade opening speech
- Australia government condemns anti-immigration rally in Sydney
- Thailand set for vote on new PM after dissolution bid rejected
- Isko files raps over demolition of sports complex
- Can a giant seawall save Indonesia's disappearing coast?
- Mass housing developers laud Pag-IBIG Fund
- Repairs on Chinese ship in Bajo de Masinloc collision may take 2 months - PH Navy
- Co out of country for medical reasons
- Marcos to create independent commission to investigate flood control anomalies
- PH to host seafarers’ welfare forum
