Case Digest (G.R. No. 263590)
Facts:
Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal v. Commission on Elections and the Office of the President (G.R. No. 263590) and consolidated Atty. Alberto N. Hidalgo et al. v. Executive Secretary, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 263673), G.R. No. 263590 and G.R. No. 263673, June 27, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11935 (approved October 10, 2022), which postponed the synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) then scheduled for December 5, 2022 to the last Monday of October 2023 and provided that incumbent barangay and SK officials “shall remain in office until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified” (Section 3, the hold‑over provision). The law amended prior schedules set by RA 9164 and subsequent amendments (including RA 11462).
On October 17, 2022 petitioner Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed G.R. No. 263590 (certiorari/prohibition; urgent prayer for TRO/WPMI), arguing inter alia that Congress cannot constitutionally postpone elections (that power lies with COMELEC under Sections 5/45 of the Omnibus Election Code), that the statute effects an unconstitutional legislative appointment/term extension, and that it unlawfully deprives voters of suffrage and equal opportunity to run. On October 20, 2022 petitioners Atty. Hidalgo et al. filed G.R. No. 263673 raising similar standing, ripeness, and substantive unconstitutionality claims and praying for TRO and injunction.
The Court issued resolutions (Oct. 18–21, 2022) requiring respondents to comment, set oral argument (Oct. 21, 2022), and consolidated the petitions. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing respondents, defended RA 11935: it argued Congress’ plenary legislative power includes scheduling/postponement of elections, that the postponement does not extinguish suffrage but merely changes the date, that the hold‑over is an accepted device, and that petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion to invoke the Court’s expanded jurisdiction. COMELEC officials testified at oral argument regarding the operational effects of postponement (budget, procurement, ballot p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court exercise judicial review over RA 11935 (i.e., do petitioners have standing and is the controversy justiciable and ripe under the expanded and traditional modes of judicial power)?
- Does RA 11935 unconstitutionally encroach upon COMELEC’s power to postpone elections?
- Does RA 11935 violate the people’s right of suffrage and substantive due process (including the constitutional prohibition on transfer of appropriations)?
- Was the enactment of RA 11935 attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
- If RA 11935 is declared unconstitutional, what are the operative legal consequences for the BSKE schedule, t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)