Marcos urged: Junk bill seeking to extend barangay, SK officials’ terms
Photo collage of 2013 barangay elections held in Quezon City. Photos by Jullian Love de Jesus/Inquirer.net
MANILA, Philippines — President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. should veto the proposed measure seeking to extend the term of elected officials of the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (BSK) and move the date of elections in November next year, according to Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal.
Macalintal said that vetoing the bill would show the Chief Executive’s “respect for people’s right to choose their leaders.”
“This bill suffers from the same constitutional and legal flaws as Republic Act No. 11935, which attempted to delay the December 2022 BSKE but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2023 case of Macalintal v. Comelec,” the lawyer explained in a statement on Sunday.
READ: Bills-on-anti-pogo-barangay-and-sk-execs-term-extension-ratified
“Although styled as ‘An Act Setting the Terms of Office’ for barangay officials, the bill is clearly misleading. Its true effect is to postpone the December 1, 2025 elections to the first Monday of November 2026, allowing incumbent barangay officials to continue serving in a holdover capacity—effectively extending their tenure without a public mandate,” he added.
Although Congress may legislate the term of office for barangay officials, Macalintal asserted that it cannot “extend their tenure by postponing elections.”
“Doing so violates the constitutional right of the people to choose their leaders, a right that cannot be bypassed by legislative appointments disguised as holdover extensions,” he pointed out.
Separate plenary sessions
Macalintal’s statement came after the House and Senate adopted the bicameral conference committee report containing the final versions of House Bill 11287 and Senate Bill 2816 during separate plenary sessions last week.
“The President must avoid repeating the error of endorsing what the Supreme Court has already declared unconstitutional: an act that deprives voters of their right to elect local leaders and instead subjects them to appointed incumbents through legislative fiat,” the lawyer said.
“In deciding the fate of this new bill, the President should heed the Supreme Court’s firm pronouncements in Macalintal. The Court warned that election postponement ‘could foster a government that is not democratic and republican as mandated by the Constitution.’ RA 11935, which the President previously signed, was declared unconstitutional for unreasonably and arbitrarily infringing on the people’s right of suffrage,” he added.
Additionally, the lawyer said the bill violates the constitutional rule that a measure should only cover the subject indicated in its title. Macalintal, however, pointed out that the bill mentioned three different matters —the term extension, postponement of the December 2025 elections, as well as authorization of holdover appointments of incumbents, and extension of their tenure in office.
“This is a textbook example of log-rolling legislation—where a bill misleadingly appears to cover a single issue while concealing unrelated or controversial provisions,” he said.
“In sum, there is no meaningful difference between this reconciled bill and RA 11935—both lack sufficient government interest or any public emergency that would justify postponing the December 1, 2025 BSKE,” he added.
