Macalintal vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 263590, [2023]
En Banc [Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr.]
Facts:
Incumbent
barangay officials were elected in the May 2018 barangay elections pursuant to
R. A. No. 10952. While this law provides for the holding of subsequent barangay
elections u on the second Monday of May 2020, the May 2020 barangay election
was postponed to December 5, 2022 pursuant to R. A. 11462.
On October 10, 2022,
President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., signed R. A. No. 11935. Section 2 of said
law provides that it shall take effect immediately following the completion of
its publication either in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation. The said law was published in the Official Gazette on October 12,
2022. Hence, it became effective on October 12, 2022.
Petitioner
is, instituting this case in his capacity as a registered voter of Precinct No.
389A, Barangay Pamplona Dos, Las Pinas City. He has material and legal interest
in this case since the assailed R.A. No. 11935 deprives him of an opportunity
to elect barangay officials of his choice, in view of the postponement of the
December 5, 2022 Barangay Elections, and, instead, appointed/holdover officials
are forced upon him
and others similarly situated.
Issue 1:
Whether
Congress has no power to postpone the December 5, 2022 Barangay Elections
because this power exclusively belongs to the Comelec.
Held:
Yes;
the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine or fix the term of
office of barangay officials. Clearly, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to
"postpone" the barangay elections nor to extend the term of office of
the barangay officials. This is so because the power to postpone elections is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
after it has determined that serious causes, as provided under Section 5 of the
Omnibus Election Code ("OE”C), warrant such postponement. Thus, by
enacting a law postponing a scheduled barangay elections, Congress is in effect
executing said provision of the OEC or has overstepped
its constitutional boundaries and assumed a function that is reserved to
Comelec.
At
the outset, it should be emphasized that the Comelec, as an independent
Constitutional body, is vested by no less than the 1987 Constitution with broad
and exclusive powers to resolve all questions relating to, or affecting,
elections.
Particularly,
paragraphs 2 and 3, Section 2, Article IX-C, of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, provides: SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise
the
following powers and functions: (2)
Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on
election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, executory, and not appealable.
(3)
Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting
elections, including determination of the number and location of polling
places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of
voters.
The
aforesaid plenary power granted by the Constitution to Comelec, includes the
power to postpone elections, when circumstances so warrant. Recognizing this
constitutional grant to Comelec, Congress, through Section 5, of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881, as amended, codified into statute this power of Comelec to postpone elections.
Thus: Sec. 5. Postponement of election. - When for any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that
the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in
any political subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or upon a verified
petition by any interested party, and after due notice and hearing, whereby all
interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to be heard, shall postpone
the election therein to a date which should be reasonably close to the date of
the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but
not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
As
stated in this Petition, Congress has absolutely no power to postpone a
scheduled election. What the Constitution vested on Congress is the authority
to fix the term of office of barangay officials, and not to postpone elections,
which is an office reserved to Comelec, being the Constitutional body imbued
with the plenary authority to decide all questions affecting elections.
The reason for this is because the propriety of
postponing elections is part of the administrative and/or quasi-judicial
functions of the Comelec, after it has determined that the causes provided for
under Section 5 of the Omnibus Election Code, indeed, exist.
Being
the independent constitutional body specializing in all matters pertaining and
relating to elections, Comelec is in the best position to determine whether
there exist legal grounds to postpone an upcoming election.
On
the other hand, Congress, being a law-making body, is not authorized by our
Constitution to meddle with matters pertaining to the propriety of postponing
elections and setting of the date for special elections.
While
due respect is given to legislative ratio or reason, for the enactment of laws,
allowing Congress to postpone elections based only on its speculation that the
country is suffering from election fatigue, opens the floodgates to abuse. As a
matter of fact, even before the passage of R. A. No. 11935, the Comelec said
that "it is close to completing preparations for the upcoming December 5
Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections even as it remains uncertain if the
polls will be held as scheduled."
By
enacting R.A. No. 11935, the legislature is, in effect, executing or
implementing Section 5 of the Omnibus Election Code, which, it certainly has no
power to do so, and which function, is given both by Constitution and statute
to Comelec, as only Comelec can decide whether an election should be postponed,
after evaluation of prevailing circumstances.
In this case, Congress,
overstepped its constitutional boundaries, and assumed a function that is
reserved to Comelec.
Hence,
on these points alone, R.A. No. 11935 must be struck-down for being
unconstitutional and null and void.
Issue 2:
Whether
Congress has no power to statutorily appoint barangay officials - the Holdover"
provision of R. A. No. 11935 is, in effect, an act of Congress appointing them
to said position until their successors are duly elected.
Held:
Yes.
Congress has no power to statutorily appoint barangay officials-the
"holdover" provision of R. A. No. 11935 is in effect, an act of
Congress appointing them to said position until their successors are duly
elected.
"Legislative
appointment covers 'holdover offices' since a legislative extension of the term
of an incumbent is virtually an appointment of the office for the extended
time."
No
less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits the appointment of these
barangay officials.
However,
in this case, what Congress cannot do directly, it is doing indirectly because
in clear circumvention of the law, Congress appointed these barangay officials
by postponing the scheduled December 5, 2022 elections, thereby extending their
term of office by allowing them to "holdover" to their positions
until December 31, 2022.
In a word, what the Constitution
prohibits, the questioned law permits. For sure, Congress is not allowed by the
Constitution to appoint any official who, under the Constitution, are supposed
to be elected by their respective constituents -the Constitution is very clear
that barangay officials are to be elected and not appointed.
Thus,
we learned in Osmena vs. Comelec that: It is not competent for the
legislature to extend the term of officers by providing that they shall hold
over until their successors are elected and qualified where the constitution
has in effect or by clear implication prescribed the term, (citing State v.
Clark 89 A. 172, 87 Conn537) and when the Constitution fixes the day on which
the official term shall begin, there is no legislative authority to continue
the office beyond that period, even though the successors fail to qualify with
the time.
Issue 3:
Whether
R.A. No. 11935 deprives the electorate of their right of suffrage to choose
their barangay officials.
Held:
Yes.
R.A. No. 11935 deprives the electorate of their right of suffrage to choose
their barangay officials. Our Constitution provides that our country is a
democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them.
In
this case, the barangay officials were precisely elected by the voters to serve
only for a term of three years; nothing more, and nothing less.
However,
under this questioned law, Congress imposes upon or compels the electorate to
accept their barangay leaders, whether the latter like it or not for an
extended period, beyond the three-year term for which they were elected.
This runs counter to the very
essence of the right of suffrage of the people, which is to choose the
candidate of their own choice. Otherwise, barangay officials or any elected
official for that matter can just hold on to their office indefinitely.
Thus,
in Socrates v. Comelec, this Honorable Court correctly ruled that, "term
limits should be construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the
right of the electorate to choose their leaders".
Certainly,
to postpone the December 5, 2022 barangay elections is to extend the term of
these barangay officials which violates the democratic and republican nature of
our government that elected leaders can legally and morally justify their reign
only by obtaining the voluntary consent of the electorate.
By
providing that incumbent barangay officials shall hold over to their respective
posts, the questioned law deprives the electorate of their right to choose
their barangay officials through popular elections after the expiration of the
term of office of the barangay officials they had elected in the past election.
By extending the term of office
of barangay officials who were elected under a law fixing their term for only
three (3) years, Congress has violated the constitutional provision that
"the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
service."
By
extending the term of office of barangay officials, R.A. No. 11935 violates the
principle that the term of said officials should not be longer than their
superiors.
In
David vs. Comelec, this Honorable Court agreed with the position of former
Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., who appeared in said case as amicus curiae,
that "the barangay officials should not have a term longer than that of
their administrative superiors, the city and municipal mayors." To allow
the extension of term of incumbent barangay officials through holdover, is to
violate this rule and principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment