Veteran election lawyer Atty. Romulo Macalintal announced on Monday, November 9, that he will file a motion for reconsideration on Tuesday, November 10, asking the Supreme Court to reverse its decision declaring Republic Act No. 12326 constitutional.
The high court’s ruling, made public on November 6, dismissed Macalintal’s petition and affirmed the postponement of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) from November 2 to the second Monday of November 2028. The law extends the term of incumbent officials to five years while reducing their maximum consecutive terms from three to two.
With a 9-5 vote—and one justice on leave—the Supreme Court majority ruled that RA 12326 is a legitimate term-fixing measure rather than an election postponement law, maintaining that Congress holds the power to adjust terms provided the duration is reasonable.
However, Macalintal strongly criticized the decision, citing warnings from dissenting justices regarding the right of suffrage.
“I am profoundly disappointed — not only as a lawyer, but as a duly registered voter — that a majority of nine justices sustained an unmistakable violation of the electorate’s right of suffrage by giving the green light to cancel the November 2026 BSKE,” Macalintal said.
He highlighted Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa’s dissenting opinion describing the postponement as a legislative maneuver that curtails suffrage, as well as concerns raised by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen about potential repeated extensions of tenure.
“If every extension of an incumbent’s tenure may be justified automatically as an incident of Congress’s term-setting authority, nothing would prevent Congress from repeatedly extending such tenure through successive term-setting legislation, delaying the electorate’s opportunity to choose their representatives,” Justice Leonen warned in his dissent, as cited by Macalintal.
Macalintal also pointed to widespread public pushback on social media platforms, noting that public sentiment reflects deep dissatisfaction with the ruling.
He cautioned that letting the decision stand could set a dangerous precedent for future national elections.
“If this ruling remains uncorrected, and if no one stands up to warn of its dangerous consequences to our democratic system, RA 12326 will not stop at the barangay level. It could embolden legislators to tamper with the May 2028 Presidential elections under the guise of invoking the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in Article VII of the Constitution,” he warned.
Despite the setback, Macalintal remains hopeful that the court will reconsider its position, leaning on the support of the five dissenting justices and public backing.
“With five justices already dissenting in favor of the Constitution and the electorate, and one justice on leave, I remain hopeful that we can still persuade the Court to reverse course and uphold the sovereign will of the people,” he stated.