CASE DIGEST
Macalintal vs. COMELEC
GR No. 263590, June 27,
2023
EN BANC, KHO, A.
Constitutionality of the
postponement of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections in October 2023
The free and meaningful exercise of the
right to vote requires the holding of genuine periodic elections which must be
held at intervals which are not unduly long, which ensures that the authority
of government continues to be based on the will of electors.
This is a consolidated petitions of
Atty. Macalintal and of Atty. Alberto N. Hidalgo, assailing the
constitutionality of Republic Act 11935 or “An Act Postponing the December 5, 2022
Barangay and SK Elections” and reschedule it to last Monday of October 2023.
Whether or not the issue has become moot and
academic.
NO. The Supreme Court held that the case has not been
rendered moot to preclude the exercise by this court of its judicial review
power because RA 11935’s transgression on the people’s right of suffrage is
continuing and did not cease upon the lapse of the December 5, 2022 election
schedule. Thus, despite the intervening expiration of the previous election
date, the case undoubtedly presents an actual case or controversy that
justifies the continued exercise by this court of its judicial review power.
Whether or not the postponement of Barangay and SK Election is unconstitutional.
YES. The Supreme Court en banc exercised its inherent power to check and balance the legislative powers of Congress, the executive branch, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec). The Supreme Court has nullified the law that authorized the postponement of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections in October 2023. Postponement unduly deprives the people of their fundamental power to decide on whether to retain or to change the incumbents who have overstayed in office for the longest time.
The Supreme Court declared that the free and meaningful exercise of the right to vote, as protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, requires the holding of genuine periodic elections which must be held at intervals which are not unduly long, and which ensure that the authority of government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of electors. The right of suffrage is one of the most fundamental and vital rights of the people. COMELEC cannot just negate that basic right.
Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to
postpone elections on a nationwide basis.
NO. This power lies with the Congress pursuant to (i)
its plenary power to legislate, and (ii) its power to fix the term of office of
barangay officials under Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution. As such, the
Congress did not unconstitutionally encroach on the power of Comelec to
administer elections when it enacted RA 11935. Neither did the provision for
“hold-over” capacity amount to an unconstitutional “legislative appointment.”
SALIENT POINTS OF THIS LANDMARK DECISION:
2. Congressional Power and Role of COMELEC: The Supreme Court clarified that Comelec does not possess the authority to postpone elections on a nationwide basis. Such power resides with Congress, pursuant to its legislative and administrative authority under the Constitution. Congress did not unconstitutionally encroach on COMELEC'S powers when it enacted RA 11935.
3. Ongoing Transgression of Rights: The Court held that the case remained relevant and justiciable despite the expiration of the previous election date. RA 11935's infringement on the people's right of suffrage continued, justifying judicial review.
4. Unnecessary Means Employed by Congress: The Supreme Court criticized the means employed by Congress as unreasonably unnecessary to achieve the government's goals. Transferring budget allocations from COMELEC to the executive branch violated the constitutional prohibition against such appropriations transfers.
5. Future Elections: The Court mandated that the succeeding Barangay and SK elections should be held on the first Monday of December 2025 and every three years thereafter, as stipulated in RA 11462. However, Congress retains the authority to further amend RA 9164 (as amended), the law governing synchronized elections.
6. Guidelines and Principles: The Supreme Court established guidelines and principles for government actions seeking to postpone elections. These guidelines were intended to guide the bench, bar, and the public and emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of suffrage
No comments:
Post a Comment