Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Macalintal Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    doreens.catian09

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Macalintal Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    doreens.catian09
    4 views1 page

    Original Title

    91. Macalintal vs Comelec.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views1 page

    Macalintal Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    doreens.catian09

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Macalintal vs.

    Commission on Elections

    Topic: Suffrage G.R. No. 263590

    Jun 27, 2023

    The Supreme Court declares Republic Act No. 11935, which postponed the Barangay and Sangguniang
    Kabataan Elections, as unconstitutional due to violations of the freedom of suffrage and the prohibition
    against the transfer of appropriations, reaffirming the importance of upholding the Constitution and the
    separation of powers.

    Facts:

    The case involves two consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11935
    (RA 11935), which postponed the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) from
    December 5, 2022, to the last Monday of October 2023. The petitioners, Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal and a
    group of lawyers led by Atty. Alberto N. Hidalgo, argue that the law violates the Constitution. The
    respondents include the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Office of the President,
    represented by Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin. The petitioners claim that Congress overstepped
    its authority by postponing the elections, a power they argue is reserved for the COMELEC. They also
    contend that the law effectively extends the terms of incumbent officials, which they argue is
    unconstitutional. The case was heard by the Supreme Court, which issued a decision on June 27, 2023.

    Issue:

    1. Does Congress have the authority to postpone the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan
    Elections, or is this power exclusively vested in the COMELEC?

    2. Does RA 11935 violate the constitutional right of suffrage by extending the terms of incumbent
    officials?

    3. Is the postponement of the elections justified by a compelling state interest, and does it meet the
    requirements of substantive due process?

    Ruling:

    The Supreme Court declared RA 11935 unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Congress does not have
    the authority to postpone the elections, as this power is reserved for the COMELEC. The Court also found
    that the law violates the constitutional right of suffrage by extending the terms of incumbent officials
    without a compelling state interest. The Court ordered that the BSKE should proceed as scheduled on the
    last Monday of October 2023, and that the terms of the incumbent officials should be deemed to have
    ended on December 31, 2022.

    Ratio:

    The Court's decision is based on several key arguments. First, the Court emphasized that the power to
    postpone elections is vested in the COMELEC, as outlined in the Omnibus Election Code. By enacting
    RA 11935, Congress overstepped its constitutional boundaries and assumed a function reserved for the
    COMELEC. Second, the Court found that the law effectively extends the terms of incumbent officials,
    which violates the constitutional right of suffrage. The Court noted that while Congress has the power to
    fix the term of office for barangay officials, it does not have the power to extend it. Third, the Court applied
    the strict scrutiny test and found that the postponement of the elections was not justified by a compelling
    state interest. The Court concluded that the law fails to meet the requirements of substantive due
    process, as it does not serve a legitimate government interest and is not narrowly tailored to achieve that
    interest.

    You might also like