SC finds law postponing barangay, SK elections unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the law that postponed the holding of the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections from their initial schedule of December 5, 2022, to the last Monday of October 2023.

However, the High Tribunal recognized the legal practicality and necessity of proceeding with the conduct of the BSKE on October 30, pursuant to the operative fact doctrine.

''The Court also declared that the BSKE scheduled for October 2023 shall proceed. The Court, however, stressed that the term of office of the sitting BSK officials shall be deemed to have ended on December 31,2022, following the provisions of RA 11462, the law impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 11935, '' the SC Public Information Office said.

''In the interim, the sitting BSK officials shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified,'' it added.

In granting the consolidated petitions of several lawyers, the SC, through Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., said the 1987 Constitution requires the holding of elections, ''which must be held at intervals that 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 Court also said the Commission on Elections has no power to postpone the polls on a nationwide basis as this authority belongs to Congress.

The SC added that the case had not been rendered moot ''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,'' the SC PIO said.

Freedom of suffrage

The SC ruled that RA 11935 violates the freedom of suffrage "as it failed to satisfy the requisites of the substantive aspect of the due process clause of the Constitution."

The Court found that there was no legitimate government interest or objective to support the legislative measure, and that the law unconstitutionally exceeds the bounds of the Congress’ power to legislate, the SC PIO said.

The High Tribunal said that the means used by Congress were "unreasonably unnecessary" to achieve the interest of the government sought to be accomplished.

It added that the said means were "unduly arbitrary or oppressive of the electorates’ right of suffrage."

‘Grave abuse of discretion’

The SC said that the purpose stated in the various bills presented in the Senate and House of Representatives sought the realignment of the budget allocation of the COMELEC for the 2022 BSKE to the executive for the latter’s use in its projects could not be done "without violating the explicit prohibition in the Constitution against any transfer of appropriations."

It also ruled that the enactment of RA 11935 was attended with "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."

"The Court said that the postponement of the 2022 BSKE by RA 11935 for the purpose of augmenting the Executive’s funds is violative of the Constitution because it unconstitutionally transgresses the constitutional prohibition against any transfer of appropriations, and it unconstitutionally and arbitrarily overreaches the exercise of the rights of suffrage, liberty, and expression," the SC PIO said.

The SC said that "in so ruling, it is not asserting its power over Congress; rather, the Court is simply enforcing and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution."

It further ruled that the succeeding BSKE shall be held on the first Monday of December 2025 and every three years thereafter, pursuant to RA 11462.

Guidelines for the bench, bar, public

The SC found it imperative to set guidelines and principles for "the bench, the bar, and the public as regards any government action that seeks to postpone any elections."

The SC outlined the criteria as follows:

1. The right of suffrage requires the holding of honest, genuine, regular, and periodic elections. Thus, postponement of the elections is the exception.

2. The postponement of the election must be justified by reasons sufficiently important, substantial, or compelling under the circumstances:

• The postponement must be intended to guarantee the conduct of free, honest, orderly, and safe elections;
• The postponement must be intended to safeguard the electorate’s right of suffrage;
• The postponement must be intended to safeguard other fundamental rights of the electorate; or
• Such other important, substantial, or compelling reasons that necessitate the postponement of the election, i.e., necessitated by public emergency, but only if and to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. (Reasons such as election fatigue, purported resulting divisiveness, shortness of existing term, and/or other superficial or farcical reasons, alone, may not serve as important, substantial, or compelling reasons to justify the postponement of the elections. To be sufficiently important, the reason for the postponement must primarily be justified by the need to safeguard the right of suffrage or other fundamental rights or required by a public emergency situation.)

3. The electorate must still be guaranteed an effective opportunity to enjoy their right of suffrage without unreasonable restrictions notwithstanding the postponement of the elections.

4. The postponement of the elections is reasonably appropriate for the purpose of advancing a sufficiently important, substantial, or compelling governmental reasons.

• The postponement of the elections must be based on genuine reasons and only on objective and reasonable criteria.
• The postponement must still guarantee that the elections will be held at regular periodic intervals that are not unduly long. (The intervals must still ensure that the authority of the government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of the electorate; Holding the postponed elections at a date so far remote from the original election date may serve as badge of the unreasonableness of the interval that may render questionable the genuineness of the reasons for the postponement.)
• The postponement of the election is reasonably narrowly tailored only to the extent necessary to advance the government interest.

5. The postponement must not violate the Constitution or existing laws. —NB/VBL, GMA Integrated News