From the Fringes: Beyond Postponing Barangay Elections

From the Fringes: Beyond Postponing Barangay Elections

By Jerome Aning | November 13, 2026

The Supreme Court made public last Nov. 6, its decision on the case questioning the resetting of the 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) that was supposed to take place the very same day.  In a gist, the majority decision ruled that Republic Act No. 12326, which President Marcos signed in August last year, was not a postponement law but a term-fixing law Congress is authorized to enact under the Constitution. RA 12326 increased the term of barangay officials, from four years five years and reduced the number of consecutive terms that they may serve from three to just two.  The justices, disagreeing with the petitioner, election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, ruled that a term-fixing law does not become an election postponement law just because it affects the election schedule. RA 12326 set the next BSKE elections to November 2028 to implement the lengthening of the barangay officials’ term.

The en banc decision, written by Associate and later Chief Justice Rodil Zalameda, is not unexpected since the court had already affirmed Congress’ term-fixing authority in a case last year, also filed by Macalintal, involving an earlier law that extended the term from three to four years and set the election last Nov. 2. As in the latest case, the court rejected Macalintal’s argument that RA 12326 was an election postponement law “disguised” as term-fixing one. The court thus ruled as inapplicable the so-called Macalintal guidelines it adopted in 2023 when it decided in favor of still another case that was also filed by the lawyer which questioned another law postponing the barangay elections.

Among other things, the Macalintal guidelines provided that the right of suffrage requires the holding of honest, genuine, regular and period elections, hence a postponement must be justified by reasons that are sufficiently important, substantial and compelling.  Reasons such as election fatigue, purported resulting divisiveness, shortness of existing term and/or other superficial or farcical reasons, alone, can’t be used to justify a postponement.

In upholding Congress’ term-fixing power, the court ruled that RA 12326 did not violate the electorate’s right to suffrage—meaning the right to choose the people who will govern the barangay—since the law still schedules the regular elections for the barangay officials.

I think the more important part in the court’s decision is that the wisdom behind Congress’ determination of the term of barangay officials, was a political question.  It is not for the court to judge, the justices said, on how long barangay officials should serve or on whether the reasons for the law are wise. Macalintal had described as “frivolous” the reasons offered by Congress in enacting and by the President in approving RA 12326 such as the oil crisis and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and the need for barangay officials to continue with routine dues such as crime prevention, garbage collection and flood management.  One of Congress’ main reasons for the term-setting law was to harmonize the country’s election cycle, so that barangay polls won’t be conducted while preparations are underway for the regular national and/or local elections.

There are, however, other underlying political considerations why the executive and legislative branches would support a law extending barangay officials’ term and/or postponing barangay elections. And being political in nature, the judiciary would hesitate in questioning the wisdom of such reasons. These political considerations would be pretty obvious to ordinary Filipino citizens who are aware of, or care enough to think about, the sad state of politics in our country.

The barangay authority, having jurisdiction over a specific community or village, is the instrument of government closest to citizen.  While the Constitution splits the powers of the state into three separate branches—executive, legislative, and judiciary—the law merged those powers into the barangay chairman and the council.  The main reason for this is for the national government, under our unitary system, to be able to serve the people faster and better, especially those in the so-called Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA).  Section 385 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 states, “As the basic political unit, the barangay serves as the primary planning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities in the community, and as a forum wherein the collective views of the people may be expressed, crystallized and considered, and where disputes may be amicably settled.”  Barangay elections usually enjoy a high voter turnout, with more than 75 percent in the October 2023 elections.

Unfortunately, patronage politics and political dynasties have, through the years, permeated the barangay government so much so that there is widespread cynicism about barangays being truly democratic, responsible and corruption-free.  Under the Omnibus Election Code, barangay elections are non-partisan and candidates are prohibited from presenting themselves as candidates or nominees of any political party.  They are also barred from accepting, directly or indirectly, any form of campaign support not just from political parties but from any organization, including civic, religious or professional.

When I was a newspaper reporter covering various local governments in Metro Manila, barangay elections are usually one of my busiest media assignments. I got to visit various barangays and was surprised to discover that barangay officials are allowed to be members of political parties and organizations that could not support them during elections.  They are, after all, citizens who enjoy the constitutional freedom of association. Some candidates also said they are allowed to receive campaign support from individual politicians or, from individuals who financially support politicians. I also encountered several candidates identified to be supporters, proteges or relatives of incumbent or former local government officials. Political dynasties and political party bosses are interested in “capturing” not only wealthy barangays but also the populous, vote-rich ones.  We thus hear of one or more barangays, or their component sitios or puroks, being regarded as the turf or bailiwick of a municipal, city or provincial politician.  Laws sponsored by Congress or LGU legislatures to create, split, merge barangays are, inevitably, perceived as suspicious since many residents could not help but think that these are not primarily to better deliver public services but for either gerrymandering or a way to consolidate political influence in particular areas.

When I covered later Congress as a senior reporter, I encountered bills about term extensions and election postponements. The legislators I spoke to who are for or against such measures could not deny that term extensions and election postponements more or less preserve the status quo in the barangays that are identified as bailiwicks of certain traditional politicians or political families.  Whatever the valid reasons offered, such measures, have the tendency to be perceived as a reward of sorts to barangay officials who helped politicians in the previous election and who could help them again in the next one. Any politician, whether from the ruling party or opposition, planning to run for a higher position in the local or national government is naive if he or she, does not court the support of barangay officials, especially those who have already proven capable in organizing campaign sorties and mustering votes for candidates. Politicians who win the election with the help of such barangay officials are then expected to “protect their investment” and one way of doing this is by ensuring that they remain in office for as long as possible.

Invoking the electorate’s right to suffrage to oppose the RA 123626, as Macalintal did, was correct because it is only through elections that citizens, voting wisely, will have the opportunity to replace incompetent and corrupt barangay officials. Nevertheless, I could not help but ask myself what’s the point of having the elections in the first place under a corrupted system, wherein candidates running for barangay positions are members of political dynasties, or have links with or are beholden to traditional politicians and political kingpins.

Another issue that I think should have been raised before the court is the constitutional provision mandating the state to guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, which includes getting elected or appointed to government positions.  The right to suffrage includes not only the right to vote but the right to be voted upon or stand for election. A citizen unsatisfied about how his or her barangay is being governed by its incumbent officials would have to wait for three more years or until November 2028, to have the opportunity to replace them.  By that time, the incumbent officials instrumental in the victories of local and national candidates in the May 2028 elections would have gained more political clout and could, if they wanted to, demand payback, probably through another term-fixing law.

In 2015, then Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone filed an interesting bill proposing the appointment of barangay chairs and councilors by the mayor.  Among other reasons, he said, the nonpartisan character of the barangay has been “illusory” since the day of the election because in reality, candidates for a position in the barangay would go to municipal, provincial, and even national officials to solicit financial and/or material support “in aid of election.”  Evardone also pointed out that the barangay is supposed to preserve the strong bayanihan or community spirit and neighborliness in villages, but this has been eroded because of the practice of electing barangay officials. “Barangay elections has brought animosity among neighbors, and even among family members, within the community. In some areas, the wounds of division have remained for decades. And, it has gotten worse over time, as shown by reports of certain barangay election-related acts of murder, physical injuries and violence, which could have actually been avoided had the barangay elections not been resorted to,” he said.  Evardone added that the billions of pesos of allotted for barangay elections is better spent in other programs, activities and projects of the government, especially poverty-alleviation interventions at the barangay level.

The modern barangay traces its origins to Republic Act No. 2370 or the Barrio Charter Act that was adopted in 1959 and revised four years later.  The next major barangay governance reform 28 years later was through the LGC. In the next 35 years, the advent of modern technology and the development of best practices in local governance around the world the Congress could use a bases in further reforming our barangay system. I think there is plenty of room for improvement in making barangays more responsive insofar as participatory democracy is concerned.  For example, in areas where internet connectivity is high, barangay assemblies could be allowed to be conducted using group video calls through social media and other mobile apps. I have heard about some barangays that have made applications for permits, IDs and other transactions online, started to conduct virtual mediation hearings to resolve disputes, and conducted consultations on social media about proposed or pending barangay ordinances.

Reforms in how the basic unit of our government is being run and how its officials are elected go hand in hand in ensuring the right and best persons are elected as barangay officials, thus bolstering the people’s trust in the entire government and the faith in a working democracy.

—————-

Comments are welcome on my page

<https://www.facebook.com/fromthefringesph/>