THE Supreme Court has ordered key government bodies to respond to three petitions questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 12232, the newly signed law that defers the December 2025 barangay (village) and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) or youth council elections to November 2026, and allows incumbent officials to remain in office in a holdover capacity., This news data comes from:http://dsgxvph.052298.com

In an en banc session, the high court consolidated the cases filed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, educator and former congressional candidate John Barry Tayam, and a group of registered voters and youth leaders led by Mystro Yushi Fujii.

All three petitions have sought for a temporary restraining order to stop the law’s implementation, and a writ of mandamus directing the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to proceed with the December 2025 polls.

Macalintal argued that RA 12232 violates the people’s right to suffrage by cancelling a scheduled election without compelling justification.

He pointed to the high tribunal’s 2023 ruling in Macalintal v. Comelec, which struck down a similar postponement on the ground that “election fatigue” and budgetary concerns were insufficient reasons to override constitutional guarantees.

He also contended that the law unlawfully extends the terms of barangay and youth council officials without a fresh mandate from voters and breaches the “one subject, one title” rule in legislation.

Tayam, filing his case pro se, asserted standing as a citizen, taxpayer, and voter. He said the law violates the principle of periodic and genuine elections and disenfranchises prospective SK candidates who may exceed the 18-24 age limit by 2026.

Fujii’s group echoed these arguments, describing the holdover clause as a “de facto extension of terms” and invoking both constitutional guarantees and international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

SC orders comment on petitions vs polls

The Office of the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Comelec were named as respondents and directed to file their comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days.

Also, the Supreme Court admitted the intervention of the Liga ng Barangay ng Pilipinas and 51 barangay captains who opposed Macalintal’s petition, and required the parties to submit their comments on the intervention within the same period.

The legal battle places under scrutiny the recurring practice of deferring Barangay and SK Elections (BSKE), which critics say undermines democratic accountability by prolonging the terms of unelected officials.

Since the first synchronized BSKE in 1988, Congress has repeatedly moved the schedule, often citing budgetary constraints or the need to focus on national polls.

Between 1988 and 2023, the elections were postponed at least six times, effectively extending the tenure of village and youth leaders well beyond their original three-year mandate.

The high court’s eventual ruling in the pending cases is expected to define the limits of congressional power to reschedule local elections and test how strictly its 2023 precedent will be applied against future attempts at postponement.