Post

Macalintal v. Comelec

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Macalintal v. Comelec

Case Title and Citation

Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal, petitioner, v. Commission on Elections and the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, respondents.
G.R. No. 263590, June 27, 2023
Manila En Banc
Ponente: Kho, Jr., J.

Atty. Alberto N. Hidalgo, Aluino O. Ala, Agerico A. Avila, Ted Cassey B. Castello, Joyce Ivy C. Macasa, and Frances May C. Realino, petitioners, v. Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, the Senate of the Philippines, duly represented by its Senate President, Juan Miguel Zubiri, the House of Representatives, duly represented by its Speaker of the House, Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, and the Commission on Elections, duly represented by its Chairman, George Erwin M. Garcia, respondents.
G.R. No. 263673, June 27, 2023
Manila En Banc
Ponente: Kho, Jr., J.

Facts

  • On October 10, 2022, President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos, Jr. approved RA 11935, postponing the December 5, 2022 BSKE to the last Monday of October 2023 and authorizing incumbent BSKE officials to hold over until successors are elected and qualified, unless sooner removed or suspended for cause.
  • Sections 1 and 3 of RA 11935 amended the date of election to the last Monday of October 2023 and provided for hold-over of incumbents.
  • On October 17, 2022, Atty. Macalintal filed a petition (G.R. No. 263590) challenging RA 11935 as unconstitutional, asserting Congress exceeded its power, effectively made a legislative appointment, and amended provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
  • On October 20, 2022, Atty. Hidalgo, et al. filed a separate petition (G.R. No. 263673) similarly challenging RA 11935 on constitutional grounds.
  • The Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 263590 and 263673; oral arguments were held October 21, 2022.
  • The Solicitor General argued that Congress has plenary authority to legislate on elections, that the postponement does not deprive suffrage, and that hold-over provisions preserve continuity.
  • The Constitution vests administration of elections in the COMELEC, but it also recognizes Congress’s broad legislative powers over elections and local government structure.
  • The Court’s main issue was whether RA 11935 is unconstitutional. The Court ultimately held RA 11935 unconstitutional for due process and suffrage concerns but applied the operative fact doctrine to allow the October 2023 BSKE to proceed, given the practical realities and reliance interests.
  • The Court concluded that RA 11935 violated substantive due process by failing to show a legitimate government interest and by transferring appropriations in a way that contravened constitutional provisions.
  • The decision discusses hold-over arrangements, the difference between term and tenure, and the continuity needs of government services.
  • The Court noted the need to provide guidelines for future legislative postponements of elections, balancing the sovereign will of the people with legislative power.

Issues

  1. Does RA 11935 postpone the BSKE in a manner consistent with the right to suffrage and due process? Yes/No.
  2. Does Congress have plenary power to legislate on elections in a way that permits postponement of the BSKE? Yes/No.
  3. Did RA 11935 impermissibly transfer appropriations or otherwise violate the constitutional prohibition on appropriation transfers? Yes/No.
  4. Were the enactment and implementation of RA 11935 tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction? Yes/No.
  5. Should the Court apply the operative fact doctrine to allow the BSKE scheduled under RA 11935 to proceed, despite holding RA 11935 unconstitutional? Yes/No.

Ruling

  1. Yes — RA 11935 is unconstitutional for violating the right to suffrage and due process.
  2. Yes — Congress has plenary power to legislate on elections, but RA 11935 fails due to substantive due process concerns.
  3. Yes — The attempt to realign or transfer funds for RA 11935 violated constitutional limits on appropriations transfers.
  4. Yes — The enactment of RA 11935 was attended with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
  5. Yes — The Court applied the operative fact doctrine to preserve the BSKE schedule and maintain continuity, while declaring RA 11935 unconstitutional.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Sovereignty and Right of Suffrage: The Court reaffirmed that sovereignty resides in the people and that the right to suffrage is fundamental and safeguarded by both the 1987 Constitution and international law concepts (UDHR, ICCPR). The right to vote is a foundational political right that supports the entire democratic system.
  • Plenary Power of the State to Legislate: The Court recognized Congress’s broad legislative power over elections, including matters intersecting with the right to suffrage. However, this power is not unlimited; it is bounded by constitutional protections and due process requirements.
  • Postponement vs. Administration: While the COMELEC has broad administrative authority over elections, RA 11935’s postponement extended the term of incumbents and realigned funds in a way that violated constitutional provisions concerning the transfer of appropriations and the protection of suffrage rights.
  • Substantive Due Process: The Court applied a substantive due process standard, requiring a legitimate government interest and a narrowly tailored means. RA 11935 failed to present a sufficiently legitimate objective and a narrowly tailored approach, making the postponement irrational and arbitrary.
  • Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court concluded that the enactment and signing of RA 11935 amounted to grave abuse of discretion, exceeding jurisdiction and violating constitutional commands.
  • Operative Fact Doctrine: Recognizing practical consequences and reliance interests, the Court held that RA 11935’s existence, though unconstitutional, produced operative facts that necessitated certain actions (e.g., proceeding with the BSKE on October 2023 and maintaining hold-over arrangements with termination dates aligned to prior law) to avoid inequity and disruption.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Right to suffrage as a fundamental political right and its protection under the Constitution and international law.
  • Substantive due process: government action affecting fundamental rights must be justified by a legitimate objective and reasonable means.
  • Plenary power of Congress to legislate on elections, balanced by constitutional limits and due process considerations.
  • Hold-over doctrine: continuity in government can justify hold-over officials where no express constitutional or statutory prohibition exists.
  • Transfer of appropriations: constitutional prohibition on transfers of appropriations, requiring savings in the transferring agency and a clear item in the receiving agency.
  • Operative fact doctrine: prior acts that were lawful at the time but later declared unconstitutional may have ongoing consequences that require pragmatic, equitable treatment.

Disposition

  • The consolidated Petitions are granted. Republic Act No. 11935 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
  • The BSKE scheduled for the last Monday of October 2023 shall proceed as scheduled, under the operative facts.
  • The sitting BSKE officials shall continue to hold office, but their term of office shall be deemed to have ended on December 31, 2022, consistent with RA 11462.
  • The next synchronized BSKE shall be held on the first Monday of December 2025 and every three years thereafter (as per RA 11462).
  • The Congress is not precluded from further amending RA 9164, as amended, subject to the guidelines established by the Court.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Gesmundo, C.J. (on official leave but left a vote) — Separate Concurring Opinion
  • Leonen, Acting Chief Justice — Concurred (Separate Opinion)
  • Caguioa, J. — Separate Opinion
  • Lazaro-Javier, J. — Concurrence
  • Zalameda, Dimaampao, Singh, JJ. — Separate Concurring Opinions
  • Footnotes reference indicate additional separate opinions by these justices

Significance / Notes

  • Establishes a framework for evaluating future postponements of elections, emphasizing:
    • The primacy of the right to vote and periodic elections.
    • The need for genuine, objective, and narrowly tailored government interests to justify postponement.
    • The prohibition on arbitrary transfers of appropriations to support postponement objectives.
    • The permissible use of the operative fact doctrine to balance equity and the practical consequences of prior legislative acts.
  • Sets guidelines for the bench, bar, and public to assess the legality of any future election postponement measures, including duration, sufficiency of justification, and periodicity guarantees.
  • Clarifies the relationship between Congress and the COMELEC in matters of election timing and hold-over arrangements, while upholding constitutional protections for suffrage.
Election Law Constitutional Law Due Process
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.