• Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
• Independent-Albay
• 14 May 2012
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

 

 

 

          A legislative postponement of the barangay elections is not unconstitutional because the Constitution itself does not prescribe the nature of the election and terms of office of barangay officials, and on the contrary it gives to Congress the plenary authority and discretion to fix the term of office of barangay officials.

 

         This is the categorical position of Rep. Edcel C. Lagman (Independent-Albay) to refute the statement of election lawyer Romulo Macalintal who said that the “proposed law calling for postponement of the barangay elections scheduled in October is unconstitutional.”

 

       Lagman stated that any proposed statute postponing the barangay elections is constitutional and consistent with the constitution which provides under Section 8 of Article X “the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years”.

 

         In other words where the Constitution has prescribed a three-year term for local officials and Members of Congress, the determination of the term of barangay officials has been left to Congress.

 

         Lagman cited the latest Supreme Court decision in COMELEC vs. Cruz (2009) where it was ruled that “the Constitution has left to Congress the discretion to determine the length of term and term limitations of the barangay officials.”

 

        Consequently, there is no constitutional provision which is violated if the barangay elections scheduled in October will be postponed or reset.

 

         Historically and invariably it was the Congress which for many instances has postponed previous barangay elections and changed the term limitations of barangay officials.

 

          The postponement of barangay elections does not extend the term of office of the incumbent but only allows them to hold over pending the election of their successors in order to preserve the continuity of government services.

 

          The application of the hold over principle of barangay officials has been sustained by the Supreme Court in ADAP vs.COMELEC (2007). In fact, Section 5 of RA9164 providing for synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang elections provides that “all incumbent barangay officials and Sangguniang Kabataan officials shall remain in office unless sooner removed or suspended for cause until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.”

 

        The proposal to increase the term of barangay officials from three to five years has precedent in law. It is completely immaterial for barangay officials to have longer terms than municipal officials since municipal officials are not the superiors of barangay officials and have no control over them.

 

           Under R.A. No. 6679 the term of office of barangay officials was five (5) years.