I vote in favor of House Bill No. 3504 on account of the following reasons:

1. The Constitution does not fix the term of office of elected barangay as well as Sangguniang Kabataan officials. Their term of office is provided by law. Consequently, the Congress can amend the pertinent law on the date of election of barangay and SK officials under the principle that Congress does not pass laws which it cannot repeal, amend or modify.

2. The rescheduling of the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections from 31 October 2016 to 23 October 2017 is not an extension of the terms of these village and youth officials. When voters elected the incumbent barangay officials in 2013, they were fully aware, as they are presumed to know, that under Republic Act No. 9164, while the term of office of the barangay officials is three years, they shall “remain in office … until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.” Hence, there is an automatic holdover provision which is not deemed as a term extension but is a policy to avoid disruption of public services and prevent a void in the position of concerned officials.

3. Incumbent barangay officials are entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions as well as the presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved. Consequently, barangay officials who are suspected to be errant or involved in drug trafficking enjoy these presumptions but they can be prosecuted and convicted if the evidence warrant. But there can be no removal, like their replacement, prior to a final determination of their respective culpabilities.

4. There is no provision in HB No. 3504 that incumbent barangay officials after 31 October 2016 can be replaced by those appointed by the President, through the Department of the Interior and Local Government.

For all the foregoing reasons, I cast an affirmative vote.



EDCEL C. LAGMAN