The Supreme Court (SC) has been pressed to stop the enforcement of the law that extended the term of office of Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials from three to four years, and effectively postponed to November 2026 the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) originally set on Dec. 1, 2025.

Republic Act No. 12232, which was signed into law by President Marcos last Aug. 13, extended the term of Barangay and SK officials and postponed the BSKE.

Three petitions, the first filed by lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal, asked the SC to declare unconstitutional RA 12232 and pleaded for the issuance of a TRO.

The three petitions were consolidated by the SC which required the respondents -- the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Office of the Executive Secretary, and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) – to file their comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of the notice.

The comments should also tackle the pleas for TRO sought by Macalintal and in the two other petitions filed by John Barry T. Tayam, and a group of young voters led by Mystro Yushi P. Fujii.

A motion to accept its petition for intervention was filed by the Liga ng Mga Barangays sa Pilipinas which asked the SC to declare as constitutional RA 12232.

In a resolution, the SC required Macalintal to file his comment on the motion to accept the petition for intervention filed by the Liga ng Mga Barangays (LB).

In his comment, Macalintal said the LB and the incumbent Punong Barangays (PBs) have no legal personality to intervene in his petition before the SC.

He told the SC that the petition should be “denied on sight” for being “topsy-turvy in that while it purports to be filed by some punong barangays, it is not clear who the real parties are, whether the barangays, the Liga chapter, or the punong barangay themselves.”

He pointed out that the persons who allegedly signed the verified petition in intervention were not duly authorized to file the same and some alleged authority to file were prematurely issued.

He said that some of the documents annexed to the petition in intervention were signed as early as between Aug. 2-11, 2025 when RA 12232 was not yet existing and Macalintal’s petition had not yet been filed.

He lamented: “How could they intervene on a petition which was not yet existing? This only proves the perjured nature of some of the documents attached by the intervenors.”

At the same time, Macalintal said: “And surprisingly, a vast majority of the certification on non-forum shopping and Special Power of Attorneys were notarized by only one notary public in just one day and some resolutions which were merely templated authorizing the filing of the intervention came from different barangays in Isabela, Leyte, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City were similarly worded without even the name of the officer who was authorized to act for the Liga or the barangays.”

Citing an example, he said a barangay resolution was allegedly adopted on Aug. 18, 2025 in Wigan, Cordon, Isabela; yet it was notarized also on Aug. 18, 2025 by the same notary public in the City of Manila.

“These only show how LB and PBs and their counsels mock and trifle with the rules on pleadings and procedure and that unless they have supernatural foresight, how can they assail a petition and defend a law which were not yet even existing at the time they issued their resolutions,” he also said.

Macalintal also told the SC that he supports the petition filed by a youth group belonging to the Sangguniang Kabataan entitled Fujii vs Office of the President likewise assailing the constitutionality of RA 11935.

“These youth have a very valid claim because if the December 2025 BSKE is postponed to November 2026, then some of the youth who are presently eligible to vote and be candidates in the December 2025 SK election will be deprived of their right of suffrage as they will be overaged and unable to participate as candidates, voters, or both, by the enactment and implementation of RA 12232”, he also said.

Also on constitutional ground, Macalintal said that RA 12232 contains various subjects -- new term of office of barangay officials, new term of office of SK officials, postponement of the December 2025 BSKE, and extension of tenure of office of BSK officials on hold-over capacity – all in violation of the constitutional provision of one-subject-one-title rule in lawmaking.

The SC is currently on a three-week decision-writing recess. It is expected to resume its division sessions on Sept. 22 and its full court sessions on Sept. 23.