From a five-year barangay term to a possible clash with the national electoral calendar
There is an important political and constitutional question emerging from the proposed five-year term for barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials: What happens to the country's electoral calendar when the next Barangay and SK Elections are moved to 2028?
This is not merely a question about barangay officials.
It is a question about how we understand the relationship between local elections, national elections, constitutional terms, and the people's right to choose their leaders.
The House of Representatives has approved House Bill No. 10971, which seeks to amend Republic Act No. 12232 by fixing the term of barangay and SK officials at five years. Under the measure approved by the House, the next BSKE would be held on the second Monday of November 2028, with subsequent elections every five years.
This proposal is significant because it changes the character of what is happening in 2026.
It would no longer simply be a matter of saying, "The BSKE is postponed."
Rather, the proposed law would establish a new statutory term and a new electoral cycle for barangay and SK officials.
That distinction matters.
From Three Years, to Four, and Now Possibly Five
The Supreme Court previously explained that the Constitution gives Congress authority to determine the term of barangay officials. Article X, Section 8 expressly excludes barangay officials from the general three-year term applicable to other elective local officials and provides that their term shall be determined by law.
That constitutional authority was exercised when Congress enacted Republic Act No. 12232 in 2025, establishing a four-year term for barangay and SK officials and moving the BSKE to November 2026 and every four years thereafter. The Supreme Court subsequently characterized RA 12232 as a term-setting law, rather than simply an election-postponement law.
Now Congress is considering another change: five years instead of four.
And this is where my concern—and perhaps the concern of many ordinary Filipino voters—begins.
What Happens When the Local Calendar Meets 2028?
If the proposed five-year term becomes law, the next BSKE would take place in November 2028.
But 2028 is already a crucial year in the national electoral calendar.
Under Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, the President and Vice-President are elected by direct vote for six-year terms, and the regular presidential election is held on the second Monday of May unless otherwise provided by law.
Therefore, the proposed 2028 BSKE would occur in the same calendar year as the scheduled national elections.
This creates an obvious question:
Could the government eventually consider changing the national electoral calendar because of the new barangay electoral cycle?
I am not saying that this is what Congress intends.
I am not saying that the 2028 national election will be postponed.
And I am certainly not saying that there is already a law moving the presidential election to 2033.
There is no such conclusion that should be drawn from the five-year BSKE proposal alone.
But I believe the question deserves to be openly discussed.
The 2033 Question
Here is where my personal observation enters the discussion.
If the BSKE is deliberately structured to take place in November 2028, while the presidential and national elections are scheduled earlier that same year, we should examine whether this creates a larger constitutional and administrative question about election synchronization.
One possible scenario that people may begin discussing is this:
What if the electoral calendar itself becomes the subject of another legislative adjustment?
Could the national election calendar eventually be altered so that the next presidential election would occur in 2033?
That is a very different matter from extending barangay officials' terms.
The five-year BSKE proposal does not, by itself, authorize the postponement of the presidential election.
The President's six-year term is constitutionally established.
Any attempt to move a constitutionally scheduled presidential election would therefore raise questions far beyond the ordinary legislation concerning barangay elections.
It would have to be examined through the Constitution, existing election laws, congressional authority, and ultimately the safeguards protecting the people's right to periodic elections.
The Supreme Court Has Already Given Us Something Important to Remember
The Supreme Court's discussion of the previous BSKE controversy provides an important principle.
In its 2023 decision concerning the postponement of the barangay and SK elections, the Court emphasized that the right of suffrage requires honest, genuine, regular, and periodic elections, and that postponement is an exception.
At the same time, the Court later clarified in its 2025 ruling involving RA 12232 that Congress possesses constitutional authority to determine the term of barangay officials, and that changing the interval of barangay elections is not automatically equivalent to unlawfully postponing an election.
These principles are important because they tell us that the legal character of an electoral change matters.
Calling something a "term adjustment" rather than a "postponement" does not mean that citizens should stop asking questions.
And calling something a "postponement" does not automatically make it unconstitutional.
The actual law, its purpose, its duration, its effect on suffrage, and its consistency with the Constitution must be examined.
My Concern Is Not About Barangay Officials Alone
As someone who has been involved in barangay governance, I understand why longer terms can be attractive.
Barangay programs sometimes require continuity.
Community projects do not always fit neatly into three-year political cycles.
Planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and sustainability can require more time.
The House committee itself cited continuity and stability in local governance as reasons supporting the proposed five-year term.
Those are legitimate policy considerations.
But there is another side to the discussion.
Longer terms also mean longer periods before voters can directly replace their elected barangay officials.
That means accountability becomes even more important.
The longer the term, the greater the responsibility of officials to remain transparent, responsive and accountable to their constituents.
And the greater the responsibility of lawmakers to make sure that changes to electoral schedules are designed primarily around constitutional principles and the public interest—not merely political convenience.
2028 Should Not Become a Political Blind Spot
For me, the important issue is not whether the BSKE should be five years, four years, or another period.
The bigger issue is this:
What happens to our democratic calendar when we keep changing the rules governing elections?
The people deserve certainty.
They deserve to know when they will vote.
They deserve to know how long their elected officials will serve.
They deserve to know when they can hold those officials accountable at the ballot box.
And most importantly, they deserve confidence that electoral rules are being changed for legitimate governmental and constitutional reasons—not because political actors find the existing calendar inconvenient.
The proposed five-year barangay term therefore deserves serious public scrutiny.
Not because every five-year term is necessarily wrong.
Not because every change in an election schedule is necessarily unconstitutional.
But because election laws are ultimately about the people's power to choose and replace their leaders.
Let Us Watch 2028 Carefully
Perhaps the five-year BSKE proposal will simply establish a new and stable barangay electoral cycle.
Perhaps 2028 will proceed with both national and barangay elections according to their respective schedules.
Perhaps future Congresses will propose other changes.
We do not know.
What we do know is that the proposed five-year term would place the BSKE in 2028, while the Constitution separately establishes the six-year presidential term and the regular presidential election cycle.
That alone makes 2028 a year worth watching.
As citizens, we should not merely ask:
"When will the next election be?"
We should also ask:
"Who has the constitutional authority to change it, why is it being changed, how long will the change last, and whose democratic rights could be affected?"
These are not questions of political loyalty.
They are questions of citizenship.
Because in a democracy, the electoral calendar is not merely a schedule on a government memorandum.
It is part of the mechanism by which the people exercise sovereignty.
And if the rules governing that mechanism are changed, the people have every right to understand why.
My Challenge to Every Filipino
Let us not wait until 2028 before we begin asking these questions.
Let us study the laws.
Let us read the Constitution.
Let us listen to Congress, COMELEC and the Supreme Court.
Let us distinguish a proposed bill from an enacted law, an election adjustment from an actual constitutional change, and political speculation from established fact.
And most importantly, let us remain vigilant.
Because elections are not the property of politicians. Elections belong to the people.
Whatever electoral system Congress ultimately establishes, it must always remember the fundamental principle behind every election:
Public office is temporary. The people's sovereignty is permanent.
No comments:
Post a Comment