The Barangay Betrayal: A Constitutional Catastrophe in the Making

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — June 10, 2025

Constitutional Apocalypse Unleashed

House Bill No. 11287 and Senate Bill No. 2816 are a legislative doomsday device, primed to detonate the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Article X, Section 8 caps local officials’ terms at three years—a democratic firewall against tyranny. Yet, the House lusts for six-year barangay terms, the Senate settles for four, and both delay elections to 2029 and 2027, respectively. This is a full-frontal assault on Article V’s suffrage guarantee, the sacred heartbeat of Filipino democracy. The Supreme Court has unsheathed its blade before: in Macalintal v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 263590, June 27, 2023), the Court struck down Republic Act No. 11935 for postponing barangay elections, a brazen violation of the constitutional right to suffrage under Article V. Past rulings, like Bengzon v. Drilon (1992), upheld judicial independence against legislative overreach, signaling a warning to reckless delays and power grabs. These bills aren’t just dancing with unconstitutionality—they’re in a death grip with it.

Then there’s the “one-subject rule” bloodbath. Article VI, Section 26 demands bills stick to one topic, but HB 11287’s log-rolling is a grotesque orgy—melding term extensions, election delays, and hold-over clauses into a slimy, self-serving stew. Six years in power? Even Game of Thrones had shorter reigns, and those ended in dragonfire.

Democracy’s Death Rattle: A Political Horror Show

The stage is set for a chilling spectacle. House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez champions “continuity,” arguing that six years will protect barangay officials from politicking and allow projects to flourish. But Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel delivers a bone-crunching retort: “If 3 years suffices for Congress, why not barangays?” The stench of hypocrisy is gag-inducing—congressmen, awash in resources, limp through three-year terms, yet barangay captains need double? Spare us the sham. Lurking in the shadows, the Marcos-Romualdez dynasty pulls the puppet strings. Senator Imee Marcos, Romualdez’s cousin, dangles a conflicting four-year term in SB 2816, as if the family’s bartering over the spoils of local power. This isn’t governance—it’s a dynastic horror flick, with barangay voters cast as the screaming victims.

The suspense is paralyzing: will these bills cement local warlords, or crumble under their own avarice? The bicameral conference looms like a guillotine, and democracy’s pulse fades fast.

Ethical Slaughter: The Gory Betrayal of Public Trust

The hold-over clause in HB 11287 is a gaping wound, a backdoor so vast incumbents could smuggle an empire through it. Letting officials squat past 2026 without a fresh mandate mutilates RA 6713’s “public trust” doctrine, which demands loyalty to the people, not power-hungry leeches. Chief Justice Gesmundo’s warning thunders: “Any voting rights infringement demands microscopic scrutiny.” This isn’t scrutiny—it’s a chainsaw to ethics. Postponing elections to 2029 (or even 2027) strangles voters’ voices, gifting incumbents a license to slack, scheme, or siphon. Barangays, the lifeblood of grassroots governance, risk morphing into fiefdoms for the entrenched, while public trust bleeds out in the gutter. Accountability? Buried alive under a six-year landslide of lies.

Claw Back Democracy: A Ferocious Fix

If Congress insists on this hellish rampage, chain it down. First, demand prospective application—new terms ignite post-2026 elections, no exceptions. No retroactive constitutional carnage, no throne for current cronies. Second, bolt on sunset clauses—force a reckoning after one cycle to expose this experiment’s rot. Third, forge anti-dynasty safeguards to stop barangays from falling prey to the iron grip of political dynasties. The Constitution isn’t a plaything; it’s a battle-axe. Wield it to defend suffrage, not self-interest.

The Supreme Court’s gavel hangs like a thunderbolt—will it obliterate this power grab? Filipinos deserve more than a legislative heist cloaked as reform. Scream from the rooftops, storm the courts, and resurrect democracy before it’s too late. The clock’s ticking—act now.

Key References

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article X, Section 8 – Term limits for local officials.
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article V, Section 1 – Right to suffrage.
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 26 – One-subject rule for bills.
Republic Act No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards – Public trust doctrine.
Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992 – On legislative overreach.
Geronimo v. Ramos, et al., G.R. No. L-60504, May 14, 1985 – On suffrage.
Macalintal v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 263590, June 27, 2023)
Macalintal v. COMELEC (2023), cited in Tribune, Jan. 26, 2025 – Justice Caguioa’s stance on legislative mockery.
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 133509, November 17, 1998 – On electoral integrity.
Bill extending term of barangay execs approved on third reading, Inquirer.net, June 10, 2025 – House approval of HB 11287.

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.