No-El 2028? Imee Marcos Just Discovered the Slippery Slope Her Dad Built

She’s Right About the Legal Argument. She’s Also the Last Person Who Should Be Making It.

By Louis ‘Barok’ C. Biraogo — October 5, 2026

NOTICE who’s holding the lighter. Imee Marcos predicting a “no-election” scenario in 2028 is like a pyromaniac warning you about fire safety. Technically, she might be right. But the messenger’s hands smell like gasoline.

The Senator from Ilocos Norte—who, let’s remember, is the daughter of the man who literally cancelled elections and ruled by decree for fourteen years—took to the airwaves on October 2, 2026, to announce she’s “not ruling out” a no-el scenario in 2028. Her evidence? A barangay election postponement law, some vague Senate video, and the general vibes of an administration she happens to be feuding with.

Girl, please.

***“She’s Not the Fire Alarm. She’s the Gasoline.”***

The Legal Argument That’s Actually Kind of Valid (Don’t Tell Anyone I Said That)

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Imee’s core constitutional claim has merit. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to determine the term of barangay officials. That’s why the Supreme Court upheld Republic Act No. 12232 (the 2025 barangay term-setting law) in Macalintal v. Senate in 2025, ruling it was a “term-setting law” rather than a sneaky postponement. Congress can set barangay terms at four years, five years, or apparently until the heat death of the universe, as long as it’s “reasonable.”

But here’s where Imee’s argument gets interesting: she correctly notes that Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) only authorizes postponements for “serious cause” in a specific political subdivision, not a nationwide, indefinite delay. That provision was written for typhoons and terrorism, not for “we just don’t feel like holding elections this year.”

So when Congress passes Republic Act No. 12326 (the 2026 barangay term extension law), extending barangay terms to five years and pushing the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) from November 2026 to November 2028, they’re doing something that, on its face, looks constitutional under the Liga ng mga Barangay doctrine. But the substance? The substance is that sitting barangay officials—who were elected to serve until December 2025—will now stay in office until 2028. That’s not “term-setting.” That’s a three-year holdover by any other name.

The Supreme Court in the 2023 Macalintal decision (Macalintal v. Commission on Elections) struck down Republic Act No. 11935 (the 2022 BSKE postponement law) because it violated the right to suffrage without sufficient justification. The Court established that election postponements get strict scrutiny—the government must prove a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means. So when Congress says “we’re just setting terms,” the Court is going to look at whether that’s genuinely a term-setting law or a postponement wearing a term-setting trench coat.

Imee’s instinct here isn’t wrong. The precedent-escalation problem is real. If you can postpone a barangay election by two years by calling it a “term adjustment,” what’s stopping you from doing the same thing to the Senate? To the presidency?

But Let’s Talk About the Messenger

Here’s where Imee loses me. And by “loses me,” I mean “I need a drink.”

This is the same senator who, in May 2026, presented a video on the Senate floor alleging a secret plot to extend President Marcos Jr.’s term until 2031, amend the Constitution to raise the presidential age requirement to 50 (conveniently disqualifying Sara Duterte), and cancel the 2028 elections. The video was so flimsy that even her own colleagues—including opposition senators—moved to strike it from the record. Senate Minority Leader Tito Sotto called it “propaganda.” Panfilo Lacson called it “outright lies”.

The alleged “evidence” was a golf conversation between Sotto and Speaker Bojie Dy. Golf. A conversation that Sotto said was “in jest.” And Imee’s response to the backlash? She withdrew the video but kept making the same claims.

President Marcos Jr. himself called it “fake news” and suggested his sister fire whatever staffer fed her the information. Imee fired back that he should fire his staff. It’s like a family Thanksgiving dinner where everyone’s screaming about constitutional law and no one’s passing the turkey.

The Dynastic Dimension: A Masterclass in Political Theater

Let’s not pretend this is about principle. This is about 2028.

Imee Marcos is politically aligned with Vice President Sara Duterte, who has already announced her presidential bid. A “no-el” scenario would directly block Sara’s path to Malacañang. Imee has called Sara “the solution” and has expressed willingness to be her running mate. So when Imee warns about a no-el plot, she’s not just raising constitutional alarms—she’s campaigning.

Meanwhile, President Marcos Jr. is constitutionally barred from seeking reelection. He has every incentive to engineer a succession that doesn’t involve Sara Duterte, his political rival. A constitutional amendment extending terms? That would solve his problem. Raising the presidential age to 50? That would eliminate Sara, who would be 46 in 2028.

The administration denies all of this, of course. Malacañang called Imee’s claims a “diversionary tactic”. The President said he’s never discussed Charter Change with anyone. But here’s the thing about dynastic politics: when two Marcos siblings are fighting publicly, someone is lying, and it’s usually both of them.

The Supreme Court: The Only Adults in the Room

The good news—if you can call it that—is that the Supreme Court is now the focal point. Macalintal’s petition challenging RA 12326 is pending. The Court has ordered the Executive, Congress, and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to respond within five days—an unusually expedited timeline that suggests the justices understand the stakes.

Here’s the constitutional rub: if the Court upholds RA 12326, it establishes that Congress can effectively postpone elections indefinitely by simply extending terms. If it strikes the law down, it reinforces the 2023 principle that election postponements must meet strict scrutiny and cannot be used as a budget gimmick or a power grab.

The Court’s 2025 decision on RA 12232 was a narrow escape. It upheld the law by characterizing it as “term-setting” rather than “postponement.” But that distinction was already thin. RA 12326 makes it thinner. At some point, the Court will have to decide where the line is between legitimate legislative authority over barangay terms and unconstitutional interference with the right to vote.

I don’t envy them that task. But I’ll be watching.

So Is Imee Right?

Partially. Her legal analysis has substance. Her prediction of a 2028 no-el is speculative, but not insane—especially if the Court greenlights RA 12326’s logic and Congress decides to apply it to national elections.

But here’s the thing: if Imee Marcos genuinely cared about democratic institutions, she would file a proper legal challenge, demand a Senate hearing, and present actual evidence. Instead, she’s doing what she’s always done: making dramatic claims, presenting dubious videos, and letting the chaos serve her political interests.

The irony is exquisite. The Marcos family spent two decades plundering this country and dismantling democratic safeguards. Now, one of them wants us to believe she’s the last line of defense against authoritarianism. The only thing missing is a cameo from the ghost of Ferdinand Sr., shaking his head and saying, “Kids these days.”

Watch the Supreme Court. Watch the 2028 elections. But don’t watch Imee Marcos expecting moral clarity. She’s not the fire alarm. She’s the smoke.

Key Citations

A. Legal & Official Sources

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/. Article VII: http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-vii/. Article X: http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-x/.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines. 3 Dec. 1985, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1985/12/03/batas-pambansa-blg-881-s-1985/.
Republic Act No. 11935. An Act Postponing the December 2022 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9164, as Amended, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes. 10 Oct. 2022, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2022/10/10/republic-act-no-11935/.
Republic Act No. 12232. An Act Setting the Term of Office of Barangay Officials and Members of the Sangguniang Kabataan, and for Other Purposes. 13 Aug. 2025, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2025/08/13/republic-act-no-12232/.
Republic Act No. 12326. An Act Fixing the Term of Office of Barangay Officials and Members of the Sangguniang Kabataan to Five (5) Years, Amending Republic Act No. 12232. 24 Sept. 2026, http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2026/09/24/republic-act-no-12326/.
Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 263590 and 263673. Supreme Court of the Philippines, 27 June 2023, lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jun2023/gr_263590_2023.html.
Macalintal v. Senate, G.R. No. E-02002 (consolidated; Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas as intervenor). Supreme Court of the Philippines, 11 Nov. 2025, sc.judiciary.gov.ph/press-briefer-november-11-2025/.

B. News Reports

Nazario, Dhel. “Imee not ruling out no-election scenario in 2028.” Tempo, Manila Bulletin Publishing, 2 Oct. 2026, tempo.mb.com.ph/2026/10/02/imee-not-ruling-out-no-election-scenario-in-2028/.
Torregoza, Hannah L. “Imee Draws Flak from Minority over ‘Propaganda’ Video on Alleged Con-Ass Push.” Manila Bulletin, 25 May 2026, mb.com.ph/2026/05/25/imee-draws-flak-from-minority-over-propaganda-video-on-alleged-con-ass-push.
Romero, Alexis. “President Marcos Calls Imee’s Cha-cha Claim ‘Fake News’.” Philstar.com, 30 May 2026, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/05/30/2531511/president-marcos-calls-imees-cha-cha-claim-fake-news.
Gita-Carlos, Ruth Abbey. “PBBM Rebuffs Imee’s ‘No Election’ Claim.” Philippine News Agency, 26 May 2026, http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1275920.
Panaligan, Rey G. “No TRO yet vs Law on BSKE Postponement; SC Requires Comments on Petition, Plea for Injunctive Relief.” Manila Bulletin, 30 Sept. 2026, mb.com.ph/2026/09/30/no-tro-yet-vs-law-on-bske-postponement-sc-requires-comments-on-petition-plea-for-injunctive-relief.