“Is the appointment of barangay official and constitutional?

There have been a lot of speculations regarding our president, Rodrigo

Duterte, on pushing for a measure that not only seeks to postpone the
barangay elections in October, but would also replace all village officials
with his appointees and many are confused weather this is legal or
unconstitutional.

According to our law, this contravenes the Constitution on so many fronts.

First, under the 1987 Constitution, local government positions,

including those in the barangays, are by design to be filled by election.
While there is no such express declaration in the Constitution, such
intention is indisputably apparent in many of its provisions, such as these:

Article IX (C) Section 2.2:

"Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction…and appellate jurisdiction

over all contests...involving elective barangay officials decided by trial
courts of limited jurisdiction."

Article X, Section 8:

“The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay

officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no
such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as
an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he
was elected.”
 Second, this mode of filling in barangay positions cannot be changed
from elective to appointive by mere legislative enactment. It needs a
constitutional amendment.

Adopting this appointment scheme would also render inutile related

constitutional provisions, like the trial courts’ jurisdictions over questions
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective barangay
officials and the Commission on Elections' related appellate jurisdiction.

How can we also reconcile the term of appointed barangay officials

with the constitutionally-imposed 3-term limit rule?

Third, it is clear in Article X (Section 8) of the Constitution that the

only discretion of Congress as regards the “term of office” of
barangay officials is the determination of its length. This means that in
the case of elective barangay officials, Congress can either lengthen or
shorten the default 3-year term, but certainly this power does not include
the greater discretion to scrap these term limits altogether.

Fourth, the proposed legislation is a threat to the 1987

Constitution's policy of decentralization. Article II (Section 25) obliges
the state to “ensure the autonomy of local governments.” In relation to
this, Article X (Section 4) states that “[t]he President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local governments.”

This provision is two-pronged. It is not only an express grant of such

supervisory authority to the President, but it also sets the limit of the extent
that the central government, acting through the President, can meddle with
local governments. In Bito-onon vs. Judge Yap-Fernandez (GR Number
139813, January 31, 2001), the Supreme Court defined the President’s
power of supervision only to mean “the power of a superior officer to see to
it that lower officers perform their functions in accordance with law.”

The same ruling clarified that: “[T]he Chief Executive wielded no more
authority than that of checking whether a local government or the officers
thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments. He
cannot interfere with local governments provided that the same or its
officers act within the scope of their authority.”

The President’s proposed power to appoint or designate barangay

OICs necessarily implies the power to fire the same official at will. Putting
all barangay officials at the full mercy of the President is clearly beyond
even the most liberal interpretation of “general supervision”.

This is a dangerous precedent as it would not only effectively lump

the supposedly decentralized local governments to the executive
department, but will put too much power in one person, the dangers of
which this country is too familiar with.

The 5th and the most important objection to House Bill 5359 is that it
is not only a threat to, but a direct assault on, democracy. It is undisputed
that the power to choose barangay officials exclusively belongs to the
people.

Article II (Section 1) of the Constitution reiterates that

“sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.” While, in theory, the people, in approving the
Constitution, delegate the exercise of most of its sovereignty in favor of the
government, the power to elect public officials is a portion of that
sovereignty it reserved to itself and withheld from the government.
 Bataan Peninsula State University
College of Engineering and Architecture

Philippine
Constitution

Submitted by:
DE GUZMAN, Christian Jeru D.
BSAR – 4A