The Commission on Elections said it will not oppose a congressional move to postpone the barangay and youth council elections scheduled for November 2, provided the new date does not extend beyond May 2027.
Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia warned that delaying the polls past May would interfere with preparations for the 2028 presidential elections, which begin in June 2027. He said automated election systems will already be in full swing by that time.
The House of Representatives is considering the postponement to redirect the P19 billion ($340 million) BSKE budget toward mitigating soaring fuel prices and rising costs of basic goods linked to the Middle East crisis. Comelec has already spent about P3 billion ($54 million) on printing roughly 90 million ballots and other procurement.
Garcia emphasized that Congress cannot simply reallocate election funds to other uses, citing the 1987 Constitution’s prohibition on transferring appropriations except under specific conditions allowing limited augmentation within the same office. However, he noted the remaining P16 billion ($286 million) could be declared as savings and reverted to the National Treasury if the elections are postponed.
Any use of such savings must meet a “legitimate government interest,” Garcia said, referencing a Supreme Court ruling that struck down Republic Act 11935. He stressed that Comelec is continuing preparations for the November 2 poll as scheduled.
The last barangay and SK elections were held on October 30, 2023. Senator JV Ejercito warned that repeated postponements would waste the “productive years” of young aspiring leaders, noting many Filipinos want to choose their next local leaders.
Ejercito said Congress must study the legality of any suspension, particularly whether an oil crisis justification aligns with Supreme Court guidelines from 2023. He added that this would be another temporary suspension, potentially undermining local government units as citizens seek to exercise their suffrage.
Namfrel opposed the postponement outright, calling it a “grave threat to the foundations of Philippine democracy.” The group said elections are constitutional obligations, not discretionary events to be deferred for convenience, and warned that diverting Comelec’s funds constitutes “institutional sabotage” and a violation of budgetary transfer prohibitions under the Constitution.
Namfrel stressed that extending barangay and SK officials’ terms is an affront to constituents, emphasizing that Filipinos deserve regular, uninterrupted elections even amid economic hardship. It noted the Philippines has held elections through graver crises and that economic pressure is not a democratic emergency.
The Manila Bulletin reported senators are divided on the issue. Senator Erwin Tulfo supported the postponement as practical, saying it would save government funds usable during the ongoing oil crisis.
Senator Sherwin Gatchalian rejected the idea, citing a prior Supreme Court decision that barangay elections cannot be suspended at will. He warned that another postponement would lead to loss of democracy and opportunity, noting this would be the third suspension.
Senator Imee Marcos welcomed the plan, arguing prudence requires prioritizing limited public resources amid Middle East-linked economic challenges. She cited Comelec’s estimate that nationwide barangay and SK elections require around P16 billion ($286 million), which could be redirected to fuel costs, food security, and essential services.
Marcos added that continuity of grassroots leadership can facilitate ensure stability and efficient public service delivery during difficult times.
What is the latest date Comelec will accept for a postponed barangay election?
Comelec will not accept a postponement that extends beyond May 2027, as preparations for the 2028 presidential elections begin in June 2027.
Why does Namfrel consider diverting election funds to other uses a violation of the Constitution?
Namfrel cites Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the transfer of budgetary funds, calling such diversion a “clear violation” and “deliberate act of institutional sabotage.”