IN THE PHILIPPINES, politics can sometimes feel distant—something discussed in the halls of Congress, argued about on television, or fought over on social media.
Until you reach the barangay.
That is where the government becomes personal.
It is in the barangay where a mother whose house has been damaged by fire first asks for help. Where a senior citizen goes for a certification or assistance. Where neighbors try to settle a dispute before bringing it to court. Where a family seeks a document because a child needs it for school, employment, or some other requirement.
For most ordinary Filipinos, the barangay is not an abstract political institution. It is the government at their doorstep.
And yet, despite being the level of government closest to the people, barangay elections seem to be the elections we are most willing to postpone.
The latest proposal is now moving through Congress. The Senate committee on local government has approved measures seeking to postpone the November 2026 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) and to fix the terms of barangay and SK officials for five years. Proponents have raised practical concerns—from the cost of conducting an election to the desire to give local officials more time to implement programs. There have also been proposals to redirect or save funds intended for the elections for other urgent government needs.
The argument is not entirely without merit.
Elections cost money. Government resources are limited. Filipinos are facing rising prices and other economic pressures. If billions of pesos can be used for health care, education, social assistance, or emergency programs, it is understandable why many people would ask whether holding another election should be the immediate priority.
But democracy also has a cost.
And perhaps the more important question is this: When does saving money become a good reason to postpone the people’s opportunity to choose their leaders?
We have been here before.
In Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, decided in 2023, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Republic Act No. 11935, which postponed the 2022 BSKE to October 2023. The Court recognized the importance of genuine and periodic elections and found that the postponement, under the circumstances of that law, failed constitutional scrutiny. The decision is an important reminder that the right to vote cannot simply be treated as an inconvenience that may be moved aside whenever the government finds another use for election funds.
Then came Republic Act No. 12232, enacted in 2025. The law fixed the term of barangay and SK officials at four years and scheduled the next BSKE for November 2026 and every four years thereafter. The law was challenged before the Supreme Court, but the Court upheld its constitutionality.
The distinction made by the Court is important. The Court treated RA 12232 fundamentally as a law setting the term of office of barangay officials, an authority given to Congress under Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution. The change in the election date was considered incidental to the new four-year term structure. The Court stressed that elections remained regular, periodic, and certain.
That ruling should be respected.
But neither should it be misunderstood as a blank check to keep moving the electoral calendar whenever holding an election becomes difficult, expensive, or inconvenient.
A five-year term is not necessarily unconstitutional simply because it is longer than four years. Congress has constitutional authority to fix the term of barangay officials. The real question is whether we are finally establishing a stable and carefully considered electoral system—or simply postponing an election again and adjusting the term afterward to justify the new schedule.
That difference matters.
This is particularly important at the grassroots level.
Barangay officials deserve credit for the work they do. Many of them operate with limited resources and face demands that go far beyond what their positions and budgets can realistically accommodate. A longer term may give good officials more time to finish projects and focus on governance rather than immediately preparing for another election.
That is a fair point.
But there is another reality that people also see on the ground.
Not every barangay is governed well. Not every official deserves to stay in office longer. In some communities, elections are the only realistic opportunity for residents to peacefully replace officials who have lost the public’s confidence. Postponement means they have to wait longer.
For ordinary voters, the ballot is not just a piece of paper.
It is their receipt of accountability.
At the barangay level, it is the one regular moment when a resident can say, without confrontation and without asking anyone’s permission: “I want someone else to lead.”
The SK situation is even more delicate. The youth council has age qualifications. Repeated changes in the election calendar may affect young Filipinos who hope to serve but may eventually age out before an election is held. If we genuinely want young people to participate in governance, we must also give them a predictable opportunity to do so.
And this is why budget constraints should not become the permanent scapegoat for postponement.
The government does not discover an election at the last minute. Elections are among the most predictable events in public administration. We know years ahead when they are supposed to happen. COMELEC should be given enough time to prepare. Congress and the Executive should provide the necessary budget. If the country is serious about maintaining a regular electoral cycle, then the cost of elections must be part of long-term planning—not treated as an unexpected emergency expense.
Ironically, postponement can also have its own costs. COMELEC has already begun preparations. Public money, time, and manpower have already been committed. Moving an election does not always mean that every peso disappears into savings.
There is a better way forward.
If Congress sincerely believes that barangay and SK officials should serve five-year terms, then let that policy be thoroughly debated and clearly established as a long-term framework. Give the public a stable calendar. Allow COMELEC to prepare well in advance. Budget for it properly. And once that cycle is established, respect it.
What we should avoid is developing a habit where elections are repeatedly postponed whenever another crisis arises or another budgetary priority appears.
There will always be a crisis. There will always be another urgent need. And there will always be something the government can spend money on.
But if every urgent problem becomes a reason to postpone an election, then the right of the people to choose their leaders slowly becomes negotiable.
Barangay officials need enough time to govern. The government must use public funds wisely. COMELEC needs adequate resources to conduct credible elections.
All of these are legitimate concerns.
But so is the right of every Filipino—in every sitio, purok, subdivision, and barangay—to periodically decide who will lead.
A democracy should not measure the cost of elections only in pesos.
Sometimes, we must also measure the cost of making the people wait too long to be heard.