Macalintal v Comelec that the framers intended to enfranchise all Filipino
G.R. No. 157013 citizens abroad who have not abandoned their domicile
Date of Promulgation: July 10, 2003
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.
Petition: certiorari
Petitioners: Romulo B. Macalintal
Respondents: COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner Macalintal, as a taxpayer and a lawyer,
assails certain provisions in RA 9189 (The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003) as unconstitutional.
Petitioner raises 3 points or questions for contention:
1.) That Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 allowing the
registration of voters, who are immigrants or
permanent residents in other countries, by their mere
act of executing an affidavit expressing their intention
to return to the Philippines, violates the residency
requirement in Art. V, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
2.) That Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the
COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for
national offices and party list representatives, including
the President and the Vice-President, violates the
constitutional mandate under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the
Constitution that the winning candidates for President
and Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners only
by Congress.
3.) That Section 25 of RA 9189, allowing Congress
through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee,
(JCOC) to exercise the power to review, revise, amend,
and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) that the COMELEC shall promulgate, violates the
independence of the COMELEC under Art. IX-A, Sec 1 of
the Constitution.
Issues/Held:
WON Sec 5(d) of RA 9189 violates Sec 1 Art V5 of the
Constitution? NO
WON Sec 18.5 of RA 9189 in relation to Sec 4 of the
same Act contravenes Sec 4 Art VII6 of the
Constitution? YES
WON Sections 17.1, 19 and 25 of R.A. No. 9189 violates
of Sec 1 Art IX-A7 of the Constitution? YES
Ratio:
1. Sec 2 Art V8 serves as an exception to the residency
requirement in Sec 1 of the same Article of the
Constitution. RA 9189 was pursuant to the
Constitutional mandate that the Congress shall provide
a system for voting for Filipinos abroad. Since Sec 2
does not provide for restrictions, Congress in enacting
the said law, is presumed to have duly exercised its
function. Under our election laws and countless
pronouncements of the Court pertaining to elections,
an absentee remains attached to his residence in the
Philippines as residence is synonymous w/ domicile.
The Court looked into discussion of the Constitutional
Commission and from there, it is discerned that the
clear intent of the framers is to entrust to Congress the
responsibility of devising a system of absentee voting.
The qualifications in Sec 1 shall remain except for the
residency requirement. The discussions clearly show
of origin. Therefore, Section 5(d) is enacted in
pursuance of the constitutional intent expressed in
Sections 1 and 2 of Article V. If actual, physical
residence in the Philippines is required, there is no
sense for the framers of the Constitution to mandate
Congress to establish a system for absentee voting.
The execution of the affidavit itself is not the enabling
or enfranchising act. The affidavit is not only proof of
the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident
to go back and resume residency in the Philippines,
but more significantly, it serves as an explicit
expression that he had not in fact abandoned his
domicile of origin.
Furthermore, the same section does not only require an
affidavit or a promise to return, Filipinos abroad must
also declare that they have not applied for citizenship
in another country. Thus, they must return to the
Philippines; otherwise, their failure to return shall be
cause for the removal of their names from the
National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her
permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
2. Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 appears to be
repugnant to Sec 4, Article VII of the Constitution only
insofar as said Section totally disregarded the authority
given to Congress by the Constitution to proclaim the
winning candidates for the positions of president and
vice-president. Congress could not have allowed the
COMELEC to usurp a power that constitutionally
belongs to it. The canvassing of the votes and the
proclamation of the winning candidates for president
and vice-president for the entire nation must remain in
the hands of Congress.
3. The ambit of legislative power under Article VI of the
Constitution is circumscribed by other constitutional
provisions. One such provision is Section 1 of Article IX-
A of the 1987 Constitution ordaining that constitutional
commissions such as the COMELEC shall be
independent. In this case, R.A. No. 9189 gives to the
JCOC the following functions:
(a) to review, revise, amend and approve the IRR
promulgated by the COMELEC [Sections 25 and 19]
(b) subject to the approval of the JCOC [Section 17.1],
the voting by mail in not more than three countries for
the May 2004 elections and in any country determined
by COMELEC. Both provisions violate the autonomy or
independence of COMELEC. By vesting itself the
powers to revise, review, or amend the Implementing
Rules and Regulations promulgated by the COMELEC, is
by far an action that goes way beyond the scope of its
constitutional authority. The Court has held that
whatever may be the nature of the functions of the
Commission on Elections, the fact is that the framers of
the Constitution wanted it to be independent from the
other departments of the Government.
Decision:
Partly granted.