Article V Suffrage

Section 1
Suffrage may be exercised by (1) all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law,
(2) who are at least eighteen years of age, (3) and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding the election. No literacy, properly or other substantive requirement shall be imposed
on the exercise of suffrage. (4) Not otherwise disqualified by law.
Suffrage - is the right and obligations to vote and qualified citizen in the election of certain
national and local officers of the government and in the decision of public questions submitted to
the people.
Nature
1. A mere privilege
Suffrage is not a natural right of the citizens but a privilege to be given or withheld by the
lawmaking power subject to constitutional limitations. It should be granted to individuals only
upon the fulfillment of certain minimum conditions deemed essential for the welfare of the
society.
2. A political right
In the sense of a right conferred by the constitution, suffrage is classified as a political right,
enabling very citizen to participate in the process of government to assure that it derives its
power from the consent of the governed.
Scope
1. Elections means by which people choose their officials for definite and fixed period
and to whom they entrust, for the time beings their representative the exercise of power
of government.
2. Plebiscite it is an election at which any proposed amendments to, or revision of the
Constitutional is submitted to the people for ratification.
3. Initiative it is the initiative mode of the people proposing and initiating constitutional
amendments or initiating recall movement of certain public officials.
4. Referendum it is the submission of a proposed law or issue to the voting citizens of the
country for their ratification or rejections.
5. Recall methods by which a public officer may be removed from office during his
tenure or before the expiration of his term by a vote of the people after registration of a
petition signed by a required percentage of the qualified voters.
Theories of Suffrage
1. Natural right theory suffrage is natural and inherent of every citizen who is not
disqualified by reason of his own reprehensible conduct of unfitness.
2. Social Expediency theory suffrage is a public office or functions conferred upon the
citizen for reason of social expediency, conferred upon those who are fit and capable of
discharging it.

3. Primitive/Tribal theory a theory dominant in the city and state of antiquity and
necessary as an attribute of its membership in the state.
4. Feudal theory suffrage is been regarded as an adjunct of a particular state, generally
tenure in character.
5. Ethical theory suffrage has been regarded as a necessary and an essential means for
the development of industrial society.
Voters Qualification.
a. Filipino Citizen
b. At least 18 years of age on the day of the election.
c. A resident of the Philippines for at least one year
d. A resident in the place where he proposes to vote for least six months.
e. He has none of the disqualification
Voters Disqualification
a. Any person sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year
Exceptions:
1. The grant of plenary pardon or amnesty restores the right to suffrage.
2. Re acquisition of the right of suffrage upon the expiration of five years after service
of sentence.
b. Any person sentenced by final judgment of having committed any crime involving, (a)
disloyalty to the government or (b) national security.
Exceptions:
3. The grant of plenary pardon or amnesty restores the right to suffrage.
4. Re acquisition of the right of suffrage upon the expiration of five years after service
of sentence.
c. Insane or incompetent person as declared by competent authority.
Prohibition in the Exercise of the Right to Suffrage.
1. No literacy, property or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage.
2. Transfer of residence by reason of ones occupation, profession or employment shall
be deemed to have lost original residence.
Secrecy of Ballot. The voice of the people has been expressed through the votes they cast in an
election. Their voice is the voice of God under the time-honored principle vox populi vox dei, or
the voice of the people is the voice of God.
Absentee voting.
1. Absentee voting the process by which qualified citizens abroad exercise their right
to vote.
2. Overseas absentee voters- refers to those citizens who are qualified to register and
vote under the overseas absentee voting act of 2003, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are abroad on the day of the election.

3. Certified list of absentee voters refers to the list of overseas absentee voters whose
application to vote in absentia have been approved by the COMELEC on a country by
country basis
Disqualification for absentee voting.
1. Lost of Philippine citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws.
2. Express renunciation of Philippine citizenship and a pledge of allegiance to a foreign
country.
3. Commission and conviction by final judgment of an offense punishment by
imprisonment of not less than one year or of disloyalty.
Exceptions:
a. The grant of plenary pardon or amnesty restores the right to suffrage.
b. Re-acquisition of the right to suffrage upon the expiration of five years after service
of sentence.
4. Insanity as declared and taken cognizance by foreign courts or tribunal on the basis of
reciprocity.
5. Immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in host country. Unless
UPON REGISTRATION, he/she executes an affidavit declaring that he/she shall resume
actual physical permanent resident in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from
the approval of his/her registration.
6. Unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the
Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent resident in the
Philippines not later than 3 years from approval oh hi/her registration under this act.
Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country.
Failure to return shall be a cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent
resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to
vote in absentia.

Any citizen of the Philippines abroad, previously declared insane or incompetent by

competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies,
consulates, or Foreign Service establishments concerned, unless such competent authority
subsequently certifies that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.

G.R. no. 147066

March 26, 2001
Akbayan Youth vs. COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioners-representing the youth sector seek to direct the COMELEC to conduct a
special registration before the May 14, 2001 General election, of new voters ages 18-21.
According to petitioners, around 4 million youth failed to register on or before the December 27,
2000 deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under R.A. no. 8189. On Feb. 8, 2001, the
COMELEC issued Resolution no. 3584 denying the petition. Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners
Akbayan-Youth filed before this Court the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Issue:
WON this Court can compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a special registration of
new voters during the period between the COMELECs imposed Dec. 27, 2000 deadline and the
May 14, 2001 general elections?
Ruling:
The petitioners are bereft of merit. As to the procedural limitation, the act of registration
is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For registration is part and parcel of the
right to vote and an indispensable element in the election process. Thus contrary to petitioners
argument, registration cannot and should not be denigrated to the lowly stature of mere statutory
requirements.
Proceeding from the significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the right to
vote, the State undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact the laws
to safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting
honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even preelection activities could be performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly
manner one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and
the prevalent circumstances of the time.
Considering the circumstances where the writ of mandamus lies and the peculiarities of
the present case, we are of the firm belief that petitioners failed to establish, to the satisfaction of
this Court, that they are entitled to the issuance of this extraordinary writ so as to effectively
compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a special registration of voters is feasible, possible or
practical within the remaining period before the actual date of election, involves the exercise of
discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by mandamus.
Instant petition for certiorari and mandamus are denied.

G.R. no. 157013

July 10, 2013

Makalintal vs. COMELEC

Facts:
Macalintal assails the constitutionality of R.A. 9198, entitled The Overseas absentee
voting act of 2003. The provision assails is Section 5, which allows the registration of voters
who are immigrant or permanent residence in other countries by their mere act of executing an
affidavit expressing their intention to return to the Philippines.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 5 of R.A. 9198 violates the residency requirement in Section 1 of
Article V of the Constitution? No
Ruling:
Contrary to petitioners claim that Sec. 5 circumvents the Constitution. Congress enacted
the law prescribing a system of overseas absentee voting in compliance with the constitutional
mandate. Such mandate expressly requires that Congress provide a system of absentee voting
that necessarily presupposes that the qualified citizen of the Philippines abroad is not
physically present in the country. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed his affidavit is
deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines. He is presumed to not have lost his
domicile by his physical absence from this country. As to the eventuality that the Filipino abroad
would renege on his undertaking to return to the Philippines, the penalty of perpetual
disenfranchisement provided for by Section 5 (d) would suffice to serve as deterrence to noncompliance with his/her understanding under the affidavit.
What does qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad as it appear mean in R.A. 9189
means?
- It means Filipinos who are not disqualified under Section 5 of the said law.
Obiter:
Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, the execution of the affidavit itself is not the
enabling or enfranchising act. It is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent
residence 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. The affidavit is
required of immigrant and permanent residents abroad because by their status in their host
countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their intent to return to this country, thus,
without the affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain.
The strategic location of Section 2 indicates that the Constitutional Commission provided
for an exception to the actual residency requirement of Section 1 with respect to qualified
Filipino abroad.

Doctrines
The right of absentee and disabled voters to cast their ballots at an election is purely statutory,
absentee, absentee voting was unknown to and not recognized at, the common law.
Statutes on absentee voting are regarded as conferring a privilege and not a right, or an absolute
right.
Domicile includes the twin elements of the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place
and animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently. Residence, in its ordinary
conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical
presence of a person in a given area, community or country.
The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the
intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. If a persons
intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile, if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is
established it is residence.
A person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons
his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.
Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident and vice versa, a person cannot be at the same time, both
a resident and an absentee. However, under our election laws and the countless pronouncements
of the Court pertaining to elections, absentee remains attached to his residence in the Philippines
as residence is considered synonymous with domicile.

Government of the Philippines Island vs. Monte de Piedad

Facts:
On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines took place. The Spanish
dominions provided $400,000 aid as received by the National Treasury as relief of the victim of
the earthquake. The government used the money as such but $80,000 was left untouched and was
thus invested to Monte De Piedad bank, which was turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the
same amount. In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same bank to return the
$80,000 deposited from before. The Monte de Piedad declined to comply with this order on the
grounds that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not the Department of Finance
had the right to order the reimbursement because the Philippine Government is not the affected
party. On account of various petition of the persons, the Philippine Island brought a suit against
Monte De Piedad for a recovery of the $80,000 together with interest, for the benefit of those
persons and their heirs. Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippines government is authorized to file a reimbursement of the
money of the people deposited in respondents bank?
Ruling:
The Court held that the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint against
respondent bank in accordance to the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government is the sole
protector of the right of the people thus; it holds an inherent supreme power to enforce laws
which promote public interest. The government has the right to take it back the money intended
for people. The government has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its
general superintending authority over the public interest, where no other person is entrusted with
it.
Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was thereby GRANTED. The Court
ordered that responded bank return the amount to the rightful heirs with interest in gold or coin
in Philippine peso.