Macalintal vs. Comelec

MACALINTAL VS.
COMELEC
G.R. No. 157013, July 10 2003
FACTS:
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of

the Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and
material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public funds are properly and
lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189 violates the residency requirement in Section 1
of Article V of the Constitution.
(2) Whether or not Section 18.5 of the same law violates the constitutional mandate under Section 4,
Article VII of the Constitution that the winning candidates for President and the Vice-President shall be
proclaimed as winners by Congress.
(3) Whether or not Congress may, through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committeecreated in

Section 25 of Rep. Act No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend, and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations that the Commission on Elections, promulgate without violating the
independence of the COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution.
HELD:
(1) No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under this Act. It
disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country.
However, an exception is provided i.e. unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared
for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent
residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from approval of registration. Such affidavit shall also
state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be 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.
Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residency requirement in Section 1 Article V of
the Constitution which requires the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one yr, and a
resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding an
election.
However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present, and that the Court may have
to discard that particular ruling. Panacea of thecontroversy: Affidavit for without it, the presumption
of abandonment of Phil domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed an affidavit is
deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines and presumed not to have lost his domicile by
his physical absence from this country. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 does not only require the promise to
resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of
registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a green card holder, a temporary visitor
or even on business trip, must declare that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country.
Thus, he/she must return to the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met according to RA No.
9189.
Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not return after he has exercised his right to vote, the
Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found to
be impractical. However, it can be said that the Congress itself was conscious of this probability and
provided for deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to return as promised stands to lose his right
of suffrage. Accordingly, the votes he cast shall not be invalidated because he was qualified to vote on
the date of the elections.
Expressumfacitcessaretacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole meaning, the Court is prevented
from making it mean what the Court pleases. In fine, considering that underlying intent of
the Constitution, as is evident in its statutory construction and intent of the framers, which is to grant
Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to exercise the right of
suffrage (Section 1 Article V) the Court finds that Section 5 of RA No. 9189 is not constitutionally
defective.
(2) Yes. Congress should not have allowed 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 as its duty and power under
Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the
winning candidatesonly for Senators and Party-list Reps.
(3) No. By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend and revise the Implementing Rules
& Regulations for RA No. 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority.

Macalintal vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Macalintal vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MACALINTAL VS.

G.R. No. 157013, July 10 2003

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of

(3) Whether or not Congress may, through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committeecreated in

You might also like