Scribd
Upload
129 views2 pages

Macalintal Vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003

Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act allows immigrants and permanent residents abroad to register as voters if they sign an affidavit stating their intention to return to the Philippines. This was challenged as violating the constitutional residency requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 5(d) is constitutional because: 1) it aims to fulfill the constitutional mandate for Congress to establish absentee voting; 2) signing the affidavit allows these voters to retain their Philippine domicile; and 3) failure to return could lead to losing voting rights. The Court found Section 5(d) consistent with the intent of the Constitution to extend suffrage to all qualified Filipino citizens.

Uploaded by

Kelly Roxas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
129 views2 pages

Macalintal Vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003

Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act allows immigrants and permanent residents abroad to register as voters if they sign an affidavit stating their intention to return to the Philippines. This was challenged as violating the constitutional residency requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 5(d) is constitutional because: 1) it aims to fulfill the constitutional mandate for Congress to establish absentee voting; 2) signing the affidavit allows these voters to retain their Philippine domicile; and 3) failure to return could lead to losing voting rights. The Court found Section 5(d) consistent with the intent of the Constitution to extend suffrage to all qualified Filipino citizens.

Uploaded by

Kelly Roxas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Macalintal vs.

COMELEC

GR 157013, July 10, 2003

TOPIC:

I. Nature of the Constitution in General


C. The Supremacy of the Constitution

FACTS:

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 entitled, "An Act Providing for A
System of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating
Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes," appropriates funds under Section 29 thereof which provides
that a supplemental budget on the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into law
shall provide for the necessary amount to carry out its provisions. Taxpayers, such as herein
petitioner, have the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an
unconstitutional statute.

The need to consider the constitutional issues raised before the Court is further buttressed by the fact
that it is now more than fifteen years since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution requiring Congress
to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. Thus, strong reasons of public
policy demand that the Court resolves the instant petition10 and determine whether Congress has
acted within the limits of the Constitution or if it had gravely abused the discretion entrusted to it.

Petitioner posits that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional because it violates Section 1, Article V of the
1987 Constitution which requires that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one
year and in the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding an
election. He claims that the right of suffrage should not be granted to anyone who, on the date of the
election, does not possess the qualifications provided for by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 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, violate the residency requirement in Section 1 of
Article V of the Constitution?
RULLING:

Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically disqualifies an immigrant or permanent resident who is
"recognized as such in the host country" because immigration or permanent residence in another
country implies renunciation of one’s residence in his country of origin. However, same Section allows
an immigrant and permanent resident abroad to register as voter for as long as he/she
executes an affidavit to show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance of the
constitutional intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that "all citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law" must be entitled to exercise the right of suffrage and, that Congress
must establish a system for absentee voting; for otherwise, 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 qualified Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the
Philippines. He is presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country.
His having become an immigrant or permanent resident of his host country does not necessarily imply
an abandonment of his intention to return to his domicile of origin, the Philippines. Therefore, under
the law, he must be given the opportunity to express that he has not actually abandoned his
domicile in the Philippines by executing the affidavit required by Sections 5(d) and 8(c) of the
law.

Congress itself was conscious of said probability and in fact, it has addressed the expected problem.
Section 5(d) itself provides for a deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to return as promised
stands to lose his right of suffrage. Under Section 9, should a registered overseas absentee voter fail
to vote for two consecutive national elections, his name may be ordered removed from the National
Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters.

The votes cast by qualified Filipinos abroad who failed to return within three years shall not be
invalidated because they were qualified to vote on the date of the elections, but their failure to return
shall be cause for the removal of the names of the immigrants or permanent residents from the
National Registry of Absentee Voters and their permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.

In fine, considering the underlying intent of the Constitution, the Court does not find Section 5(d) of
R.A. No. 9189 as constitutionally defective.

You might also like