YRA VS ABANO A request to conduct a two-day additional registration of new voters on February 17
and 18, 2001 was passed but it was denied by the COMELEC. Section 8 of Republic
FACTS: Maximo Abao is a native of the municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan. At
the proper age, he transferred to Manila to complete his education. While
temporarily residing in Manila, Abao registered as a voter there. Shortly after
qualifying as a member of the bar and after the death of is father, Abao returned to
Meycauayan to live. From May 10, 1927, until the present, Abao has considered
himself a resident of Meycauayan. When the 1928 elections were approaching, he
made an application for cancellation of registration in Manila which was dated April
3, 1928, but the application was rejected by the city officials for the reason that it
was not deposited in the mails on or before April 4, 1928. Nevertheless, Abao
presented himself as a candidate for municipal president of Meycauayan in the 1928
elections and was elected by popular vote to the office.
Marcos Yra assigns and argues that Abao is ineligible to hold the position to which
he was elected for the reason that he had not been a resident of Meycauayan for at
least one year before the election.
ISSUE: Is the non-eligibility of the respondent to hold a municipal office for the
reason that he was not a qualified voter in his municipality, connoting that he was
not a qualified elector therein, sufficient to nullify his election?
RULING: One of the qualifications required by law of a person who announces his
candidacy is that he must be a duly qualified elector. The words qualified elector
meant a person who had all of the qualifications provided by law to be a voter and
not a person registered in the electoral list. The Executive Bureau has held that the
term qualified when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean that a person
must be a registered voter. To become a qualified candidate, a person does not need
to register as an elector. Registering does not confer the right; it is a condition
precedent to exercise the right. The fact that a candidate failed to register as an
elector in the municipality does not deprive him of the right to become a candidate
and to be voted for.
AKBAYAN YOUTH VS COMELEC
FACTS: Petitioner Akbayan Youth seek to direct the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before May 2001 General Elections
for new voters ages 18 to 21. According to petitioners, around four million youth
failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000 deadline set by the respondent
COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189.
Act No. 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted during the
period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and that the
Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre-election activities.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can compel respondent COMELEC, to conduct a
special registration of new voters during the period between the COMELECs
imposed December 27, 2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections.
HELD: The Supreme Court could not compel Comelec to conduct a special
registration of new voters. The right to suffrage is not absolute and must be
exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the Constitution. Petitioners
failed to register, thus missed their chance. However, court took judicial notice of the
fact that the President issued a proclamation calling Congress to a Special Session to
allow the conduct of special registration for new voters and that bills had been filed
in Congress to amend Republic Act No. 8189.
MAKALINTAL VS COMELEC
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
Committee created 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 the controversy:
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.
Expressum facit cessare tacitum: 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 candidates
only 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. Congress trampled upon the constitutional
mandate of independence of the COMELEC. Under such a situation, the Court is left
with no option but to withdraw from its usual silence in declaring a provision of law
unconstitutional.
NICOLAS LEWIS VS COMELEC
FACTS: Petitions for certiorari and mandamus for exercising their rights to suffrage
under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act or RA No. 9189. Petitioners are dual
citizens who retained or reacquired Philippine Citizenship under RA No. 9225, or
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. COMELEC denied their
petitions on the ground that they fail to meet the qualification of 1-year residency
required by the Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not dual citizens may exercise their right to suffrage as absentee
voters even short of 1-year residency requirement.
RULING: Yes. There is no provision in the RA 9225 requiring duals to actually
establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can
exercise their right to vote. Congress enacted RA 9189 pursuant to Sections 1 and 2
of Article V of the Constitution, identifying in its Section 4 of the said Act who can
vote under it, among others, are Filipino immigrants and permanent residents in
another country opens an exception and qualifies the disqualification rule under the
Section 5(d) of the same Act.
By applying the doctrine of necessary implication, Constitutional Commission
provided for an exception to actual residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of
1987 Constitution, with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. Filipino immigrants
and permanent residents in another country may be allowed to vote even though they
do not fulfill the residency requirement of said Sec 1 Art V of the Constitution.