(Reference Case #1 - Midterms)

Macalintal v. 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.

ISSUE:

(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.
RULING:

(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.