Title
Macalintal vs. Commission on Elections
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 157013 Jul 10, 2003
The Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the overseas absentee voting
system but declares certain provisions of the law unconstitutional for violating
the independence of the COMELEC, while recognizing the petitioner's right to file
the petition and finding that Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act is
constitutional.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 157013)
Case Background and Petitioner's Argument
Romulo B. Macalintal filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of certain
provisions of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act.
Macalintal argues that Section 5(d) of the law, which allows immigrants and
permanent residents abroad to vote in Philippine elections, violates the residency
requirement for voting as stated in Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
Macalintal claims that immigrants and permanent residents abroad have abandoned
their domicile in the Philippines and should not be allowed to vote.
Supreme Court's Jurisdiction and Importance of the Case
The Supreme Court upholds Macalintal's right to file the petition, stating that
objections to taxpayers' suits for lack of standing or interest are procedural matters.
The Court notes that the case involves a public right that affects a large number of
citizens and raises issues of transcendental significance.
Constitutionality of Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act
The Court concludes that Section 5(d) of the law is constitutional because it is in line
with the intent of the framers of the Constitution to allow qualified Filipinos abroad
to vote.
The Court emphasizes that residence is considered synonymous with domicile, and
the law provides for an exception to the residency requirement for qualified
Filipinos abroad.
Rejection of the Argument on Affidavit Execution
The Court rejects the argument that the execution of an affidavit by immigrants and
permanent residents abroad is sufficient to establish their intent to return to the
Philippines and maintain their domicile.
The Court states that intention alone is not enough to establish residence for voting
purposes, and that actual physical presence in a particular locality is also required.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act, stating that it is in line with the intent of the framers of the
Constitution.
The Court emphasizes that intention alone is not sufficient to establish residence for
voting purposes.
Case Background and Provisions Challenged
The case involves a challenge to provisions of the Philippine law on overseas
absentee voting.
The provisions in question include Section 5(d), which requires immigrants and
permanent residents abroad to execute an affidavit stating their intention to return
to the Philippines within three years, and Section 18.5, which empowers the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates for national
offices even if elections were not held in certain countries.
Violation of Residency Requirement and Potential Election Fraud
The petitioner argues that Section 5(d) violates the constitutional requirement that
suffrage be exercised only by citizens who have resided in the Philippines for at least
one year and in the place where they propose to vote for at least six months.
The petitioner claims that immigrants and permanent residents abroad have
abandoned their domicile in the Philippines and should not be allowed to vote.
The petitioner also argues that Section 5(d) may be an avenue for election fraud and
that the punishment for non-compliance with the affidavit requirement is
meaningless.
Violation of Congress' Power and Independence of COMELEC
The petitioner argues that Section 18.5 of the law violates the constitutional mandate
that Congress should canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for
president and vice-president.
The petitioner claims that this provision gives the COMELEC the power to encroach
on the power of Congress.
The petitioner also challenges Sections 19 and 25 of the law, which establish a Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee with the power to review and approve the
COMELEC's implementing rules and regulations.
The petitioner argues that this violates the independence of the COMELEC.
Agreement on Unconstitutionality of Certain Provisions
The COMELEC agrees with the petitioner that Sections 19 and 25 are
unconstitutional, but argues that another provision of the law, Section 17, is also
unconstitutional.
Section 17 allows voting by mail in certain countries, subject to the approval of the
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee.
The COMELEC argues that this provision violates the independence of the
COMELEC.
Summary of the Case
The case involves a challenge to provisions of the Philippine law on overseas
absentee voting.
The petitioner argues that these provisions are unconstitutional and violate the right
to suffrage.
The provisions in question include requirements for immigrants and permanent
residents abroad to execute an affidavit stating their intention to return to the
Philippines, as well as provisions giving the COMELEC and the Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee certain powers.
The COMELEC agrees with the petitioner that some of these provisions are
unconstitutional.
Constitutionality of Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act
The case involves the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act.
The main issue is whether this provision violates the residency requirement in
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
The court deliberates on the rationale behind the requirement for residency in the
Constitution, which is to ensure that voters are familiar with the needs and
problems of their locality.
The court also considers the intention of the framers of the Constitution, who
recognized the need to enfranchise overseas Filipinos and included a provision for
absentee voting.
The court concludes that the double residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V
does not apply to absentee voters, as it would render the provision on absentee
voting in Section 2 meaningless.
The court also discusses the international perspective on absentee voting, noting
that many countries allow their citizens abroad to vote without any residency
requirement.
The court upholds the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of the Overseas Absentee
Voting Act, allowing immigrants and permanent residents abroad to vote by
executing an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the Philippines.
Various Opinions on the Case
The majority opinion upholds the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act.
Justice Carpio emphasizes the importance of enfranchising overseas Filipinos and
their contribution to the Philippine economy.
Justice Carpio Morales agrees with the majority but adds that the execution of the
affidavit should be considered a revival of the immigrant or permanent resident's
domicile of origin.
Justice Azcuna argues that the execution of the affidavit serves as an explicit
expression that the immigrant or permanent resident has not abandoned their
domicile of origin.
Justice Puno disagrees with the majority's interpretation of Section 2 of Article V
and argues that an immigrant or permanent resident of a foreign country has indeed
lost their domicile in the Philippines.
Summary of the Case and Constitutional Issues
The case involves the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Absentee Voting
Law in the Philippines.
The main issue is whether Section 5(d) of the law violates the residency requirement
in Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
The court rules that the residence requirements do apply to absentee voters and that
they must have all the qualifications stated in Section 1, Article V in order to vote.
The court also rules that an "immigrant" or a "permanent resident" of a foreign
country has indeed abandoned their domicile in the Philippines.
The court further rules that the execution of the affidavit does not revive their
domicile of origin.
The court rules that counting the votes of immigrants or permanent residents who
fail to return to the Philippines does dilute the valid votes of qualified electors.
The court rules that Congress has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations
for the implementation of the Act, but must not violate the independence of the
COMELEC.
Constitutionality of Provisions and Petitioner's Arguments
The case involves the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act.
The petitioner argues that Section 5(d) of the law, which allows immigrants or
permanent residents of foreign countries to vote in Philippine elections, is
unconstitutional.
The petitioner contends that only Filipino citizens who are temporarily residing
abroad should be allowed to vote as absentee voters.
The petitioner argues that the provision violates the constitutional requirement that
only qualified Filipino citizens should be allowed to vote.
The petitioner also argues that the provision goes against the intent of the framers of
the Constitution.
The petitioner further argues that the provision violates the principle of residence
qualifications for voting.
The petitioner also challenges the constitutionality of other provisions of the law,
including Section 17.1, Section 19, and Section 25.
Case Background and Issue
The case involves the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
The main issue is whether immigrants or permanent residents in another country
should be allowed to vote after executing an affidavit showing an intent to reside in
the Philippines within three years.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Artemio Panganiban, upheld the
constitutionality of the law.
Justice Panganiban argued that physical presence in the Philippines is no longer
necessary for overseas Filipinos to be informed about the country's needs and to
make an intelligent decision on who to vote for.
The Information Age has provided overseas Filipinos with easy access to Philippine
mass media, allowing them to stay updated on current events and make informed
choices.
Residence Requirement and Advancements in Technology
Justice Panganiban pointed out that the residence requirement for voting is rooted
in the desire for elected officials to be familiar with the needs and problems of their
constituencies.
However, with advancements in technology and communication, actual physical
residence is no longer necessary for overseas Filipinos to understand the country's
needs and choose national leaders wisely.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Reynato Puno
Justice Puno argued that the law violates the constitutional requirement of
residence for voting.
He emphasized that residence is not synonymous with domicile and that the law
should be interpreted based on the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
He also argued that the law should be struck down because it allows the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim the winners of the presidential
and vice-presidential elections, a power that is expressly given to Congress.
Overall Decision and Implications
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act
of 2003, allowing qualified Filipinos residing abroad to vote in Philippine elections.
The Court recognized the advancements in technology and communication that
have made it possible for overseas Filipinos to stay informed about the country's
needs and make informed choices in the electoral process.