BONAGUA, MARIE CELESTE A.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
JD 1B
Migrante International, Feliza B. Benitez, et al vs. Social Security System
represented by Carlos G. Dominguez III, in his capacity as Chairman, Aurora C.
Ignacio. et al.
(G.R. No. 248680. November 05, 2024)
FACTS:
Migrante International et al. seek to nullify subsections (a), (c), and (e) of Section 9-B of
the Social Security Act of 2018 (RA No. 11199) and Rule 14, Sections 1, 5, 5.9, 6, 7 (iii)
and 7 (iv) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 11199, for
violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, unjust deprivation of property
and violating the right to travel. The petitioner also seeks to prohibit the respondents
from enforcing the aforementioned provisions of RA 11199 and its IRR.
The Social Security Act of 2018 was signed into law by President Duterte on 2019. This
introduced the compulsory coverage by the SSS of all sea-based and land-based
Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). Because of this, land-based OFWs are treated in
the same manner as self-employed persons. They should also pay mandatorily the
contributions before leaving the country as a requirement for receiving their Overseas
Employment Certificate (OEC). The petitioners argued its constitutionality, while the
respondents argued the exercise of police power.
ISSUES:
For procedural: Whether the petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is the correct remedy
as the petitioners directly resorted the matter to the Supreme Court
For substantive: Whether there is a violation on equal protection clause and the right to
travel; whether there is a valid exercise of police power
RULING:
The petition is partially granted declaring Rule 14, Section 7(iii) of the IRR of RA 11199
unconstitutional, contrary to Sections 1 & 6 of Article III of the Constitution. The petition
made was the correct remedy since the requisites of judicial review are present. There
is no violation of the equal protection clause. However, there is a violation on the right to
property on due process and right to travel because of the compulsory payment of SSS
benefits before receiving the OEC. The OEC is the OFWs ticket to employment abroad.
Thereby, the State’s act is also an invalid exercise of police power for violating the
aforementioned rights of the petitioner.
BONAGUA, MARIE CELESTE A. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
JD 1B
Loida Nicolas-Lewis et al. vs. Commission on Election
(G.R. No. 162759. August 04, 2006)
FACTS:
Petitioners are individuals who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act
of 2003. They sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters for the
May 2004 elections under R.A. No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
The Philippine Embassy in the United States informed petitioners that the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) had determined they were not eligible to vote due to not
meeting the one-year residency requirement per the Constitution. Petitioner Loida
Nicolas-Lewis sought clarification from the COMELEC, which reiterated that dual
citizens who reacquired citizenship under R.A. 9225 were seen as regular voters, thus
needing to meet residency requirements. On April 1, 2004, facing non-inclusion in the
National Registry of Absentee Voters, petitioners filed a Certiorari and Mandamus
petition with the Supreme Court to compel COMELEC to allow them to vote in the
upcoming elections. On April 30, 2004, COMELEC filed a Comment asking for the
petition’s denial. The elections on May 10, 2004, rendered the immediate voting issue
moot, but the broader issue regarding dual citizens’ rights remained unresolved.
ISSUE:
Can petitioners and other dual citizens vote as absentee voters under R.A. No. 9189
despite the residency requirements stated in Section 1, Article V of the Philippine
Constitution?
RULING:
Yes. The Court acknowledged Section 1’s general residency requirement for suffrage
eligibility and noted Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution, authorizing Congress to
establish systems for absentee voting as an exception to the residency requirement.
COMELEC argued that dual citizens must first establish residency in the Philippines to
regain voting rights. They contended that upon acquiring foreign citizenship, individuals
effectively abandoned their domicile in the Philippines. The Court disagreed, citing the
absence of a specific requirement in R.A. 9225 mandating dual citizens to establish
physical residency in the Philippines before voting. The Court emphasized that R.A.
9189 seeks to enfranchise all Filipino citizens abroad who have not abandoned their
domicile of origin. Section 5 of R.A. 9225 allows dual citizens the same absentee voting
rights as granted under R.A. 9189. Legislative deliberations and debates confirmed that
Section 2 of Article V aimed to provide an exception to the residency requirement in
Section 1, allowing overseas Filipinos to vote despite not meeting physical residency
requirements.
