ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v.

COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, in his official capacity as
Executive Secretary, and HON. EMILIA T. BONCODIN, Secretary of the
Department of Budget and Management, GR 157013, 10 July 2003
EN BANC

Digest by: Kristine J Gonzales, EH 201

Principle in sum:

"Overseas Absentee Voter" refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is

qualified to register and vote under RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting
Act of 2003), not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of
elections.

“Immigrants or a permanent residents abroad are presumed to have

relinquished their intent to return to their country of origin”.

FACTS:

1. Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the Philippine Bar filed a

petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Supreme Court seeking
a declaration of certain provisions of Republic Act. No. 9189 (The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) alleging that it suffers
from constitutional infirmity.

2. R.A. 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.

3. The petitioner raises three principal questions, one of the three

questions asked is on the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of RA
No. 9189 on 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,
Page 1 of 3
ISSUES:

A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 violate Section 1,

Article V of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines?

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 violate Section 1,

Article V of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines?

1. No, Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 do not violate

Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines.

2. SC: “R.A No. 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate

of the first paragraph of Section 2 Article V of the
Constitution that Congress shall provide a system for voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed that
Section 2 does not provide for the parameters of the exercise
of legislative authority in enacting said law. Hence, in the
absence of restrictions, Congress is presumed to have duly
exercised its function as defined in Article VI (The
Legislative Department) of the Constitution”.

3. SC: “Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident and vice versa;

a person cannot be at the same time, both a resident and an
absentee. However, under our election laws and the
countless pronouncements of the Court pertaining to
elections, an absentee remains attached to his residence in
the Philippines as residence is considered synonymous with
domicile.

4. SC: “Section 4 of R.A. No. 9189 provides for the coverage

of the absentee voting process which does not require
physical residency in the Philippines; and Section 5 of the
assailed law which enumerates those who are disqualified.
As finally approved into law, 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
Page 2 of 3
 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. Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the execution of
the affidavit itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act.
The affidavit required in Section 5(d) is not only proof of
the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go
back and resume residency in the Philippines, but more
significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had
not in fact abandoned his domicile of origin. Thus, it is not
correct to say that the execution of the affidavit under
Section 5(d) violates the Constitution that proscribes
"provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a
condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise." To
repeat, the affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent
residents abroad because by their status in their host
countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their
intent to return to this country; thus, without the affidavit,
the presumption of abandonment of Philippine domicile
shall remain”.

5. SC: “The affidavit shall declare that he/she will resume

actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not
later than three (3) years from approval of his/her
registration. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has
not applied for citizenship in another country and that failure
to return shall 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”.
xxx

Page 3 of 3