Wilfred P.

Alfeche

Topic: Absentee Voting

Reference: Macalintal vs. COMELEC; GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003

Facts:
Petitioner, Atty. Macalintal, as taxpayer, sought to declare certain provisions, especially
Sec. 5(d) as unconstitutional of 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" was passed to expand the right
to vote for Overseas Filipino Workers and provides efficiency to exercise the right of
suffrage.
Petitioner contended that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional because violates Section 1,
Article V of the 1987 Constitutional which requires that the voter must be a resident in
the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where he proposes to vote for at
least 6 months immediately preceding an election. Furthermore, he contends that: 1.
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution does not allow provisional registration or a
promise by a voter to be qualified to vote in a political exercise; 2. That the legislature
should not circumvent the requirement by providing a condition thereon; 3. The right to
suffrage should not be granted to anyone, who on the date of election, does not
possess the qualifications provided for by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

Respondent COMELEC refuted from commenting on this issue and raised that: 1. In
Election Law, the term “residence” has been understood to be synonymous with
“domicile”. 2. A person can have only one “domicile” but he can have two residences,
one permanent (the domicile) and the other temporary, and that the definition and
meaning given to the term residence likewise applies to absentee voters.

Issues:
Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 is constitutional.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Ruling:
YES. According to the Court, Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to
the residency requirement found in Section 1 of the same Article. 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 existing 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.
Aware of the domiciliary legal tie that links an overseas Filipino to his residence in this
country, the framers of the Constitution considered the circumstances that impelled
them to require Congress to establish a system for overseas absentee voting. Thus,
Section 2, Article V of the Constitution came into being to remove any doubt as to the
inapplicability of the residency requirement in Section 1. It is precisely to avoid any
problems that could impede the implementation of its pursuit to enfranchise the largest
number of qualified Filipinos who are not in the Philippines that the Constitutional
Commission explicitly mandated Congress to provide a system for overseas absentee
voting.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Topic: Absentee Voting

Reference: Domino vs. COMELEC; GR No. 134015, July 19, 1999

Facts:
On March 25, 1998, petitioner Domino filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for the
position of Representative of the Lone Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani
indicating that he had resided in the constituency where he seeks to be elected for 1
year and 2 months immediately preceding the election. His defenses were the following:
1. Decision of MTC, Branch 35 of Quezon City, excluding petitioner as voter of Brgy. Old
Balara, Quezon City; 2. Copy of the Application Approving the transfer of registration of
voters of petitioners to Sarangani; 3. Copy of the Sworn Application for Cancellation of
Voter’s Previous Registration.

On March 30, 1998, private respondents filed with the COMELEC a “Petition to Deny
Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy”, that Domino is not a resident, much
less a registered voter of Sarangani. Their arguments were the following: 1. Voter’s
Registration Record in Quezon City, dated June 22, 1997; 2. Certificate of Candidacy
for the position of Congressman in the 3rd district of Quezon City; 3. Copy of the
Application for Transfer of Registration Records Due to Change of Residence dated
August 30, 1997 addressed to the Election Officer of Sarangani.

On May 6, 1998, the COMELEC 2nd Division disqualified Domino as candidate for the
position for lack of 1-year residence requirement. On May 11, 1998, COMELEC issued
supplemental omnibus resolution no. 3046, ordering that the votes cast for Domino be
counted but to suspend the proclamation if winning, considering that the Resolution
disqualifying him as candidate had not yet become final and executory.

Issues:
1. Whether or not an inclusion or exclusion proceeding is conclusive on the voter’s
political status.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

2. Whether or not petitioner complied the required 1-year domicile requirement in

Sarangani.
3. Whether or not the second highest number of votes may be proclaimed if the winner
is disqualified.

Ruling:
1. NO. The proceedings for the exclusion or inclusion of voters in the list of voters are
summary in character. Thus, the factual findings of the trial court and its resultant
conclusions in the exclusion proceedings on matters other than the right to vote in the
precinct within its territorial jurisdiction are not conclusive upon the COMELEC. In this
sense, it does not operate as a bar to any future action that a party may take concerning
the subject passed upon in the proceeding. Thus, a decision in an exclusion proceeding
would neither be conclusive on the voter's political status, nor bar subsequent
proceeding's on his right to be registered as a voter in any other election.

2. NO. "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for
business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return. "Domicile" is a
question of intention and circumstances. In the consideration of circumstances, three
rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; (2) when once established it remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) a
man can have but one residence or domicile at a time. A person's "domicile" once
established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is
established. The fact that a party continuously voted in a particular locality is a strong
factor in assisting to determine the status of his domicile.

3. NO. It is now settled doctrine that the candidate who obtains the second highest
number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is
disqualified. In every election, the people's choice is the paramount consideration and
their expressed will must, at all times, be given effect. When the majority speaks and
elects into office a candidate by giving the highest number of votes cast in the election
for that office, no one can be declared elected in his place.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Topic: Absentee Voting

Reference: Japzon vs. COMELEC; GR No. 180088, Juanuary 19, 2009

Facts:
On June 15, 2007, petitioner Japzon filed before the COMELEC a Petition to disqualify
and/or cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Ty on the ground of material
misrepresentation. Japzon contentions were: 1. That Ty was a natural-born Filipino and
eventually migrated to the United States of America (USA) and became a citizen
thereof; 2. Ty falsely represented himself that he was a resident of Brgy. 6, Poblacion,
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, for a one year and was not a permanent resident or
immigrant of any foreign country; 3. Ty continued to make trips to the USA after filing his
application for reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship; 4. Ty failed to renounce his
foreign citizenship as required in R.A. No. 9225.

On his answer to Japzon’s petition, Ty admitted that: 1. He was a natural-born Filipino

who went to the USA to work and subsequently became a naturalized American citizen;
2. Prior to filing his Certificate of Candidacy (COC), he applied for reacquisition of his
citizenship, executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic before the Vice Consul of
the Philippine Consulate in California, and applied for Philippine passport; 3. He
personally secured a Community Tax Certificate; 4. Ty executed on March 19, 2007 a
duly notarized Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship; 5. Ty registered as a voter on July
17, 2006.

COMELEC 1st Division held that Ty did not commit material misrepresentation in his
COC that he was a resident of Eastern Samar for a year and complied with the
requirements for reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship.

Issues:
Whether or not Ty complied with the required year of domicile in the province he is
intending to run as Municipal Mayor.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Ruling:
YES. Ty’s intent to establish a new domicile of choice in the Municipality of General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, became apparent when, immediately after
reacquiring his Philippine citizenship on 2 October 2005, he applied for a Philippine
passport indicating in his application that his residence in the Philippines was at A.
Mabini St., Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. For the years
2006 and 2007, Ty voluntarily submitted himself to the local tax jurisdiction of the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by paying community tax and
securing CTCs from the said municipality stating therein his address as A. Mabini St.,
Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar. Thereafter, Ty applied for
and was registered as a voter on 17 July 2006 in Precinct 0013A, Barangay 6,
Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern Samar.
In addition, Ty has also been bodily present in the Municipality of General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar, Philippines, since his arrival on 4 May 2006, inarguably, just a little over
a year prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections. Japzon maintains that Ty's trips abroad
during said period, i.e., to Bangkok, Thailand (from 14 to 18 July 2006), and to the USA
(from 31 October 2006 to 19 January 2007), indicate that Ty had no intention to
permanently reside in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar,
Philippines. The COMELEC First Division and en banc, as well as this Court, however,
view these trips differently. The fact that Ty did come back to the Municipality of General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, after said trips, is a further manifestation of his
animus manendi and animus revertendi.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Topic: Absentee Voting

Reference: Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC; GR No. 162759, August 4, 2006

Facts:
Petitioners sought for registration and certification as “overseas absentee voter”, as
successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225.
However, the Philippine Embassy in the US advised that as per COMELEC letter, they
have yet no right to vote in such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence
requirement prescribed by the Constitution. COMELEC contention was Section 5(1)
providing that “duals” can enjoy their right to vote, as an adjunct to political rights, only if
they meet the requirements of Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

Issues:
Whether or not petitioners are qualified to vote under R.A. No. 9189 or the Overseas
Absentee Voting Act in connection with R.A. No. 9225 or the Reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship.

Ruling:
YES. RA 9189 provides a list of those who cannot avail themselves of the absentee
voting mechanism. However, Section 5(d) of the enumeration respecting Filipino
immigrants and permanent residents in another country opens an exception and
qualifies the disqualification rule. 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 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”
Wilfred P. Alfeche

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. After what appears to be a successful application for recognition of Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9189, petitioners now invoke their right to enjoy political rights,
specifically the right of suffrage, pursuant to Section 5
thereof.

As may be noted, there is no provision in the dual citizenship law – R.A. 9225 –
requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines
first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit
acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1)
the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under R.A. 9189.

It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much

as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of
an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote. It is clear from these
discussions of the Constitutional Commission that it intended to enfranchise as much as
possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin.
The Commission even intended to extend to young Filipinos who reach voting age
abroad whose parents domicile of origin is in the Philippines, and consider them
qualified as voters for the first time.

Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of
the scope of that law with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that
“duals” may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as
overseas absentee voters. R.A. 9189 defines the terms adverted to in the following
wise:
Wilfred P. Alfeche

“Absentee Voting” refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the Philippines
abroad exercise their right to vote; “Overseas Absentee Voter” refers to a citizen of the
Philippines who is qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified
by law, who is abroad on the day of elections.
Wilfred P. Alfeche

Topic: Registration of Voters

Reference: Calilung vs. Datumanong; GR No. 203766, et al, April 2, 2013

Facts:
Petitioner prays a writ of prohibition to stop respondent from implementing R.A. No.
9225 because some of its provisions are unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution that states, “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law”.
Petitioner avers that Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. Act. No. 9225, together, allow dual
allegiance and not dual citizenship. Petitioner maintains that Section 2 allows all
Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their
Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual
allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain
their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their
foreign allegiance.

Issues:
Whether or not R.A. No. 9225 or the Retention and Reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship Act is constitutional.

Ruling:
YES. R.A. 9225 is constitutional and that the Court has no jurisdiction yet to pass upon
the issue of dual allegiance. The court held that that the intent of the legislature in
drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act No.
635 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become
naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the
person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No.
9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of
Wilfred P. Alfeche

confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign
country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No.
9225.

Moreover, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not

a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance.
In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual
citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress was
given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really
constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial
department, including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.