Case Digest (G.R. No. 100198) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Loida Nicolas-Lewis et al. v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 162759, August 4, 2006), the petitioners are Filipino citizens who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003). Prior to the May 2004 national and local elections, they applied at the Philippine Embassy in the United States for registration as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), but were informed via a COMELEC–DFA letter of September 23, 2003 that they lacked the one-year Philippine residence requirement of Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. COMELEC later clarified that dual citizens could not use the absentee voting mechanism because R.A. 9189 “was not enacted for them,” classifying them as regular voters who must satisfy residency requirements. On April 1, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court to compel COMELEC Case Digest (G.R. No. 100198) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners Loida Nicolas-Lewis, Gregorio B. Macabenta, Alejandro A. Esclamado, Armando B. Heredia, Reuben S. Seguritan, Eric Lachica Furbeyre, Teresita A. Cruz, Josefina Opena Disterhoft, Mercedes V. Opena, Cornelio R. Natividad, and Evelyn D. Natividad are “duals” (dual citizens) who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003).
- Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied their applications for registration and certification as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) on the ground that they lacked the one-year Philippine residency required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
- Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
- Prior to the May 2004 elections, petitioners applied at Philippine posts abroad to register as absentee voters but were informed—via a COMELEC letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs (September 23, 2003)—that they could not vote due to non-fulfillment of the one-year residency rule.
- Petitioners sought clarification; COMELEC reiterated that dual citizens could not vote under the OAVL because they must meet constitutional residency requirements applicable to “regular voters.”
- On April 1, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel COMELEC to register them as absentee voters under R.A. 9189. COMELEC filed its Comment on April 30, 2004, opposing the petition.
- On May 10, 2004, elections were held; petitioners were unable to register or vote. On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation stating that all qualified overseas Filipinos—including dual citizens—may vote, but that the petition had become moot and academic as to the 2004 elections.
- The Supreme Court, finding the specific relief for the 2004 elections moot, nonetheless entertained the broader issue of whether dual citizens may vote as absentee voters in future elections.
Issues:
- Whether dual citizens who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 are qualified to register and vote as overseas absentee voters under R.A. 9189 despite not meeting the one-year residency requirement of Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
- Whether COMELEC may refuse to include such dual citizens in the National Registry of Overseas Absentee Voters on the basis that they must first establish physical residence in the Philippines.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)