Case Digest (G.R. No. 162759)
Facts:
Loida Nicolas-Lewis et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 162759, August 04, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are a group of persons who applied for and obtained recognition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003); the respondent is the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).Before the May 10, 2004 national and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189 (the Overseas Absentee Voting Law). The Philippine Embassy in the United States, relying on a COMELEC communication, informed them that they could not yet vote because they had not met the Constitution’s one-year residence requirement; nonetheless, the Embassy was urged not to discontinue registration campaigns for such applicants. Petitioners asked COMELEC for clarification in light of the Court’s decision in Macalintal v. COMELEC; COMELEC replied that although R.A. 9225 is presumed constitutional, those who reacquired citizenship under it could not avail themselves of the OAVL because the OAVL was "not enacted for them" and they were considered regular voters who must meet residency requirements under Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Unable to register in time for the May 2004 elections, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court on April 1, 2004, asking COMELEC to allow them to register and vote as absentee voters under R.A. 9189. COMELEC filed a Comment on April 30, 2004, seeking denial. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation on May 20, 2004 stating that qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens, may exercise suffrage but that the 2004 elections rendered the petition moot as to those elections. The 2004 elections proceeded without petitioners’ participation.
Although the Court found the petition moot only insofar as the May 2004 election was concerned, it treated the broader and "transcendental" legal question—whether persons who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 may vote as overseas absentee voters under R.A. 9189—as still justiciable and resolved that issue in favor of the petitioners. The Court’s decision cites and applies Article V, Sections 1 and 2 of the 1987 Cons...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot with respect to petitioners’ attempt to vote in the May 10, 2004 elections?
- May persons who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 exercise the right to vote through the absentee voting mechanism of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)