Case Digest (G.R. No. 223705)
Facts:
Loida Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 223705, August 14, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J. Jr., writing for the Court. Petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis (a dual Filipino–American citizen whose absentee voting rights had previously been recognized in Nicolas‑Lewis v. COMELEC, 529 Phil. 642 (2006)) challenged the constitutionality of Section 36.8 of Republic Act No. 9189, as amended by R.A. No. 10590, and Section 74(II)(8) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10035, both of which proscribe engaging in “partisan political activity abroad during the thirty (30)-day overseas voting period.”Congress enacted R.A. No. 9189 (the Overseas Absentee Voting Act) in 2003, and later amended it by R.A. No. 10590 (2013), which added and renumbered the prohibition at issue as Section 36.8. On January 13, 2016 COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10035 (General Instructions for manual overseas voting for the May 9, 2016 elections), whose Section 74(II)(8) echoed the Section 36.8 prohibition. The Omnibus Election Code’s definition of “partisan political activity” (BP Blg. 881, §79(b)) enumerates conduct such as rallies, speeches, distribution of campaign materials, and direct solicitation of votes.
Petitioner alleged that, pursuant to those provisions, Philippine consulates prevented her and “thousands of Filipinos” abroad from conducting information campaigns and rallies for candidates in the 2016 elections. She filed a petition seeking to declare the statutory and regulatory provisions unconstitutional on multiple grounds (freedom of speech, expression, assembly, suffrage; substantive due process; equal protection; and violation of territoriality). The Court partially granted petitioner’s urgent relief on April 19, 2016, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining implementation of the questioned provisions except within Philippine embassies, consulates, and other Posts (where the prohibition remained effecti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is there a justiciable controversy and is the petition ripe for judicial review?
- Does Section 36.8 of R.A. No. 9189 (as amended by R.A. No. 10590) and Section 74(II)(8) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10035 violate the constitutional freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and suffrage?
- Do the challenged provisions violate substantive due process or equal protection principles?
- Does the prohibition impermissibly transgress the territoriality principle of c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)