Case Summary (G.R. No. 157013)
Petition and Standing
Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of certain RA 9189 provisions, claiming the right to protect public funds and the integrity of elections under taxpayer and lawyer standing. The Court affirms his right to maintain the petition.
Constitutional and Statutory Background
Constitution, Article V, Section 1: Voter qualifications include Filipino citizenship, age 18+, one-year Philippine residence, six-month residence in voting locale.
Article V, Section 2: Congress must establish a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
Article VII, Section 4(4): Congress alone canvasses and proclaims Presidential and Vice-Presidential election results.
Article IX-A, Section 1: COMELEC is an independent constitutional commission.
RA 9189 major provisions:
Section 2: Declaration of policy on overseas absentee voting.
Section 5(d): Permits immigrants/permanent residents abroad to vote if they execute an affidavit promising to resume Philippine residence within three years.
Section 17.1: Voting by mail subject to Joint Congressional Oversight Committee approval.
Section 18.5: COMELEC may proclaim winners under certain overseas-election contingencies.
Sections 19 & 25: IRR promulgated by COMELEC subject to review and approval by Joint Congressional Oversight Committee (JCOC).
Issues Presented
A Does Section 5(d) of RA 9189 violate the Article V, Section 1 residency requirement?
B Does Section 18.5 violate Article VII, Section 4(4) by letting COMELEC proclaim Presidential and Vice-Presidential winners?
C Do Sections 17.1, 19 and 25 infringe COMELEC independence under Article IX-A, Section 1 by granting JCOC power to review, amend, approve COMELEC rules and authorize voting-by-mail?
Jurisdiction and Transcendental Significance
Given the nationwide impact on the right of suffrage and public funds, the petition is proper despite the absence of an ongoing administrative or judicial proceeding. The issues raised are justiciable and demand constitutional interpretation.
Issue A – Residency Requirement (Section 5(d))
Petitioner’s Argument
Section 5(d) enfranchises immigrants/permanent residents abroad by mere affidavit, bypassing the one-year/ six-month Philippine residency required by Article V, Section 1.
COMELEC and Solicitor General
Argue all RA 9189 provisions must be upheld under the presumption of constitutionality. They interpret Section 2 as an exception to residency requirements and equate residence with domicile, allowing Filipinos abroad to maintain animus revertendi.
Analysis
Residence for suffrage requires both physical presence and intent to remain ( domicile ). Mere promise of future return does not fulfill the residency requirement on election day. An immigrant/permanent resident abroad has abandoned Philippine domicile and cannot qualify by affidavit alone.
Conclusion
Section 5(d) violates Article V, Section 1 by enfranchising non-residents. It is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Issue B – Proclamation Powers (Section 18.5)
Petitioner’s Argument
Section 18.5 allows COMELEC to proclaim winners for President and Vice-President, usurping Congress’s exclusive constitutional duty under Article VII, Section 4(4).
Analysis
Article VII, Section 4(4) unambiguously vests Presidential and Vice-Presidential canvass and proclamation in Congress. Section 18.5’s sweeping grant to COMELEC must be narrowly construed.
Conclusion
Section 18.5 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it empowers COMELEC to proclaim President and Vice-President but may stand with respect to Senators and party-list proclamation.
Issue C – Congressional Oversight of COMELEC Rules (Sections 17.1, 19, 25)
Petitioner and COMELEC’s Argument
Sections 19 and 25 violate COMELEC independence by subjecting its rule-making power to legislative approval. Section 17.1 similarly intrudes on COMELEC authority to implement voting-by-mail.
Analysis
The 1987 Constitution elevates COMELEC’s rule-making p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157013)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Romulo B. Macalintal, a Philippine Bar member, sought certiorari and prohibition to declare parts of R.A. No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) unconstitutional
- He claimed taxpayer and lawyer standing to challenge the law’s public‐fund appropriations and constitutional conformity
- R.A. 9189 was enacted to implement Section 2, Article V of the 1987 Constitution, mandating a system for overseas absentee voting
- Several provisions of R.A. 9189 were assailed, notably Section 5(d) on immigrant voters, Section 18.5 on canvassing and proclamation, and Sections 17.1, 19 and 25 on congressional oversight of Comelec rules
Petitioner’s Standing and Theory
- As a taxpayer and lawyer, Macalintal asserted a material interest in lawful public‐fund use
- He relied on Supreme Court precedents allowing taxpayer suits to restrain unconstitutional appropriations
- He challenged the validity of the law, claiming expenditure for its execution would misapply public funds
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
- 1987 Constitution, Article V:
• Section 1 requires Filipino citizenship, age ≥ 18, one‐year residence in the Philippines, six‐month residence in the voting place
• Section 2 directs Congress to provide an absentee voting system for qualified Filipinos abroad - R.A. No. 9189 provisions:
• Section 4 – entitlement of citizens abroad ≥ 18, not otherwise disqualified, to vote for national offices
• Section 5(d) – disqualification of immigrants/permanent residents unless they file an affidavit to return to permanent residence in 3 years
• Section 17.1 – voting by mail allowed in certain countries, subject to congressional oversight
• Section 18.5 – Comelec may proclaim winners despite delayed absentee voting
• Section 19 and 25 – Comelec implementing rules must be approved by a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee
Issues Presented
- Whether Section 5(d) violates Section 1, Article V by enfranchising nonresidents via a mere affidavit
- Whether Section 18.5 conflicts with Section 4, Article VII by granting Comelec power to proclaim presid