A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-21-SB-J - IN RE: Roland B. Jurado

Case Summary (A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-21-SB-J)

Factual Background

Petitioners were successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 and sought registration as overseas absentee voters prior to the May 2004 national and local elections. The Philippine Embassy in the United States advised them, relying on a COMELEC letter dated September 23, 2003, that they lacked the one-year residence requirement under Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and therefore could not vote in the May 2004 elections. The embassy nonetheless encouraged continued registration efforts pending clarification. Petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis sought clarification in light of Macalintal v. COMELEC, and COMELEC replied by letter, stating that although R.A. 9225 enjoyed the presumption of constitutionality, those who had availed themselves of the law could not exercise suffrage under the OAVL because the OAVL was not enacted for them and that they remained regular voters required to meet residency requisites. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus on April 1, 2004.

Procedural History

Respondent COMELEC filed a Comment on April 30, 2004, praying for denial of the petition. Petitioners were unable to register or vote in the May 10, 2004 elections. On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation stating that "all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so," but that the 2004 elections rendered the petition moot and academic as to that electoral round. The Supreme Court nonetheless proceeded to resolve the broader, recurring question presented.

Issue Presented

Whether persons who retained or re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 may vote as overseas absentee voters under R.A. 9189.

Petitioners' Position

Petitioners contended that recognition under R.A. 9225 accorded them full civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage, and that they were entitled to register and vote under the absentee voting mechanism established by R.A. 9189.

Respondent's Position

COMELEC argued that those who had renounced Philippine citizenship and acquired foreign nationality had abandoned their domicile and legal ties to the Philippines and therefore must reestablish domicile or residence in the Philippines before exercising suffrage. COMELEC relied on the constitutional residency requirement in Article V, Section 1, the qualification clause in R.A. 9225, Section 5(1), and the jurisprudence in Macalintal v. COMELEC to support the position that dual citizens must meet the ordinary residency prerequisites before they may vote.

Governing Legal Framework

The Court examined Article V, Sections 1 and 2, 1987 Constitution. Section 1 prescribed a one-year residence in the Philippines and six months in the place where one proposes to vote. Section 2 authorized Congress to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. The Court considered R.A. 9189, noting Section 4's grant that "all citizens of the Philippines abroad" not otherwise disqualified may vote, and Section 5's enumeration of disqualifications including Section 5(d) addressing immigrants and permanent residents in host countries. The Court also examined R.A. 9225, particularly Section 5(1) which declared that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship "shall enjoy full civil and political rights" and that those intending to exercise suffrage must meet the requirements of Article V, Section 1, R.A. 9189, and other existing laws.

Prior Decision Considered

The Court analyzed Macalintal v. COMELEC, which had upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189. In Macalintal, the Court accepted that Congress might permit absentee voting as an exception to the residency requirement of Section 1, and it sustained the affidavit mechanism in Section 5(d) as a permissible means of showing non-abandonment of domicile and intent to return, thereby not violating the Constitution's prohibition against provisional registration.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court observed that Section 2 of Article V was placed immediately after the residency requirement of Section 1, evidencing the framers' intent to make absentee voting an exception to the residency rule. The Court noted the Senate floor debates reproduced in the record as legislative history supporting the interpretation that "residence" is akin to "domicile" and that an intent to return may preserve domicile for purposes of absentee voting. The Court rejected COMELEC's contention that R.A. 9225 implicitly required dual citizens to reestablish physical residence in the Philippines before voting, observing that R.A. 9225 expressly granted retained or re-acquired citizens full political rights and that Section 5(1) referenced compliance with Article V, Section 1 and R.A. 9189 without imposing an additional residence-first requirement. The Court found it untenable to const

Case Syllabus (A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-21-SB-J)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were applicants who successfully sought recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 and who described themselves as "duals" or dual citizens.
Respondent was the Commission on Elections which declined to register petitioners as overseas absentee voters for the May 2004 elections.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus on April 1, 2004 seeking an order compelling the COMELEC to allow them to register and vote as absentee voters under R.A. No. 9189.
COMELEC filed a Comment on April 30, 2004 opposing the petition and maintaining that R.A. No. 9189 was not enacted for those who had only recently retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation on May 20, 2004 stating that all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens, may vote but that the 2004 elections rendered the petition moot as to that electoral exercise.
The petition was heard En Banc and resulted in a judgment granting the petition.

Key Facts

Petitioners had applied for and obtained recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 prior to the May 2004 elections.
Petitioners sought registration as overseas absentee voters long before the May 2004 national and local elections.
The Philippine Embassy in the United States advised petitioners that a COMELEC letter dated September 23, 2003 indicated they had no right to vote in the 2004 elections because of the Constitution's one-year residency requirement.
The same COMELEC letter urged Philippine posts abroad not to discontinue registration efforts because the residence restriction would affect only certain individuals who might be eligible in future elections.
COMELEC informed petitioners that, in light of Macalintal, those who re-acquired citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 were considered regular voters required to meet the residency requirements of Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
Petitioners were unable to register and thus did not vote in the May 10, 2004 elections.

Constitutional Provisions

Section 1, Article V, 1987 Constitution prescribes that suffrage may be exercised by citizens at least eighteen years of age who have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election.
Section 2, Article V, 1987 Constitution mandates that Congress shall provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Court treated Section 2, Article V as an exception to the physical residence requirement of Section 1, Article V, insofar as Congress may lawfully enfranchise qualified nonresident Filipinos through absentee voting.

Statutory Framework

R.A. No. 9189 (the Overseas Absentee Voting Law) in Section 4 provided that all citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified and who are at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day, may vote for President, Vice-President, senators and party-list representatives.
R.A. No. 9189, Section 5 enumerated disqualifications, including those who lost or renounced Filipino citizenship, those convicted of certain crimes, and immigrants or permanent residents in the host country, subject to an exception through an affidavit under Section 5(d).
R.A. No. 9189, Section 5(d) allowed an immigrant or permanent resident to register if he or she executed an affidavit declaring an intention to resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines within three years and stating non-application for foreign citizenship.
R.A. No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) declared that natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens were deemed not to have lost Philippine citizenship upon taking the required oath.
R.A. No. 9225, Section 5(1) provided that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship shall enjoy full civil and political rights and th