Case Summary (G.R. No. 162759)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioners Loida Nicolas-Lewis and fellow dual citizens (Philippine natural-born citizens who reacquired or retained citizenship under R.A. 9225) sought recognition as overseas absentee voters. Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refused registration, citing the one-year Philippine residency requirement under the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel COMELEC to register them under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act (R.A. 9189).
Petitioner Registration Attempts and Embassy Advice
Before the May 2004 elections, petitioners applied for overseas absentee voter status but were told by the Philippine Embassy in the U.S. that COMELEC’s September 2003 letter to the DFA barred them from voting due to non-compliance with the one-year residency rule. COMELEC later confirmed that dual citizens under R.A. 9225 must meet ordinary voter residency requirements, as they were deemed regular voters.
Constitutional Framework on Suffrage
Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution prescribes that voters must be 18 years old, have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and in their voting precinct for six months. Section 2 authorizes Congress to establish an absentee voting system for qualified Filipinos abroad, implying an exception to the residency requirement.
Coverage and Disqualifications under R.A. 9189
R.A. 9189’s Section 4 extends voting rights abroad to all citizens, 18 years or older, not otherwise disqualified. Section 5 lists disqualifications, including loss or renunciation of Philippine citizenship, criminal convictions, and permanent residents abroad—unless they execute an affidavit pledging return within three years and affirm non-application for another citizenship.
Constitutionality of Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189
In Macalintal v. COMELEC (2003), the Court upheld Section 5(d), finding that an affidavit does not provisionally qualify a voter but proves the intention not to abandon Philippine domicile. This construction respects both the residency rule and Congress’s mandate under Section 2 to enfranchise overseas Filipinos.
R.A. 9225 on Citizenship Retention and Rights
R.A. 9225 deems natural-born Filipinos who naturalized abroad as having retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath. Section 5 grants full civil and political rights, subject to constitutional and statutory requirements, including the right of suffrage under R.A. 9189.
COMELEC’s Residency Argument for Dual Citizens
COMELEC argued that dual citizens, having abandoned Philippine domicile by naturalizing abroad, must reestablish residency before voting. It relied on Section 5(1) of R.A. 9225, which conditions suffrage on compliance with Section 1, Article V of the Constitution and R.A. 9189.
Court’s Statutory and Constitutional Construction
The Court rejected COMELEC’s view, noting that R.A. 9225 contains no actual-residence requirement for suffrage and explicitly incorporates R.A. 9189’s absentee voting scheme. It emphasized that Congress intended to enfranchise all qualified Filipinos abroad who have not abandoned domicile, and that R.A. 9189 already provides the mechanism for non-resident voting.
Legislative Debates Affirming Absentee Exception
Senate floor debates on R.A. 9189 clarify that Section 2, Article V creates an exception to the one-year an
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 162759)
Facts
- Petitioners are Filipinos who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), thus qualifying as “duals.”
- Prior to the May 2004 elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003).
- The Philippine Embassy in the United States, relying on a COMELEC letter dated September 23, 2003, informed petitioners that they could not vote in 2004 due to failure to meet the one-year Philippine residence requirement under Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
- The Embassy was instructed not to discontinue voter‐registration efforts for petitioners, as the residency restriction would affect only those immediately before the 2004 polls.
- Petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis requested clarification; the COMELEC responded on November 4, 2003, asserting that “duals” are regular voters bound by the Constitution’s residency requirements and could not utilize the OAV mechanism.
Procedural History
- On April 1, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, seeking an order compelling COMELEC to register them as overseas absentee voters.
- On April 30, 2004, COMELEC filed its Comment, praying for the petition’s denial.
- On May 10, 2004, the national and local elections were held; petitioners were unable to register or vote.
- On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation stating that qualified overseas Filipinos, “including dual citizens,” may vote but that the petition was rendered moot and academic by the conclusion of the elections.
- The Supreme Court held that while the petition to participate in the 2004 elections was moot, the broader issue—whether “duals” may vote as absentee voters in future polls—remained justiciable.
Issue
- Whether persons who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 may register and vote as overseas absentee voters under R.A. 9189 without first meeting the one-year Philippine residence requirement of Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.