ROMULO MACALINTAL VS COMELEC

Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of

the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the
validity of the said act on the following grounds, among others:

1. That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant

abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting provided he
executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is void
because it dispenses of the requirement that a voter must be a resident of
the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where he intends to
vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election;
2. That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass of votes
and proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice-president,
is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution for it is Congress
which is empowered to do so.

ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintal’s arguments are correct.

HELD: No.

1. There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required

to physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for non-
absentee voters. Further, as understood in election laws, domicile and
resident are interchangeably used. Hence, one is a resident of his domicile
(insofar as election laws is concerned). The domicile is the place where
one has the intention to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an
affidavit stating his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a
resident of the Philippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter
(absentee voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute the
affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee voter.
2. The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the
intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the proclamation of the
winners in the vice-presidential and presidential race. To interpret it that
way would mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The
canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential
elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred to the
COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
 ROMULO MACALINTAL VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003

MACALINTAL, petitioner VS. COMELEC,

ROMULO, and BONCODIN, respondents

FACTS:
Petitioner Macalintal files a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking a
declaration that certain provisions of R.A. No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003) are unconstitutional. The Court upholds petitioner’s right
to file the instant petition, stating in essence that the petitioner has seriously
and convincingly presented an issue of transcendental significance to the
Filipino people, considering that public funds are to be used and appropriated
for the implementation of said law.

ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner raises three principal questions for
contention:
(1) That Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 allowing the registration of voters who
are immigrants or permanentresidents in other countries, by their mere act of
executing an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the Philippines,
violates the residency requirement in Art. V, Sec. 1 of the Constitution;(2)
That Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the
COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for national offices and party list
representatives, includingthe President and the Vice-President, violates the
constitutional mandate under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution that the
winning candidates for President and Vice-President shall be proclaimed as
winners only by Congress; and(3) That Section 25 of the same law, allowing
Congress (through the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee created in the same section) to exercise the power to review,
revise, amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
that the COMELEC shall promulgate, violates the independence of the
COMELEC under Art. IX-A, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 is violative of Art. V, Sec. 1 of
the Constitution.
2) Whether or not Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 is violative of Art. VII, Sec. 4
of the Constitution.
3) Whether or not Section 25 of R.A. No. 9189 is violative of Art. IX-A, Sec. 1 of
the Constitution.

HELD:
1) NO. Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 is not violative of Art. V, Sec. 1 of the
Constitution.
2) YES. Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189, with respect only to the votes of the
President and Vice-President, and not to the votes of the Senators and party-
list representatives, is violative of Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution.
3) YES. Section 25 of R.A. No. 9189, with respect only to the second sentence
in its second paragraph allowing Congress to exercise the power to review,
 ROMULO MACALINTAL VS COMELEC

revise, amend, and approve the IRR that the COMELEC shall promulgate, is
violative of Art. IX-A, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

REASONS:
1) Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189, entitled “An Act Providing for a System of
Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes,” provides:
Sec. 5. Disqualifications.—The following shall be disqualified from voting
under this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the
host country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared
for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual
physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years
from approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall cause
for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the
National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to
vote in absentia.
Petitioner posits that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional in that it violates the
requirement that the voter must be aresident in the Philippines for at least
one year and in the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election, as provided under Section 1, Article V of
the Constitution which reads: “Sec. 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all
citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified bylaw, who are at least
eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at
least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six
months immediately preceding the election.”For the resolution of this instant
issue, the Court has relied on, among others, the discussions of the members
of the Constitutional Commission on the topics of absentee voting and
absentee voter qualification, in connection with Sec. 2, Art. V of the
Constitution, which reads: “Sec. 2. The Congress shall
provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctityof the ballot as well as
a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.” It was clearly
shown from the said discussions that the Constitutional Commission intended
to enfranchise as much as possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not
abandoned their domicile of origin, which is in the Philippines. The
Commission even intended to extend to young Filipinos who reach voting age
abroad whose parents’ domicile of origin is in the Philippines, and consider
them qualified as voters for the first time.It is in pursuance of that intention
that the Commission provided for Section 2 immediately after the residency
requirement of Section 1. By the doctrine of necessary implication in statutory
construction, which may be applied in construing constitutional provisions, the
strategic location of Section 2 indicates that the Constitutional Commission
provided for an exception to the actual residency requirement of Section 1
with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. The same Commission has in effect
declared that qualified Filipinos who are not in the Philippines may be allowed
to vote even though they do not satisfy the residency requirement in Section
1, Article V of the Constitution.That Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is
an
to the residency requirement found in Section 1 of the same Article was in
fact the subject of debate when Senate Bill No. 2104, which later becameR.A.
No. 9189, was deliberated upon on the Senate floor, further weakening
petitioner’s claim on the unconstitutionality of Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189.
2)Section 4 of R.A. No. 9189 provides that the overseas absentee voter may
vote for president, vice-president, senators, and party-list
 ROMULO MACALINTAL VS COMELEC

representatives.Section 18.5 of the same Act provides:

Sec. 18. On-Site Counting and Canvassing.—
xxx xxx xxx
18.5 The canvass of votes shall not cause the delay ofthe proclamation of a
winning candidate if the outcomeof the election will not be affected by the
results thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission is empowered
to order the proclamation of winning candidates despite the fact that the
scheduled election has not taken place in a particular country or countries, if
the holding of elections therein has been rendered impossible by events,
factors and circumstances peculiar to such country or countries, inwhich
events, factors and circumstancesare beyond the control or influence of the
Commission.Petitioner claims that the provision of Section 18.5 of R.A. No.
9189 empowering the COMELEC to order theproclamation of winning
candidates for President and Vice-President is unconstitutional and violative of
the following provisions of Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution: Sec. 4.
xxx xxx xxx
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified
by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to
the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the
certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in also state that
he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return
shall be the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint
public session, and the Congress, upondetermination of the authenticity and
due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.The
person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in
case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of
them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of
both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.The Congress shall
promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, the phrase, proclamation of winning candidates, in Section 18.5 of
R.A. No. 9189 is far too sweeping that it necessarily includes the proclamation
of the winning candidates for the presidency and the vice-presidency,
granting merit to petitioner’s contention that said Section appears to be
repugnant to Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution only insofar as said
Section totally disregarded the authority given to Congress by the
Constitution to proclaim the winning candidates for the positions of President
and Vice-President.Congress could not have allowed the COMELEC to usurp a
power that constitutionally belongs to it or, as aptly stated by petitioner, to
encroach “on the power of Congress to canvass the votes for President and
Vice-President and the power to proclaim the winners for the said positions.”
3) Section 25 of R.A. No. 9189 created the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee (JCOC), as
follows:
Sec. 25. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee.—aJoint Congressional
Oversight Committee is hereby created, composed of the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision ofCodes and
Laws, and seven (7) other Senators designated by the Senate President, and
the Chairman of the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, and
seven (7) other Members of the House of Representatives designated by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives: Provided, that of the seven (7)
members to be designated by each House of Congress, four (4) should come
from the majority and the remaining three (3) from the minority.
The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee shall have the power to monitor
and evaluate the implementation of this Act. It shall review, revise, amend
 ROMULO MACALINTAL VS COMELEC

and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the

Commission.All the parties, petitioner and respondents alike, are unanimous
in claiming that Section 25 of R.A. No. 9189 is unconstitutional. Thus, there is
no actual issue forged on this question raised by petitioner. However, the
Court finds it expedient to expound on the role of Congress through the JCOC
vis-à-vis the independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional body, as aptly
provided for under Art. IX-A, Sec. 1, which reads “Section 1. The Constitutional
Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission,
the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.”The ambit of
legislative power under Article VI of the Constitution is circumscribed by other
constitutional provisions, one of which is the aforementioned provision on the
independence of constitutional commissions. The Court has held that
“whatever may be the nature of the functions of the Commission on Elections,
the fact is that the framers of the Constitution wanted it to be independent
from the other departments of the Government.”The Commission on Elections
is a constitutional body. It is intended to play a distinct and important part in
our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions, it should not be
hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a less
responsible organization. The Commission may err, so may this court also. It
should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that
will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created
— free, orderly and honest elections. We may not agree fully with its choice of
means, but unless these are clearly illegal or constitute gross abuse of
discretion, this court should not interfere. Politics is a practical matter, and
political questions
must be dealt with realistically – not from the standpoint of pure theory. The
Commission on
Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political
strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealing with
political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide
complex political questions.The Court has no general powers of supervision
over COMELEC which is an independent body “except those specifically
granted by the Constitution,” that is, to review its decisions, orders and
rulings. In the same vein, it is not correct to hold that because of its
recognized extensive legislative power to enact election laws, Congress may
intrude into the independence of the COMELEC by exercising supervisory
powers over its rule-making authority. In line with this, this Court holds that
Section 25 of R.A. 9189 is unconstitutional and must therefore be stricken off
from the said law.

SECTION 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal

from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become
the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent
disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-
President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President
or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified