EN BANC personality to bring this action; that a duly certified copy

of the law creates the presumption of its having been

passed in accordance with the requirements of
[G.R. No. L-18684. September 14, 1961.]
the Constitution (distribution of printed bills included);
that the Director of the Census submitted an official
LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENZO report on the population of the Philippines in November
TEVES, FAUSTO DUGENIO, 1960, which report became the basis of the bill; and that
ROGACIANO MERCADO and the Act complies with the principle of proportional
MARIANO PERDICES, petitioners, vs. representation prescribed by the Constitution.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS After hearing the parties and considering their
and VICENTE GELLA in his Capacity memoranda, this Court reached the conclusion that the
as National Treasurer, respondents. statute should be declared invalid, and, aware of the
need of prompt action, issued its brief resolution of
August 23, partly in the following language:
Crispin D. Baizas & Associates for petitioners.
"Whereas such Republic Act
Barrios, Garcia & Apostol for respondent Commission on 3040 clearly violates the said
Elections. constitutional provision in several ways
Solicitor General Edilberto Barot, Assistant Solicitor General namely, (a) it gave Cebu seven members,
while Rizal with a bigger number of
Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiazon for
respondent National Treasurer. inhabitants got four only; (b) it gave
Manila four members, while Cotabato
with a bigger population got three
only; . . .;"
SYLLABUS
"Whereas such violation of the
1. REDISTRICTING STATUTES; WHO CAN Constitutional mandate renders the law
BRING ACTION TO TEST VALIDITY. — Citizens who are void;
deprived of an election franchise to which they are "Therefore, without prejudice to
entitled under the Constitution by an apportionment act, the writing of a more extended opinion
have sufficient interest to test its validity. passing additionally on other issues raised
2. ID.; ID.; POWER OF COURT TO REVIEW in the case, the Court resolved, without
APPORTIONMENT LAWS. — District apportionment laws any dissent, forthwith to issue the
are subject to review by the courts. The constitutionality injunction prayed for by the petitioners.
of a legislative apportionment act is a judicial question. No bond is needed."

3. ID.; ID.; BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT; What with the reservation announced in the
PRELIMINARY CENSUS ENUMERATION. — resolution, and what with the motion for reconsideration,
Apportionment of legislative district may legally rest on this is now written fully to explain the premises on which
official census enumeration even if not yet final. our conclusion rested.
4. ID.; ID.; AVOIDANCE OF STATUTE; Personality of the petitioners. — Petitioners are
DISPROPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. our members of the House of Representatives from
— Republic Act No. 3040 that gave provinces with less Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental, and Bulacan, and the
number of inhabitants more representative districts than provincial governor of Negros Oriental. They bring this
those with bigger population is declared invalid because action in behalf of themselves and of other residents of
it violates the principle of proportional representation their provinces. They allege, and this Court finds, that
prescribed by the Constitution. their provinces had been discriminated against
by Republic Act 3040, because they were given less
representative districts than the number of their
inhabitants required or justified: Misamis Oriental having
DECISION 387,839 inhabitants, was given one district only,
whereas Cavite with 379,902 inhabitants, was given two
districts; Negros Oriental and Bulacan with 598,783 and
557,691 respectively, were allotted 2 representative
BENGZON, C.J p: districts each, whereas Albay with 515,961 was assigned
3 districts.
Statement of the case. — Petitioners request
that respondent officials be presented from The authorities hold that "citizens who are
implementing Republic Act 3040 that apportions deprived of as full and effective an elective franchise as
representative districts in this country. It is they are entitled to under the Constitution by an
unconstitutional and void, they allege, because: (a) it apportionment act, have a sufficient interest to proceed
was passed by the House of Representatives without in a court to test the statute. (18 Am. Jur. 199.)
printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the Therefore, petitioners as voters and as
Members at least three calendar days prior to its congressmen and governor of the aggrieved provinces
passage; (b) it was approved more than three years have personality to sue.
after the return of the last census of our population; and
(c) it apportioned districts without regard to the number In Stiglitz vs. Schardien (Ky) 40 S.W. (2d) 315,
of inhabitants of the several provinces. the right of a citizen to question the validity of a
redistricting statute was upheld. The same right was
Admitting some allegations but denying others, recognized in Jones vs. Freeman (Okla.) 146 P. (2d) 564,
the respondents aver they were merely complying with the court saying that each citizen has the right to have
their duties under the statute, which they presume and the State apportioned in accordance with
allege to be constitutional. The respondent National the Constitution and to be governed by Legislative fairly
Treasurer further avers that petitioners have no
representing the whole body of electorate and elected as Until the final report is made,
required by the Constitution. these figures should be considered as
official for all purposes."
Colegrove vs. Green, 328 U.S. 549, on which
respondents rely, appear to be inconclusive: three Petitioners maintain that the apportionment
against three. The seventh justice concurred in the result could not legally rest on this report since it is merely
even supposing the contrary was justiciable." "preliminary" and "may be subject to revision." On the
The printed-form, three-day requirement. — other hand, respondents point out that the above letter
The Constitution provides that "no bill shall be passed by says the report should be considered "official for all
either House unless it shall have been printed and copies purposes." They also point out that the ascertainment of
thereof in its final form furnished its Members at least what constitutes a return of an enumeration is a matter
three calendar days prior to its passage, except when for Congress action. This issue does not clearly favor
the President shall have certified to the necessity of its petitioners, because there are authorities sustaining the
immediate enactment." view that although not final, and still subject to
correction, a census enumeration may be considered
Petitioners presented certificates of the official, in the sense that Governmental action may be
Secretary of the House of Representatives to show that based thereon even in matters of apportionment of
no printed copy had been distributed three days before legislative districts (Cahill vs. Leopold [Conn.] 103 Atl. 2d
passage of the bill (on May 10, 1961) and that no 818) (See also Elliott vs. State, 1 Pac. 2d 370; Ervin vs.
certificate of urgency by the President had been received State, 44 S.W. 2d 380; Herndon vs. Excise Board, 295
in the House. Pac. 223; Holcomb vs. Spikes, 232 S.W. 891.)
The respondents claim in their defense that a Apportionment of Members. —
statute may not be nullified upon evidence of failure to The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty
print, because "it is conclusively presumed that the Members of the House of Representatives "shall be
details of legislative procedure leading to the enrollment apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as
that are prescribed by the Constitution have been may be according to the number of their respective
complied with by the Legislature." They further claim inhabitants." In our resolution on August 23, we held
that the certificates of the Secretary of the House are that this provision was violated by Republic Act
inadmissible, in view of the conclusive (enrolled-bill) 3040 because (a) it gave Cebu seven members, while
presumption, which in several instances have been Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got four only;
applied by the courts. In further support of their (b) it gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a
contention, sec. 313 (2) of Act 190 might be cited. 1 bigger population got three only; (c) Pangasinan with
less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato got more
On the other hand, it may be said for the
than both five members having been assigned to it; (d)
petitioners, that such printed-bill requirement had a
Samar (with 871,857) was allotted four members while
fundamental purpose to serve 2 and was inserted in
Davao with 903,224 got three only; (e) Bulacan vs. with
the Constitution not as a mere procedural step; and that
557,691 got two only, while Albay with less inhabitants
the enrolled-bill theory, if adopted, would preclude the
(515,691) got three, and (f) Misamis Oriental with
courts from enforcing such requirement in proper cases.
387,839 was given one member only, while Cavite with
We do not deem it necessary to make a definite less inhabitants (379,904) got two. These were not the
pronouncement on this question, because the only instances of unequal apportionment. We see that
controversy may be decided upon the issue of districts- Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and
in-proportion-to-inhabitants. Cagayan with more inhabitants have 2 each. And then
Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each, whereas,
Population Census. — According to
Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte
the Constitution, "the Congress shall by law, make an
with 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with
apportionment (of Members of the House) within three
less inhabitants (966,145) was given 5.
years after the return of every enumeration, and not
otherwise." It is admitted that the bill, which later Such disproportion of representation has been
became Republic Act 3040, was based upon a report held sufficient to avoid apportionment laws enacted in
submitted to the President by the Director of the Census States having Constitutional provisions similar to ours.
on November 23, 1960. It reads: For instance, in Massachusetts, the Constitution required
division "into representative district . . . equally, as
"I have the honor to submit
nearly as may be, according to the relative number of
herewith a preliminary count of the
legal voters in the several districts." The Supreme
population of the Philippines as a result of
Judicial Court of that state found this provision violated
the population enumeration which has
by an allotment that gave 3 representatives to 7,946
just been completed. This is a report on
voters and only 2 representatives to 8,618 voters, and
the total number of inhabitants in this
further gave two representatives to 4,854 voters and
country and does not include the
one representative to 5,598 voters. Chief Justice Rugg
population characteristics. It is the result
said:
of a hand tally and may be subject to
revision when all the population "It is not an approximation
schedules shall have been processed to equality to allot three
mechanically. representatives to 7,946 voters,
and only two representatives to
The Census of Population is the 8,618 voters, and to allot two
first of a series of four censuses which representatives to 4,854 voters,
include housing, agriculture and and one representative to 5,596
economics in addition to population. voters . . .
These four censuses together constitute
what is known as the Census of 1960. "Whenever this kind of
Like population, the housing and inequality of apportionment has
agricultural censuses are undergoing been before the courts, it has been
processing, while the economic census is held to the contrary to
now under preparation. the constitution. It has been said
to be 'arbitrary and capricious and
against the vital principle of
 equality.' Houghton Country vs. Needless to say, equality of representation 3 in
Blacker, 92 Mich. 638, 647, 653, 16 the legislature being such an essential feature of
LRA 432, 52 N. W. 951; Giddings republican institutions, and affecting so many lives, the
vs. Blacker, 93 Mich. 1, 13, 16 LRA judiciary may not with a clear conscience stand by to
402, 52 N. W. 944; Barker vs. give free hand to the discretion of the political
State, 133 Ind. 178, 197, 18 LRA departments of the Government. Cases are numerous
567, 32 NE 836, 33 NE 119; wherein courts intervened upon proof of violation of the
Denney vs. State, 144 Ind. 503, constitutional principle of equality of representation.
535, 31 LRA 726, 42 N. E. 929."
"An injunction to prevent
Other cases along the same line upholding the the secretary of state from issuing
same view are these: notices of election under an
unconstitutional apportionment act
1. Stiglitz vs. Schardien, supra, wherein twelve gerrymandering the state is not a
districts entitled to but six were given twelve usurpation of authority by the
representatives, and twelve districts given twelve only court, on the ground that the
were actually entitled to twenty-two. question is a political one, but the
2. Jones vs. Freeman, supra, wherein districts constitutionality of the act is purely
entitled to only 3 senators were given 7, and districts a judicial question." (State ex rel.
entitled to 15 were assigned seven only. Adams County v. Cunningham, 15
L.R.A. 561, 81 Wis. 440, 51 N. W.
It is argued in the motion to reconsider, that 724.)
since Republic Act 3040 improves existing conditions,
this Court could perhaps, in the exercise of judicial "The fact that the action
statesmanship, consider the question involved as purely may have a political effect, and in
political and therefore non-justiciable. The overwhelming that sense effect a political object,
weight of authority is that district apportionment laws does not make the questions
are subject to review by the courts. involved in a suit to declare the
unconstitutionality of an
"The Constitutionality of a
apportionment act political instead
legislative apportionment act is a
of judicial." (State ex re. Lamb v.
judicial question, and not one
Cunningham, 17 L.R.A. 145, 83
which the court cannot consider on
Wis. 90, 53 N. W. 48.)
the ground that it is political
question." (Parker vs. State ex rel. "An unconstitutional
Powell, 18 L. R. A. 567, 133 Ind. apportionment law may be
178, 32 N. E. 836; State ex rel. declared void by the courts,
Morris vs. Wrightson, 22 L. R. A. notwithstanding the fact that such
548, 56 N. J. L., 126, 28 Atl. 56; statute is an exercise of political
Harmison vs. Balot Comrs. 42 L. R. power." (Denney vs. State ex rel.
A. 591, 45 W. Va. 179, 31 S. E. Basler, 31 L.R.A. 726, 144 Ind.
394) 503, 42 N. E. 929.)
"It is well settled that the "The constitutionality of a
passage of apportionment acts is statute forming a delegate district
not so exclusively within the or apportioning delegates for the
political power of the legislature as house of delegates is a judicial
to preclude a court from inquiring question for the courts, although
into their constitutionality when the the statute is an exercise of
question is properly brought before political power." (Harmison v.
it." (Indiana-Parker vs. Powell Ballot Comrs. 42 L.R.A. 591, 45 W.
(1882) 133 Ind. 178, 18 L. R. A. Va. 179, 31 S. B. 394.) [3 L.R.A.
567, 32 N. E. 836, 33 N. E. 119; Digest p. 2737.]
Denney vs. State (1896) 144 Ind.
503; 31 L. R. A. 726, 42 N. E. 929; Conclusion. — For all the foregoing, we hereby
Marion County vs. Jewett (1915) reiterate our resolution declaring that Republic Act
184 Ind. 63, 110 N. E. 553.) 3040 infringed the provisions of the Constitution and is
(Kentucky-Ragland vs. Anderson therefore void.
(1907) 125 Ky. 141, 128 Am. St. Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J.B.L.,
Rep. 242, 100 S. W. 865.) Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ.,
(Massachusetts-Atty. Gen. vs. concur.
Suffolk County Apportionment
Comrs. etc.) Bautista Angelo, J., is on leave.

It may be added in this connection, that the ||| (Macias v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-18684,
mere impact of the suit upon the political situation does [September 14, 1961], 113 PHIL 1-9)
not render it political instead of judicial. (Lamb vs.
Cunningham, 17 L.R.A. 145, 83 Wis. 90.)
The alleged circumstance that this statute
improves the present set-up constitutes no excuse for
approving a transgression of constitutional limitations,
because the end does not justify the means.
Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt that, aware of
the existing inequality of representation, and impelled by
its sense of duty, Congress will opportunely approve
remedial legislation in accord with the precepts of
the Constitution.
 COMELEC 3 on the residency requirement, the COMELEC
wrote in response:
Although R.A. 9225 enjoys the
presumption of constitutionality . . ., it is
the Commission's position that those who
have availed of the law cannot exercise
the right of suffrage given under
the OAVL for the reason that
the OAVL was not enacted for them.
Hence, as Filipinos who have merely re-
acquired their citizenship on 18
September 2003 at the earliest, and as
law and jurisprudence now stand, they
are considered regular voters who have
to meet the requirements of residency,
among others under Section 1, Article 5
of the Constitution. 4
Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in
the May 2004 elections owing to the COMELEC's refusal to
include them in the National Registry of Absentee Voters,
EN BANC petitioner Nicolas-Lewis et al., 5 filed on April 1, 2004 this
petition for certiorari and mandamus. DHACES
[G.R. No. 162759. August 4, 2006.] A little over a week before the May 10, 2004
elections, or on April 30, 2004, the COMELEC filed
LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, GREGORIO a Comment, 6 therein praying for the denial of the petition.
B. MACABENTA, ALEJANDRO A. As may be expected, petitioners were not able to register let
ESCLAMADO, ARMANDO B. alone vote in said elections.
HEREDIA, REUBEN S. SEGURITAN,
On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General
ERIC LACHICA FURBEYRE, TERESITA (OSG) filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment), therein
A. CRUZ, JOSEFINA OPENA
stating that "all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual
DISTERHOFT, MERCEDES V. OPENA, citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do
CORNELIO R. NATIVIDAD, EVELYN so", observing, however, that the conclusion of the 2004
D. NATIVIDAD, petitioners, vs. elections had rendered the petition moot and academic. 7
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent. The holding of the 2004 elections had, as the OSG
pointed out, indeed rendered the petition moot and
academic, but insofar only as petitioners' participation in
such political exercise is concerned. The broader and
DECISION transcendental issue tendered or subsumed in the
petition, i.e., the propriety of allowing "duals" to participate
and vote as absentee voter in future elections, however,
remains unresolved.
GARCIA, J p:
Observing the petitioners' and the COMELEC's
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, respective formulations of the issues, the same may be
petitioners, referring to themselves as "duals" or dual reduced into the question of whether or not petitioners and
citizens, pray that they and others who retained or others who might have meanwhile retained and/or
reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act (R.A.) reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 may
No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189.
2003, be allowed to avail themselves of the mechanism
provided under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of The Court resolves the poser in the affirmative, and
2003 1 (R.A. 9189) and that the Commission on Elections thereby accords merit to the petition.
(COMELEC) accordingly be ordered to allow them to vote and In esse, this case is all about suffrage. A quick look
register as absentee voters under the aegis of R.A. 9189. at the governing provisions on the right of suffrage is,
The facts: therefore, indicated.

Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition We start off with Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of
of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 which accords to the Constitution, respectively reading as follows:
such applicants the right of suffrage, among others. Long SECTION 1. Suffrage may be
before the May 2004 national and local elections, petitioners exercised by all citizens of the Philippines
sought registration and certification as "overseas absentee not otherwise disqualified by law, who are
voter" only to be advised by the Philippine Embassy in the at least eighteen years of age, and who
United States that, per a COMELEC letter to the Department shall have resided in the Philippines for at
of Foreign Affairs dated September 23, 2003 2 , they have least one year and in the place wherein
yet no right to vote in such elections owing to their lack of they propose to vote for at least six
the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the months immediately preceding the
Constitution. The same letter, however, urged the different election. . . . .
Philippine posts abroad not to discontinue their campaign for
voter's registration, as the residence restriction adverted to SEC 2. The Congress shall
would contextually affect merely certain individuals who provide . . . a system for absentee voting
would likely be eligible to vote in future elections. by qualified Filipinos abroad.
Prodded for clarification by petitioner Loida Nicolas- In a nutshell, the aforequoted Section 1 prescribes
Lewis in the light of the ruling in Macalintal vs. residency requirement as a general eligibility factor for the
right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2 authorizes
Congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, support his claim [where] the Court held
implying that a non-resident may, as an exception to the that a "green card" holder immigrant to
residency prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to the [US] is deemed to have abandoned
vote. his domicile and residence in the
Philippines.
In response to its above mandate, Congress
enacted R.A. 9189 — the OAVL 8 — identifying in its Section [The challenger] further argues
4 who can vote under it and in the following section who that Section 1, Article V of the
cannot, as follows: Constitution does not allow provisional
registration or a promise by a voter to
Section 4. Coverage. — All perform a condition to be qualified to vote
citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are in a political exercise; that the legislature
not otherwise disqualified by law, at least should not be allowed to circumvent the
eighteen (18) years of age on the day of requirement of the Constitution on the
elections, may vote for president, vice- right of suffrage by providing a condition
president, senators and party-list thereon which in effect amends or alters
representatives. the aforesaid residence requirement to
Section 5. Disqualifications. — qualify a Filipino abroad to vote. He
The following shall be disqualified from claims that the right of suffrage should
voting under this Act: not be granted to anyone who, on the
date of the election, does not possess the
(a) Those who have lost their qualifications provided for by Section 1,
Filipino citizenship in accordance with Article V of the Constitution. 10 (Words
Philippine laws; in bracket added.)
(b) Those who have expressly As may be recalled, the Court upheld the
renounced their Philippine citizenship and constitutionality of Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 mainly on the
who have pledged allegiance to a foreign strength of the following premises:
country;
As finally approved into law,
(c) Those who have . . . [been] Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically
convicted in a final judgment by a court disqualifies an immigrant or permanent
or tribunal of an offense punishable by resident who is "recognized as such in the
imprisonment of not less than one (1) host country" because immigration or
year, including those who have . . . been permanent residence in another country
found guilty of Disloyalty as defined implies renunciation of one's residence in
under Article 137 of the Revised Penal his country of origin. However, same
Code, . . . .; Section allows an immigrant and
permanent resident abroad to register as
(d) An immigrant or a permanent voter for as long as he/she executes an
resident who is recognized as such in the affidavit to show that he/she has not
host country, unless he/she executes, abandoned his domicile in pursuance of
upon registration, an affidavit prepared the constitutional intent expressed in
for the purpose by the Commission Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that
declaring that he/she shall resume actual "all citizens of the Philippines not
physical permanent residence in the otherwise disqualified by law" must be
Philippines not later than three (3) years entitled to exercise the right of suffrage
from approval of his/her registration and, that Congress must establish a
under this Act. Such affidavit shall also system for absentee voting; for
state that he/she has not applied for otherwise, if actual, physical residence in
citizenship in another country. Failure to the Philippines is required, there is no
return shall be the cause for the removal sense for the framers of the
of the name of the immigrant or Constitution to mandate Congress to
permanent resident from the National establish a system for absentee
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her voting. aEHIDT
permanent disqualification to vote in
absentia. Contrary to the claim of [the
challenger], the execution of the affidavit
(e) Any citizen of the Philippines itself is not the enabling or enfranchising
abroad previously declared insane or act. The affidavit required in Section 5(d)
incompetent by competent authority . . . . is not only proof of the intention of the
(Words in bracket added.) immigrant or permanent resident to go
Notably, Section 5 lists those who cannot avail back and resume residency in the
themselves of the absentee voting mechanism. However, Philippines, but more significantly, it
Section 5(d) of the enumeration respecting Filipino serves as an explicit expression that he
immigrants and permanent residents in another country had not in fact abandoned his domicile of
opens an exception and qualifies the disqualification rule. origin. Thus, it is not correct to say that
Section 5(d) would, however, face a constitutional challenge the execution of the affidavit under
on the ground that, as narrated in Macalintal, it — Section 5(d) violates the Constitution that
proscribes "provisional registration or a
. . . violates Section 1, Article V promise by a voter to perform a condition
of the 1987 Constitution which requires to be qualified to vote in a political
that the voter must be a resident in the exercise." 11
Philippines for at least one year and in
the place where he proposes to vote for
at least six months immediately preceding
an election. [The challenger]
cites . . . Caasi vs. Court of Appeals 9 to
 Soon after Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 passed the test (a) are candidates for or
of constitutionality, Congress enacted R.A. 9225 the relevant are occupying any public
portion of which reads: office in the country of
which they are
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — naturalized citizens;
It is hereby declared the policy of the and/or
State that all Philippine citizens who
become citizens of another country shall (b) are in active service
be deemed not to have lost their as commissioned or non-
Philippine citizenship under the conditions commissioned officers in
of this Act. the armed forces of the
country which they are
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine naturalized citizens.
Citizenship. — Any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, natural-born After what appears to be a successful application for
citizens of the Philippines who have lost recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9189,
their Philippine citizenship by reason of petitioners now invoke their right to enjoy . . . political rights ,
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign specifically the right of suffrage, pursuant to Section 5
country are hereby deemed to have re- thereof. caHCSD
acquired Philippine citizenship upon
taking the following oath of allegiance to Opposing the petitioners' bid, however, respondent
the Republic: COMELEC invites attention to the same Section 5 (1)
providing that "duals" can enjoy their right to vote, as an
xxx xxx xxx adjunct to political rights, only if they meet the requirements
of Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, R.A. 9189 and
Natural-born citizens of the other existing laws. Capitalizing on what at first blush is the
Philippines who, after the effectivity of clashing provisions of the aforecited provision of the
this Act, become citizens of a foreign Constitution, which, to repeat, requires residency in the
country shall retain their Philippine Philippines for a certain period, and R.A. 9189 which grants a
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid Filipino non-resident absentee voting rights, 12 COMELEC
oath. argues:
SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship. — 4. 'DUALS' MUST FIRST ESTABLISH
The unmarried child, whether legitimate, THEIR DOMICILE/RESIDENCE IN
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen THE PHILIPPINES
(18) years of age, of those who re-
acquire Philippine citizenship upon 4.01. The inclusion of such
effectivity of this Act shall be deemed additional and specific
citizens of the Philippines. requirements in RA
9225 is logical. The
SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights 'duals,' upon
and Liabilities. — Those who retain or re- renouncement of their
acquire Philippine citizenship under this Filipino citizenship and
Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights acquisition of foreign
and be subject to all attendant liabilities citizenship, have
and responsibilities under existing laws of practically and legally
the Philippines and the following abandoned their
conditions: domicile and severed
(1) Those intending to their legal ties to the
exercise their right of suffrage homeland as a
must meet the requirements consequence. Having
under Section 1, Article V of the subsequently acquired a
Constitution, Republic Act No. second citizenship (i.e.,
9189, otherwise known as "The Filipino) then, 'duals'
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of must, for purposes of
2003" and other existing laws; voting, first of all,
decisively and definitely
(2) Those seeking establish their domicile
elective public office in the through positive
Philippines shall meet the acts; 13
qualifications for holding such
public office as required by the The Court disagrees.
Constitution and existing laws As may be noted, there is no provision in the dual
and, at the time of the filing of citizenship law — R.A. 9225 — requiring "duals" to actually
the certificate of candidacy, establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first
make a personal and sworn before they can exercise their right to vote. On the
renunciation of any and all contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that "duals"
foreign citizenship . . .; are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1)
3) . . . ; the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter
under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that R.A.
(4) . . . ; 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all
overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements
(5) That right to vote or exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are
be elected or appointed to any qualified to vote. Thus, wrote the Court in Macalintal:
public office in the Philippines
cannot be exercised by, or It is clear from these discussions
extended to, those who: of the . . . Constitutional Commission that
[it] intended to enfranchise as much as
possible all Filipino citizens abroad who United States, for example,
have not abandoned their domicile of but has a clear intent to
origin. The Commission even intended to return to the Philippines, will
extend to young Filipinos who reach make him qualified as a
voting age abroad whose parents' resident of the Philippines
domicile of origin is in the Philippines, and under this law.
consider them qualified as voters for the
first time. DICSaH This is consistent, Mr.
President, with the constitutional
It is in pursuance of that mandate that we — that
intention that the Commission provided Congress — must provide a
for Section 2 [Article V] immediately after franchise to overseas Filipinos.
the residency requirement of Section 1.
By the doctrine of necessary implication If we read the
in statutory construction, . . ., the Constitution and the suffrage
strategic location of Section 2 indicates principle literally as
that the Constitutional Commission demanding physical
provided for an exception to the actual presence, then there is no
residency requirement of Section 1 with way we can provide for
respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. The offshore voting to our
same Commission has in effect declared offshore kababayan, Mr.
that qualified Filipinos who are not in the President.
Philippines may be allowed to vote even Senator Arroyo. Mr.
though they do not satisfy the residency President, when the
requirement in Section 1, Article V of the Constitution says, in Section 2 of
Constitution. Article V, it reads: "The Congress
That Section 2 of Article V of shall provide a system for
the Constitution is an exception to the securing the secrecy and sanctity
residency requirement found in Section 1 of the ballot as well as a system
of the same Article was in fact the subject for absentee voting by qualified
of debate when Senate Bill No. 2104, Filipinos abroad."
which became R.A. No. 9189, was The key to this whole
deliberated upon on the Senate floor, exercise, Mr. President, is
thus: "qualified." In other words,
Senator Arroyo. Mr. anything that we may do or
President, this bill should be say in granting our
looked into in relation to the compatriots abroad must be
constitutional provisions. I think anchored on the proposition
the sponsor and I would agree that they are qualified.
that the Constitution is supreme Absent the qualification, they
in any statute that we may cannot vote. And
enact. "residents" (sic) is a
qualification.
Let me read Section 1,
Article V, of the xxx xxx xxx
Constitution . . . . Look at what the
Constitution says — "In the place
xxx xxx xxx
wherein they propose to vote for
Now, Mr. President, the at least six months immediately
Constitution says, "who shall preceding the election." acHDTA
have resided in the Philippines."
They are permanent immigrants. Mr. President, all of us
They have changed residence so here have run (sic) for office.
they are barred under the I live in Makati. My
Constitution. This is why I asked neighbor is Pateros . . . . We are
whether this committee separated only by a creek. But
amendment which in fact does one who votes in Makati cannot
not alter the original text of the vote in Pateros unless he resides
bill will have any effect on this? in Pateros for six months. That is
Senator Angara. Good how restrictive our
question, Mr. President. And this Constitution is. . . . .
has been asked in various fora. As I have said, if a voter
This is in compliance with the in Makati would want to vote in
Constitution. One, the Pateros, yes, he may do so. But
interpretation here of "residence" he must do so, make the transfer
is synonymous with "domicile." six months before the election,
As the gentleman and I otherwise, he is not qualified to
know, Mr. President, "domicile" is vote.
the intent to return to one's xxx xxx xxx
home. And the fact that a
Filipino may have been Senator Angara. It is a
physically absent from the good point to raise, Mr.
Philippines and may be President. But it is a point
physically a resident of the already well-debated even in the
constitutional commission of
 1986. And the reason Section SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship. —
2 of Article V was placed The unmarried child, whether legitimate,
immediately after the six- illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen
month/one-year residency (18) years of age, of those who re-
requirement is to acquire Philippine citizenship upon
demonstrate unmistakably effectivity of this Act shall be deemed
that Section 2 which citizens of the Philippines.
authorizes absentee voting is
an exception to the six- It is very likely that a considerable number of
month/one-year residency those unmarried children below eighteen (18) years of
requirement. That is the first age had never set foot in the Philippines. Now then, if the
principle, Mr. President, that one next generation of "duals" may nonetheless avail themselves
must remember. the right to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5
of the Act, then there is neither no rhyme nor reason why
The second reason, Mr. the petitioners and other present day "duals," provided they
President, is that under our meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the
jurisprudence . . . — "residency" Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189, be denied the right of
has been interpreted as suffrage as an overseas absentee voter. Congress could not
synonymous with "domicile." have plausibly intended such absurd situation. cEaTHD
But the third more WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.
practical reason, . . . is, if we Accordingly, the Court rules and so holds that those who
follow the interpretation of retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic
the gentleman, then it is Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
legally and constitutionally Act of 2003, may exercise the right to vote under the system
impossible to give a of absentee voting in Republic Act No. 9189, the Overseas
franchise to vote to overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
Filipinos who do not
physically live in the country, SO ORDERED.
which is quite ridiculous ||| (Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
because that is exactly the 162759, [August 4, 2006], 529 PHIL 642-659)
whole point of this exercise
— to enfranchise them and
empower them to
vote. 14 (Emphasis and words
in bracket added; citations
omitted)
Lest it be overlooked, no less than the COMELEC
itself admits that the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act expanded the coverage of overseas absentee voting.
According to the poll body:

1.05 With the passage of RA

9225 the scope of overseas absentee
voting has been consequently expanded
so as to include Filipinos who are also
citizens of other countries, subject,
however, to the strict prerequisites
indicated in the pertinent provisions of RA
9225; 15
Considering the unison intent of the
Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the scope of
that law with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible
conclusion is that "duals" may now exercise the right of
suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas
absentee voters. R.A. 9189 defines the terms adverted to in
the following wise:
"Absentee Voting" refers to the
process by which qualified citizens of the
Philippines abroad exercise their right to
vote;
"Overseas Absentee Voter" refers
to a citizen of the Philippines who is
qualified to register and vote under this
Act, not otherwise disqualified by law,
who is abroad on the day of elections;
While perhaps not determinative of the issue
tendered herein, we note that the expanded thrust of R.A.
9189 extends also to what might be tag as the next
generation of "duals". This may be deduced from the
inclusion of the provision on derivative citizenship in R.A.
9225 which reads: