View full case

LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case, who are dual citizens, sought to avail themselves of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189) and petitioned the COMELEC to allow them to vote and register as absentee voters. They are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. However, the Philippine Embassy in the United States advised them that they do not have the right to vote in the 2004 elections due to their lack of the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution. The COMELEC maintained that those who have availed of R.A. 9225 cannot exercise the right of suffrage under the Overseas Absentee Voting Law. The petitioners filed a petition for clarification on their right to vote. The COMELEC opposed the petition, while the OSG stated that qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens, may vote. The petition became moot after the 2004 elections, but the issue of whether dual citizens can vote as absentee voters in future elections remains unresolved. The court resolved the issue in the affirmative, finding merit in the petition.

In another case, the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of RA 9189, which disqualifies an immigrant or permanent resident recognized as such in the host country from availing themselves of absentee voting, was challenged. The challenger argues that Section 5(d) violates the residency requirement for voters and allows provisional registration. They also argue that suffrage should only be granted to those who possess the qualifications provided in the Constitution. The Court previously upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(d), stating that the execution of the affidavit serves as proof of the intent to resume residency in the Philippines. The Court also noted that requiring actual, physical residence in the Philippines would contradict the constitutional mandate for absentee voting. After this ruling, Congress enacted RA 9225, which encourages Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship to retain or regain it.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the execution of the affidavit required under Section 5(d) of the Philippine Dual Citizenship Law violates the Constitution.

  2. Whether "duals" who have renounced their Filipino citizenship and acquired foreign citizenship must establish domicile or residence in the Philippines before exercising their right to vote.

  3. Whether qualified Filipinos who are dual citizens and not residents of the Philippines are allowed to vote in Philippine elections.

  4. Whether the provision of Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to the residency requirement found in Section 1 of the same Article.

  5. Whether or not those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 may exercise the right to vote as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189.

RULING:

  1. The execution of the affidavit under Section 5(d) of the Philippine Dual Citizenship Law does not violate the Constitution. The affidavit serves as proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, as well as an explicit expression that the domicile of origin has not been abandoned. Therefore, it does not constitute "provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise."

  2. "Duals" who have renounced their Filipino citizenship and acquired foreign citizenship are not required to establish residency or physically stay in the Philippines before exercising their right to vote. The Philippine Dual Citizenship Law, in implicit acknowledgment that "duals" are likely non-residents, grants them the same right of suffrage as absentee voters under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act. The law aims to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who have not abandoned their domicile of origin.

  3. Yes, qualified Filipinos who are dual citizens and not residents of the Philippines are allowed to vote in Philippine elections. The Supreme Court held that the intention of the Constitutional Commission in providing for Section 2 of Article V is to allow qualified Filipinos abroad to vote even though they do not satisfy the residency requirement in Section 1 of the same Article. This is an exception to the residency requirement and is in compliance with the Constitution. The Court also considered the enactment of Republic Act No. 9189, which provides for overseas absentee voting, as expanding the scope of the right to vote for dual citizens.

  4. Yes, Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to the residency requirement found in Section 1 of the same Article. The Court pointed out that the strategic location of Section 2 indicates the intention of the Constitutional Commission to provide for an exception to the residency requirement for qualified Filipinos abroad. The Court also cited the debates during the deliberation of the law, where it was recognized that Section 2 is an exception to the residency requirement and that "residency" is synonymous with "domicile."

  5. Yes, those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 may exercise the right to vote as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The execution of an affidavit required under a law does not violate the Constitution if it serves as proof of intention and does not constitute provisional registration or promise to perform a condition to be qualified to vote.

  • The Philippine Dual Citizenship Law grants "duals" the right to vote without requiring them to establish residency or physical presence in the Philippines. The law aims to enfranchise overseas Filipinos who have not abandoned their domicile of origin.

  • Qualified Filipinos who are dual citizens and not residents of the Philippines are allowed to vote in Philippine elections.

  • Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to the residency requirement found in Section 1 of the same Article.

  • "Residency" in the context of voting is synonymous with "domicile."

  • The intent of the Constitutional Commission is crucial in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.

  • Statutory construction may include necessary implication.

  • The expanded thrust of R.A. 9189 extends to the next generation of "duals" as deduced from the provision on derivative citizenship in R.A. 9225.

  • Unmarried children below eighteen years of age, who are deemed citizens of the Philippines under R.A. 9225, should be allowed to enjoy full civil and political rights under R.A. 9189.

  • The right of suffrage as an overseas absentee voter should not be denied to petitioners and other present-day "duals" who meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189.

  • Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in R.A. 9189.