by the provisions of the 1935 Constitution which constitution considers as citizens of the Philippines G.R. NO.

161434, 3 MARCH 2004 those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, FACTS: The case at bar is a consolidated case filed by Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a natural-born citizen of petitioners questioning the certificate of candidacy of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is herein private respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe also legitimate or illegitimate. known as Fernando Poe, Jr. The latter filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of MOY YA LIM YAO V. CIR2 President of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) party. He represented G.R. NO. L-21289, 4 OCTOBER 1971 himself in said certificate as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, which reason that petitioners filed a FACTS: On 8 February 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung applied petition before the Comelec to disqualify private for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a nonrespondent Fernando Poe, Jr. and to deny due course immigrant. In the interrogation made in connection or to cancel his certificate of candidacy on the ground with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to that the latter made a material misrepresentation in enter the Philippines, she stated that she was a his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she natural-born Filipino when in truth his parents were desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to foreigners and he is an illegitimate child. The Comelec visit her greatgranduncle Lau Ching Ping for a period dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal. of one month. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961, and was permitted to ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen of stay for a period of one month which would expire on the Philippines. 13 April 1961. On the date of her arrival, Asher Y, Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to HELD: Before discussing on the issue at hand it is undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung worth stressing that since private respondent would actually depart from the Philippines on or Fernando Poe, Jr. was born on August 20, 1939, the before the expiration of her authorized period of stay applicable law then controlling was the 1935 in this country or within the period as in his discretion constitution. The issue on private respondents the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized citizenship is so essential in view of the constitutional representative might properly allow. After repeated provision that, No person may be elected President extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a the Philippines up to 13 February 1962. On 25 January registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao years of age on the day of the election, and a resident alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the preceding such election. Natural-born citizens are Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth and order her arrest and immediate deportation, after without having to perform any act to acquire or the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an perfect their Philippine citizenship. Based on the action for injunction with preliminary injunction. At evidence presented which the Supreme consider as the hearing which took place one and a half years viable is the fact that the death certificate of Lorenzo after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of could not write either English or Tagalog. Except for a private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he few words, she could not speak either English or died on September 11, 1954 at the age of 84 years, in Tagalog. She could not name any Filipino neighbor, San Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not certificate, the residence of Lorenzo Poe was stated to know the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-inbe San Carlos, Pangansinan. In the absence of any law. The Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to 49705) denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed. residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence before death. Considering that the ISSUE: Whether Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a allegations of petitioners are not substantiated with Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. proof and since Lorenzo Poe may have been benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the Philippine HELD: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, Bill had effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or Poe father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter is governed she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien

TECSON V. COMELEC1

Digest available at http://philippine2 law.blogspot.com/2008/03/maria-jeanetteDigest available at c-tecson-et-al-vs.html (last accessed http://berneguerrero.com/node/119 (last September 16, 2010). accessed September 16, 2010). POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA
1

woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege. This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country, both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case, Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jose Ong is a citizen of the Philippines. HELD: In the year 1895, the private respondents grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the Philippines from China and established his residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar. The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905 but was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915, he filed with the court an application for naturalization and was declared a Filipino citizen. In 1984, the private respondent married a Filipina named Desiree Lim.For the elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and voted there during those elections. Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with an alien father were placed on equal footing. They were both considered as natural born citizens. Besides, private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life here in the Philippines. On the issue of residence, it is not required that a person should have a house in order to establish his residence and domicile. It is enough that he should live in the municipality or in a rented house or in that of a friend or relative. To require him to own property in order to be eligible to run for Congress would be tantamount to a property qualification. The Constitution only requires that the candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and residence requirements.

IN RE CHING4
BAR MATTER NO. 914, 1 OCTOBER 1999 FACTS: Petition for Admission to the Phil Bar - April 1964: Vicente Ching born as the legitimate son of sps Tat Ching, Chinese citizen, and Prescila Dulay, Filipina, in La Union. Since birth, Ching has resided in the Phils - During this time, the governing charter is the 1935Constitution.Fathers citizenship is followed, with a right to elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority - July 1998: Ching, after graduating from St. Louis University in Baguio City, filed an application to take the98 Bar Examinations. - Sept 1998: Court allowed Ching to take the exams provided he must submit proof of his Phil citizenship - Nov 1998: Ching submitted certification that he is CPA, Voter Cert from COMELEC, and Cert as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union also from COMELEC. - April 1999: results of Bar Exams were released and Ching passed. He was further required to submit more proof of citizenship.

CO V. HRET3
G.R. NOS. 92191-92, 30 JULY 1991 FACTS: The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident ofLaoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes. The congressional election for the second district of NorthernSamar was held. Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the second legislativedistrict are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. RespondentOng was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. The petitioners filed election protests on the grounds that Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.
3

4 Digest available at Digest available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/19098886/COhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30917044/A201 vs-HRET-Case-Digest (last accessed 0-Constitutional-Law-I-Digest (last September 16, 2010). accessed September 16, 2010). POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

- July 1999: Ching filed Manifestation w/ Affidavit of Election of Phil Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance. - OSG commented that Ching being the legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother and born under the 1935 Consti was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Phil citizenship. If Ching formally elects Phil citizenship, it would already be beyond the reasonable time allowed by present jurisprudence. - Two conditions of an effective election of Phil. Citizenship (from OSG): 1st the mother of the person making the election must be a phil citizen 2nd election must be made upon reaching the age of majority (w/c means a reasonable time interpreted by the SOJ as 3 years from the Velayo case; in Cuenco, noted that this pd not inflexible, however, held in the same case that 7 years not reasonable time) - Ching to support his cause invokes these special circumstances: continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, being a CP, a registered voter, and elected public official.

FACTS: Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935 Constitution. On Nov. 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps and, without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the US. As a consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under sec. 1(4) of CA No. 63, a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among others, rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country. Then on June 5, 1990, he was naturalized as a US citizen, in connection with his service in the US Marine Corps.

On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under RA 2630. He ran against petitioner Bengson III for the office of Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections and was elected for said office. Bengson III then filed a case for ISSUE: WON Ching has elected Phil citizenship w/in a Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with HRET, claiming that reasonable time and if so WON his citizenship has respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a retroacted to the time he took the bar. member of the House since he was not a natural-born citizen. HRET dismissed the petition. WON Chings special circumstances entitle him to citizenship. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a naturalborn Filipino who became an American citizen, can HELD: No. Chings election was clearly beyond, by any still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reasonable yardstick, the allowable period within reacquisition of Philippine citizenship which to exercise the privilege. Being born in April 1965, he was already 35 years old when he complied HELD: There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) with the requirements of CA No. 625 in June 1999. He by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These ways of was already more than 14 years over the age of acquiring citizenship correspond to the two kinds of majority. citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is a Although the court is sympathetic of his plight, citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen controlling statutes and jurisprudence compel the thereof. court in its decision. Also, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Phil. Citizenship, the As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born latter not being a tedious and painstaking process. citizens "are those citizens of the Philippines from Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a birth without having to perform any act to acquire or commodity that can be claimed when needed and perfect his Philippine citizenship." suppressed when convenient. It should be availed of with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, No. The abovementioned special circumstances generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. of Philippine citizenship by election. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he 5 possesses all the qualifications and none of the BENGSON V. HRET disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino G.R. NO. 142840, 7 MAY 2001 citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its promulgation when the court is satisfied that during 5 the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left Digest available at http://scirethe Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful licet.blogspot.com/2009/11/bengzon-iii-vscalling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of hret.html (last accessed September 16, any offense or violation of Government promulgated

2010).

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status interest of the nation or contrary to any Government as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired announced policies. at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to Modes of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner provided What is a Natural-Born Citizen by law. Commonwealth Act. No. 63 (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine Petitioner's contention that respondent Cruz is no citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) longer a natural-born citizen since he had to perform by naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct an act to regain his citizenship is untenable. As act of Congress. correctly explained by the HRET in its decision, the term "natural-born citizen" was first defined in Article Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition and III, Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution as follows: reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization Sec. 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as the Philippines from birth without having to perform amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this Two requisites must concur for a person to be law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to reacquire considered as such: (1) a person must be a Filipino Philippine citizenship must possess certain citizen from birth and (2) he does not have to perform qualifications and none of the disqualifications any act to obtain or perfect his Philippine citizenship. mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473. Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were various statutes by those who lost their citizenship two categories of Filipino citizens which were not due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces; (2) service considered natural-born: (1) those who were in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States 1973, of Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the age at any other time; (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to of majority, elected Philippine citizenship. Those an alien; and (5) political and economic necessity. "naturalized citizens" were not considered naturalborn obviously because they were not Filipinos at As distinguished from the lengthy process of birth and had to perform an act to acquire Philippine naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the citizenship. Those born of Filipino mothers before the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution were likewise not Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil considered natural-born because they also had to Registry of the place where the person concerned perform an act to perfect their Philippine citizenship. resides or last resided. The present Constitution, however, now considers Repatriation Results in Recovery of Original those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of Nationality the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the majority age as naturalMoreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the born. After defining who are natural-born citizens, original nationality. This means that a naturalized Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: "Those who Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen natural-born citizens." Consequently, only naturalized before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be Filipinos are considered not natural-born citizens. It is restored to his former status as a natural-born apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens Filipino. under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino (2) those who are naturalized in accordance with law. citizenship when he rendered service in the Armed A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not Forces of the United States. However, he have to undergo the process of naturalization to subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship under obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a naturalR.A. No. 2630 born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently the Republic and having registered the same in the reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to such Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in persons, they would either be natural-born or accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof. As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go through naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as member of the House of Representatives.

foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children are citizens of that country; (3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a 6 person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, MERCADO V. MANZANO loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is G.R. NO. 142840, 7 MAY 2001 involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an FACTS: Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano are individuals volition. candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998 elections. Private respondent By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his was the winner of the said election but the present post, private respondent elected Philippine proclamation was suspended due to the petition of citizenship and in effect renounced his American Ernesto Mamaril regarding the citizenship of private citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy respondent. Mamaril alleged that the private sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, respondent is not a citizen of the Philippines but of effectively removing any disqualification he might the United States. COMELEC granted the petition and have as a dual citizen. disqualified the private respondent for being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local Government code that By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a provides that persons who possess dual citizenship Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or are disqualified from running any public position. immigrant of another country; that he will defend and Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear which remained pending until after election. true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for without mental reservation, private respondent has, disqualification. COMELEC reversed the decision and as far as the laws of this country are concerned, declared private respondent qualified to run for the effectively repudiated his American citizenship and position. Pursuant to the ruling of the COMELEC, the anything which he may have said before as a dual board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as citizen. On the other hand, private respondents oath vice mayor. This petition sought the reversal of the of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with resolution of the COMELEC and to declare the private the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, mayor of Makati. leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine ISSUE: WON Manzano is qualified to hold office as citizenship. Vice-Mayor. MAKALINTAL V. COMELEC7 HELD: Dual citizenship is different from dual G.R. NO. 142840, 7 MAY 2001 allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or FACTS: more states, a person is simultaneously considered a This is a case filed by petitioner Atty. Romulo national by the said states. For instance, such a Macalintal, as taxpayer, against COMELEC, Exec Sec situation may arise when a person whose parents are Alberto Romulo and Hon. Emilia Boncodin, Sec of Dept citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of of Budget and Mgmt. Petitioner, also a member of the jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the Phil Bar, seeks a declaration that certain provisions of doctrine of jus soli. Private respondent is considered RA No 9189 suffer from constitutional infirmity. Such as a dual citizen because he is born of Filipino parents Act appropriates funds under its Sec 29 to carry out but was born in San Francisco, USA. Such a person, the provisions and as taxpayer, petitioner Macalintal ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, also seeks to restrain officials from wasting public is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our statute, w/c results to a misapplication of funds. Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of RA No 9189, more commonly known as The citizens of the Philippines to posses dual citizenship: Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, was enacted (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in in lieu of Sec 2, Art V of the Consti. It provides
7 Digest available at Digest available at http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/mer http://www.scribd.com/doc/4664366/Citizen cado-vs-manzano-307-scra-630-gr-no.html ship-DualSuffragePrinciples-Policies-II (last (last accessed September 16, 2010). accessed September 16, 2010). POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA 6

Congress the system in w/c absentee voting should be done by qualified Filipinos abroad. Absentee voting- a relatively new concept, completely separable and distinct from the regular system of voting. It is an exception to the customary and usual manner of voting. Such right of absentee and disabled voters to cast their ballots at an election is purely statutory. It is devised to accommodate those engaged in military or civil life whose duties make it impracticable for them to attend their polling places on the day of election. Overseas Absentee Voter- a citizen of the Phils, at least 18 yrs of age, who is qualified to register and vote under RA No 9189, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of the elections. Absentee- not a resident. A person cannot be simultaneously a resident and an absentee under normal conditions. However, an absentee remains attached to his residence in the Phils as residence is considered synonymous to domicile. Residence- a temporary/permanent place of abode; not a domicile. It implies factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. Domicile- a fixed permanent residence to w/c, when absent, one has the intention of returning. Difference between residence & domicile- A person can only have a single domicile but he may have numerous places of residence. The essential distinction is the intent to return or the intent to leave when the purpose for w/c the resident has taken up his abode ends. ISSUE: WON Sec 5 of RA No 9189 allowing immigrants or permanent residents to register as voters is violative of the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of Consti? WON Sec 18.5 of RA w/c empowers COMELEC to proclaim all the winning candidates violates Sec 4 Art VI of Consti, w/c states that theCongres s proclaim the winning candidates for Pres & VP?

1) No.Sec 5 of RA No 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under this Act. It disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country.However, an exception is provided i.e. 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 Phils not later than 3 yrs from approval of registration. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the Natl Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia. Petitioner claims this is violative of the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of the Consti w/c requires the voter must be a resident in the Phils for at least one yr, and a resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 mos immediately preceding an election. He presents the ruling in Caasi v. CA wherein Court held that a green card holder US immigrant is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence in the Phils. However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present, and that the Court may have to discard that particular ruling. Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for w/o it, the presumption of abandonment of Phil domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Phils and presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country.Sec 5 of RA No 9189 does not only require the promise to resume actual physical permanent residence in the Phils not later than 3 yrs after approval of registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a green card holder, a temporary visitor or even on business trip, must declare that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Thus, he/she must return to the Phils otherwise consequences will be met accdg to RA No 9189.

WON Congress, via the JCOC, can exercise certain powers over the COMELEC, w/o violating the latters Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not independence under Sec 1 Art IX-A of the Consti? return after he has exercised his right to vote, the Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the HELD: Petition partly granted. The ff portions (4) of RA law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found No 9189 are declared VOID for being unconstitutional: impractical. However, it can be said that the Congress (a) The phrase in the 1st sentence of 1st par of Sec itself was conscious of this probability and provided 17.1, to wit: subject to the approval of the Joint for a deterrence w/c is that the Filipino who fails to Congressional Oversight Committee; return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage. (b) The portion of the last par of Sec 17.1, to wit: only Accordingly, the votes he cast shall not be invalidated upon review and approval of the JCOC; because he was qualified to vote on the date of the (c) The 2nd sentence of par 1 of Sec 19, to wit: The elections. IRR shall be submitted to the JCOC created by virtue of this Act for prior approval; and Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets (d) The 2nd sentence in par 2 of Sec 25, to wit: It shall down plainly its whole meaning, the Court is review, revise, amend and approve the IRR prevented from making it mean what the Court promulgated by the Commission. pleases. In fine, considering that underlying intent of the Constitution, as is evident in its statutory

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA

construction and intent of the framers, w/c is to grant Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to exercise the right of suffrage (Sec 1 Art V), the Court finds that Sec 5 of RA No9189 is not constitutionally defective. 2)Yes, Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it. The canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the winning candidates for President and VP for the entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its duty and power under Sec4 ART VII of the Consti. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the winning candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps. 3) No, by vesting itself w/ the powers to approve, review, amend and revise the Implementing Rules & Regulations for RA No 9189, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority. Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC. Under such a situation, the Court is left w/ no option but to withdraw from its usual reticence (silence) in declaring a provision of law unconstitutional. Unlike the first 2 issues where it remained silent, this is the sole issue reacted to by COMELEC.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JACK JIMENEZ | MARK JOREL O. CALIDA