Macalintal vs.

COMELEC
July 10, 2003 | Austria-Martinez, J.
Loss and re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship
KMCS

DOCTRINE:
Domicile and residence are different concepts. Domicile is a place of residence where a person intends to return to in the long run.
Residence is a place where he temporarily lives, and may be abandoned in the long term. A person may have several residences, but only
one domicile.

CASE SUMMARY:
Petitioner Romulo Macalintal challenges Section 5(d) of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), stating that it violates the
residency requirement for voting stated in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution. The constitutionality of Section 5(d) of RA 9189 is
upheld.

FACTS:

1. Petitioner Romulo Macalintal petitions for certiorari and prohibition, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of RA 9189
(The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. He filed the petition as a taxpayer and a
lawyer, and since the RA involves the disbursement of funds to cover expenses for absentee voting, his right as a petitioner
was established.
2. RA 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 is concerned with the conduct of absentee voting. Section
5(d) of RA 9189 states: Sec. 5. Disqualifications. The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act:
. . .. . .. . .
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 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 National Registry of Absentee
Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.

3. Macalintal argues that Section 5(d) of RA No. 9189 violates the residency requirement for voting mentioned in Section 1 of
Article 5 of the Constitution.
4. Petitioner uses Caasi v. Court of Appeals to support his claim. The SC in Caasi v. Court of Appeals ruled that a green card
holder immigrant to the US is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines. He also claims that
Section 1, Article V of the constitution doesnt allow provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a condition
to be qualified to vote.
ISSUE:

W/N: Section 5(d) of Rep Act No. 9189 violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines? No.

RULING:

1. Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution states that suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines who are not
disqualified by law to vote. Section 2 then follows with the mandate for Congress to provide for a system of absentee voting for
qualified Filipinos abroad. It is clear that the constitution mandates the Congress to provide for the exercise of suffrage of
Filipinos abroad. The SC looked into the intent of the Constitutional Commission for the addition of Section 2, and it is seen that
they had Section 2 follow Section 1 immediately to clear up the inconsistency with the residency requirement in Section 1, but
only with regards to qualified Filipinos abroad. As long as they are not disqualified by law to vote, the residency requirement will
not affect them.
2. Domicile and residence are different concepts. Domicile is a place of residence where a person intends to return to in the long
run. Residence is a place where he temporarily lives, and may be abandoned in the long term. A person may have several
residences, but only one domicile. Filipinos who have filed for the affidavit declaring that he has not abandoned the Philippines as
his domicile, his full intent to return, and that he has not applied for citizenship in any other country are considered to maintain
their domicile in the Philippines, even if they are a green card holder.

DISPOSITION:

The constitutionality of Section 5(d) of RA No. 9189 is upheld.

Page 1 of 2
NOTES:

Page 2 of 2