Macalintal Vs Comelec

MACALINTAL vs COMELEC
FACTS:
Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the Philippine Bar, seeking a
declaration that certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003)1 suffer from constitutional infirmity.
Petitioner first alleged that section 5 (d) is unconstitutional because it
violates section 1 article 5 of the 1987 constitution which requires that the
voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least 1 year and in the
place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding the election.
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.
Second he contends that Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 in relation to

Section 4 of the same Act in contravention of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution.
Section 4 of R.A. No. 9189 provides that the overseas absentee voter may
vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list representatives.
Section 18.5 of the same Act provides:
SEC. 18. On-Site Counting and Canvassing. –
18. 5 The canvass of votes shall not cause the delay of the proclamation of a
winning candidate if the outcome of 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, in
which events, factors and circumstances are beyond the control or influence
of the Commission. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner claims that the provision of Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189
empowering the COMELEC to order the proclamation of 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 following provisions of paragraph 4, Section 4 of Article VII of
the Constitution:
SEC. 4 . . .
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 the presence of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the
Congress, upon determination 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
which gives to Congress the duty to canvass the votes and proclaim the
winning candidates for president and vice-president.
Third he submits that the creation of the Joint Congressional Oversight

Committee with the power to review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the COMELEC, R.A. No.
9189 intrudes into the independence of the COMELEC which, as a
constitutional body, is not under the control of either the executive or
legislative departments of government; that only the COMELEC itself can
promulgate rules and regulations which may be changed or revised only by
the majority of its members; and that should the rules promulgated by the
COMELEC violate any law, it is the Court that has the power to review the
same via the petition of any interested party, including the legislators.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not section 5 (d) of RA 9189 allowing the registration of
voters who are immigrants or permanent residents in other countries
by their mere act of executing an affidavit expressing their intention to
return to the Philippines violate the residency requirement in sec 1 of
article 5 of the constitution.
2. Whether or not section 18.5 of RA no 9189 in relation to section 4 of
the same act in contravention of section 4 article 7 of the constitution.
3. Whether or not section 19 and 25 of RA 9189 in violation of section 1

article 10-A of the constitution.
RULING:
1. NO, it is not in contravention.
R.A. No. 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of the first
paragraph of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution that Congress shall
provide a system for voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed
that Section 2 does not provide for the parameters of the exercise of
legislative authority in enacting said law. Hence, in the absence of
restrictions, Congress is presumed to have duly exercised its function as
defined in Article VI (The Legislative Department) of the Constitution.
To put matters in their right perspective, it is necessary to dwell first on the
significance of absentee voting. The concept of absentee voting is relatively
new. It is viewed thus:
The method of absentee voting has been said to be completely separable
and distinct from the regular system of voting, and to be a new and different
manner of voting from that previously known, and an exception to the
customary and usual manner of voting. The right of absentee and disabled
voters to cast their ballots at an election is purely statutory; absentee voting
was unknown to, and not recognized at, the common law.
2. Constitutional as to the proclamation on senators and party list

representative.
Unconstitutional as to the proclamation of president and vice
president.
The court ruled that 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.
Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 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.
3. YES, there is a violation.
By virtue of Section 19 of R.A. No. 9189, Congress has empowered the
COMELEC to "issue the necessary rules and regulations to effectively
implement the provisions of this Act within sixty days from the effectivity of
this Act." This provision of law follows the usual procedure in drafting rules
and regulations to implement a law – the legislature grants an
administrative agency the authority to craft the rules and regulations
implementing the law it has enacted, in recognition of the administrative
expertise of that agency in its particular field of operation.47 Once a law is
enacted and approved, the legislative function is deemed accomplished and
complete. The legislative function may spring back to Congress relative to
the same law only if that body deems it proper to review, amend and revise
the law, but certainly not to approve, review, revise and amend the IRR of
the COMELEC.
By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend, and revise the
IRR for The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, 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 with no option but to withdraw from its usual
reticence in declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.
The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19 stating that "[t]he
Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior
approval," and the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 25
stating that "[i]t shall review, revise, amend and approve the Implementing
Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission," whereby Congress,
in both provisions, arrogates unto itself a function not specifically vested by
the Constitution, should be stricken out of the subject statute for
constitutional infirmity. Both provisions brazenly violate the mandate on the
independence of the COMELEC.
Similarly, the phrase, "subject to the approval of the Congressional
Oversight Committee" in the first sentence of Section 17.1 which empowers
the Commission to authorize voting by mail in not more than three countries
for the May, 2004 elections; and the phrase, "only upon review and approval
of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee" found in the second
paragraph of the same section are unconstitutional as they require review
and approval of voting by mail in any country after the 2004 elections.
Congress may not confer upon itself the authority to approve or disapprove
the countries wherein voting by mail shall be allowed, as determined by the
COMELEC pursuant to the conditions provided for in Section 17.1 of R.A. No.
9189.48 Otherwise, Congress would overstep the bounds of its constitutional
mandate and intrude into the independence of the COMELEC.

Macalintal Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Macalintal Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Macalintal Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What were the petitioner's main claims?

What was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act?

MACALINTAL vs COMELEC

Second he contends that Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 in relation to

Third he submits that the creation of the Joint Congressional Oversight

3. Whether or not section 19 and 25 of RA 9189 in violation of section 1

2. Constitutional as to the proclamation on senators and party list

Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 appears to be repugnant to Section 4, Article

You might also like