Aznar vs.

COMELEC
TECSON vs. COMELEC
Herein private defendant filed for a certificate of candidacy
for 1988 elections which is contested by Jose B. Aznar of Petitioners sought for respondent Poe’s disqualification in
Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council on the ground that the presidential elections for having allegedly
private respondent is allegedly not a Filipino citizen. misrepresented material facts in his (Poe’s) certificate of
candidacy by claiming that he is a natural Filipino citizen
Petitioner submitted a Certification that Osmeña is an despite his parents both being foreigners. Comelec
American, Application for Alien Registration Form No.1, dismissed the petition, holding that Poe was a Filipino
Alien Certificate Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Citizen. Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec,
Residence of the defendant, thus causing the suspension contending that only the Supreme Court may resolve the
of the proclamation of the private defendant. basic issue on the case under Article VII, Section 4,
paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution.
Osmeña, in response, maintained his being Filipino by
alleging, that his ancestors are all Filipinos, that he is a Issue:
holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport, that Whether or not it is the Supreme Court which had
he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since jurisdiction.
birth, that he hasn’t gone out of the country for more than Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of
six months, and that he has been a registered voter since discretion in holding that Poe was a Filipino citizen.
1965.
Ruling:
COMELEC First division dismissed the petition for not 1. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on questions
having been timely filed aside from the lack of proof to the regarding “qualification of a candidate” for the
allegation, after the proclamation of the defendant as a presidency or vice-presidency before the elections
winner by the aforementioned division. are held.

Under the statutes related to election, there are only two "Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal"  in connection
instances where the qualifications of a registered with Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987
candidate may be questioned, both of which this case may Constitution, refers to “contests” relating to the election,
not qualify, qualify, however, the court found it necessary returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-
to ascertain respondent’s citizenship and qualification to President", of the Philippines which the Supreme Court
hold public office as a matter of interest. may take cognizance, and not of "candidates" for
President or Vice-President before the elections.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent is a Filipino citizen, 2. Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in
thus, qualified to hold public office. holding Poe as a Filipino Citizen.

Held: The 1935 Constitution on Citizenship, the prevailing

There are three modes thru which an individual loses his fundamental law on respondent’s birth, provided
Filipino citizenship, (1) by naturalization in a foreign that among the citizens of the Philippines are "those
country; (2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines." 
by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign county.
None of the aforementioned extinguished Osmeña’s Tracing respondent’s paternal lineage, his grandfather
Filipino citizenship. Lorenzo, as evidenced by the latter’s death certificate was
identified as a Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also
Petitioner relied that private respondent was issued an drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at
alien certificate of registration as an American Citizen and the age of 84, Lorenzo would have been born in 1870. In
was given a clearance and permit to re-enter the the absence of any other evidence, Lorenzo’s place of
Philippines, hence, he is an American, and must have residence upon his death in 1954 was presumed to be the
sworn allegiance to a foreign country. This is found to be a place of residence prior his death, such that Lorenzo Pou
case of non sequitur or it does not follow.  The mere fact would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization"
that he bears a certification of being an American does not that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. Being so,
follow that he is not anymore a Filipino. Swearing of Lorenzo’s citizenship would have extended to his son,
allegiance is also vehemently denied by the private Allan---respondent’s father.
respondent.
Respondent, having been acknowledged as Allan’s son to
Also, repugnance of the Constitution to dual citizenship Bessie, though an American citizen,  was a Filipino citizen
does not have retroactive effect. by virtue of paternal filiation as evidenced by the
respondent’s birth certificate. The 1935 Constitution on
Ruling:  citizenship did not make a distinction on the legitimacy or
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed illegitimacy of the child, thus, the allegation of bigamous
and the resolution of the COMELEC is affirmed. marriage and the allegation that respondent was born only
before the assailed marriage had no bearing on On May 13, 1992, respondent Comelec resolved, motu
respondent’s citizenship in view of the established paternal proprio to suspend the proclamation of Labo in the event
filiation evidenced by the public documents presented. he wins in the elections for the City Mayor of [Link]
May 15, 1992, petitioner Labo filed the instant petition for
But while the totality of the evidence may not establish review with prayer, among others, for the issuance of a
conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen temporary restraining order to set aside the May 9, 1992
of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would resolution of respondent Comelec; to render judgment
preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be declaring him as a Filipino citizen; and to direct respondent
held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in Comelec to proceed with his proclamation in the event he
his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in wins in the contested elections.
relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Petitioner Ortega argues that respondent Comelec
Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to
FACTS: Willie Yu, despite his naturalization as a implement its May 9, 1992 resolution notwithstanding the
Philippine citizen, applied and renewed his Portuguese fact that said resolution disqualifying Labo has already
passport. Moreover, while still a citizen of the Philippines, become final and [Link] Ortega submits that
petitioner also declared his nationality as Portuguese in since this Court did not issue a temporary restraining order
commercial documents he signed. as regards the May 9, 1992 resolution of respondent
Comelec cancelling Labo’s certificate of candidacy, said
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of applying for a foreign resolution has already become final and executory. Ortega
passport and declaration of foreign nationality in further posits the view that as a result of such finality, the
commercial documents, constitute an express renunciation candidate receiving the next highest number of votes
of one’s Philippine citizenship acquired through should be declared Mayor of Baguio City.
naturalization. Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides: Petition to
deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy —
HELD: Yes, the foregoing acts considered together (e) The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission
constitute an express renunciation of petitioner’s Philippine shall, after five (5) days from receipt of a copy thereof by
citizenship acquired through naturalization. In a related the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the
jurisprudence, express renunciation was held to mean a Supreme Court.
renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly
and not left to inference or implication. Issue:
1.      WON Petitioner Labo who had the highest number of
Labo vs. COMELEC votes is qualified to assume as Mayor of Baguio City.
Facts: 2.      WON disqualification of petitioner Labo entitles the
 For the second time around, believing that he is a Filipino candidate (Ortega) receiving the next highest number of
ctizen, Ramon Labo, Jr filed his COC for mayor of Baguio votes to be proclaimed as the winning candidate for mayor
City on March 23, 1992 for the May 11, 1992 elections. of Baguio City.
Petitioner Roberto Ortega on other hand, also filed his
COC for the same office on March 25, 1992. Held:
On March 26, 1992, petitioner Ortega filed a First Issue:
disqualification proceeding against Labo before the No. At the time petitioner Labo filed his petition on May 15,
COMELEC on the ground that Labo is not a Filipino 1992, the May 9, 1992 resolution of respondent Comelec
citizen. cancelling his (Labo’s) certificate of candidacy had already
On May 9, 1992, respondent Comelec issued the assailed become final and executory a day earlier, or on May 14,
resolution denying Labo’s COC. 1992, said resolution having been received by petitioner
On May 10, 1992, respondent Comelec issued an Order Labo on the same day it was promulgated, i.e., May 9,
which reads: Acting on the “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for 1992 and in the interim no restraining order was issued by
Clarification”, filed by respondent (Labo) on May 9, this Court.
1992, the Commission resolves that the decision The resolution cancelling Labo’s certificate of candidacy
promulgated on May 9, 1992 disqualifying respondent on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen having
Ramon L. Labo, Jr., shall become final and executory only acquired finality on May 14, 1992 constrains the SC to rule
after five (5) days from promulgation pursuant to Rule 18, against his proclamation as Mayor of Baguio City.
Section 13, Paragraph (b) of the Comelec Rules of Sec. 39 of the LGC provides that an elective local official
Procedure. must be a citizen of the Philippines. Undoubtedly,
petitioner Labo, not being a Filipino citizen, lacks the
Accordingly, respondent (Labo) may still continue to be fundamental qualification for the contested office.
voted upon as candidate for City Mayor of Baguio City on Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for
May 11, 1992 subject to the final outcome of this case in holding an elective office. The fact that he was elected by
the event the issue is elevated to the Supreme Court either the majority of the electorate is of no moment.
on appeal or certiorari. Second Issue:
No. The disqualification of petitioner Labo does not
necessarily entitle petitioner Ortega as the candidate with
the next highest number of votes to proclamation as the raised in this petition are merely secondary to this basic
Mayor of Baguio City. question.
While Ortega may have garnered the second highest
number of votes for the office of city mayor, the fact HELD : The reason for this inquiry is the provision in
remains that he was not the choice of the sovereign will. Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution that all public
Petitioner Labo was overwhelmingly voted by the officials and employees owe the State and the Constitution
electorate for the office of mayor in the belief that he was "allegiance at all times" and the specific requirement in
then qualified to serve the people of Baguio City and his Section 42 of the Local Government Code that a candidate
subsequent disqualification does not make respondent for local elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the
Ortega the mayor-elect. Philippines and a qualified voter of the constituency where
Petitioner Ortega lost in the election. He was repudiated by he is running. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code
the electorate. He was obviously not the choice of the provides that a qualified voter must be, among other
people of Baguio City. qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an
Thus, while respondent Ortega (GR No. 105111) originally indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V,
filed a disqualification case with the Comelec (docketed as Section 1, of the Constitution.
SPA-92-029) seeking to deny due course to petitioner’s
(Labo’s) candidacy, the same did not deter the people of In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19,
Baguio City from voting for petitioner Labo, who, by then, 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen
was allowed by the respondent Comelec to be voted upon, of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss
the resolution for his disqualification having yet to attain of such status. The evidence shows, however, that he was
the degree of finality (Sec. 78. Omnibus Election Code). naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per
the following certification from the United States District
The rule, therefore, is: the ineligibility of a candidate Court, Northern District of California, as duly authenticated
receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible by Vice Consul Amado P. Cortez of the Philippine
candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot
be deemed elected to the office. The reason for this inquiry is the provision in Article XI,
Section 9, of the Constitution that all public officials and
FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC employees owe the State and the Constitution "allegiance
at all times" and the specific requirement in Section 42 of
FACTS : Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed the Local Government Code that a candidate for local
governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22, elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the Philippines
1988, and assumed office in due time. On October 27, and a qualified voter of the constituency where he is
1988. the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter running. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code
(hereafter, League), represented by its President, Salvador provides that a qualified voter must be, among other
Estuye, who was also suing in his personal capacity, filed qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an
with the Commission on Elections a petition for the indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V,
annulment of Frivaldo Section 1, of the Constitution.

In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19,

In his answer dated May 22, 1988, Frivaldo admitted that 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen
he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss
pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had of such status. The evidence shows, however, that he was
sought American citizenship only to protect himself against naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per
President Marcos the following certification from the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, as duly authenticated
Frivaldo moved for a preliminary hearing on his affirmative by Vice Consul Amado P. Cortez of the Philippine
defenses but the respondent Commission on Elections Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
decided instead by its Order of January 20, 1988, to set
the case for hearing on the merits. His motion for If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and
reconsideration was denied in another Order dated reacquire Philippine citizenship, the petitioner should have
February 21, 1988. He then came to this Court in a petition done so in accordance with the laws of our country. Under
for certiorari and prohibition to ask that the said orders be CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725,
set aside on the ground that they had been rendered with Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
grave abuse of discretion. Pending resolution of the Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.
petition, we issued a temporary order against the hearing
on the merits scheduled by the COMELEC and at the It does not appear that Frivaldo has taken these
same time required comments from the respondents. categorical acts. He contends that by simply filing his
certificate of candidacy he had, without more, already
ISSUE : WON Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen of the effectively recovered Philippine citizenship. But that is
Philippines at the time of his election on January 18, 1988, hardly the formal declaration the law envisions — surely,
as provincial governor of Sorsogon. All the other issues Philippine citizenship previously disowned is not that
cheaply recovered. If the Special Committee had not yet the highest number of votes. However, his proclamation
been convened, what that meant simply was that the was suspended due to the pending petition for
petitioner had to wait until this was done, or seek disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on the ground
naturalization by legislative or judicial proceedings. that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the
United States.
The argument that the petition filed with the Commission
on Elections should be dismissed for tardiness is not well- From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both
taken. The herein private respondents are seeking to a Filipino and a US citizen. The Commission on Elections
prevent Frivaldo from continuing to discharge his office of declared Manzano disqualified as candidate for said
governor because he is disqualified from doing so as a elective position.
foreigner. Qualifications for public office are continuing
requirements and must be possessed not only at the time However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en
of appointment or election or assumption of office but banc, the disqualification of the respondent was reversed.
during the officer's entire tenure. Once any of the required Respondent was held to have renounced his US
qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably citizenship when he attained the age of majority and
challenged. If, say, a female legislator were to marry a registered himself as a voter in the elections of 1992, 1995
foreigner during her term and by her act or omission and 1998.
acquires his nationality, would she have a right to remain
in office simply because the challenge to her title may no Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of
longer be made within ten days from her proclamation? It Makati City on August 31, 1998.
has been established, and not even denied, that the
evidence of Frivaldo's naturalization was discovered only ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold
eight months after his proclamation and his title was public elective office in the philippines.
challenged shortly thereafter.
RULING:
This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting
as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A.
allegiance to another country. The fact that he was elected 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be
by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent understood as referring to dual allegiance. Dual citizenship
violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when,
employment only to the citizens of this country. The as a result of the application of the different laws of two or
qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as national by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other
expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of hand, refers to a situation in which a person
ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two
case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual
requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of allegiance is a result of an individual's volition. Article IV
citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of
the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any dealt with by law."
other state.
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not
It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual
natural-born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to strict
laws, which is all the more reason why it should be process with respect to the termination of their status, for
treasured like a pearl of great price. But once it is candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon
surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect
lightly restored. This country of ours, for all its difficulties Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons
and limitations, is like a jealous and possessive mother. with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the
Once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with eager unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different
arms its prodigal if repentant children. The returning states.
renegade must show, by an express and unequivocal act,
the renewal of his loyalty and love. By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the
Mercado v. Manzano Case Digest same time forswear allegiance to the other country of
which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their
FACTS: status as dual citizens.  It may be that, from the point of
view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship.  That
both candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, is of no moment.
1998 elections.
When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization
Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered takes an oath that he renounces his loyalty to any other
country or government and solemnly declares that he Comelec First Division issued a Resolution holding that
owes his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the Arnado’s continued use of his US passport effectively
condition imposed by law is satisfied and complied with. negated his Affidavit of Renunciation.
The determination whether such renunciation is valid or ISSUE:
fully complies with the provisions of our Naturalization Law WON the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in
lies within the province and is an exclusive prerogative of disqualifying petitioner who has fully complied with the
our courts.  The latter should apply the law duly enacted requirements of RA 9225 before the filing of his COC.
by the legislative department of the Republic.  No foreign RULING:
law may or should interfere with its operation and No. In the case at bench, the Comelec Second Division, as
application. affirmed by the Comelec En Banc, ruled that Arnado failed
to comply with the second requisite of Section 5 (2) of RA
The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of 9225 because, as held in Maquiling v. Commission on
respondent sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, Elections, his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation was
effectively removing any disqualification he might have as deemed withdrawn when he used his US passport after
a dual citizen. By declaring in his certificate of candidacy executing said affidavit. Consequently, at the time he filed
that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent his CoC on October 1, 2012 for purposes of the May 13,
resident or immigrant of another country; that he will 2013 elections, Arnado had yet to comply with said second
defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and requirement. The Comelec also noted that while Arnado
bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so submitted an affidavit dated May 9, 2013, affirming his
without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation, the same would not
as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively suffice for having been belatedly executed.
repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he
may have said before as a dual citizen. Romualdez v. RTC (1993)
On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance Facts:
to the Philippines, when considered with the fact that he Petitioner Romualdez is a antural-born citizen; the son of
has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, Kokoy Romualdez and a niece of Imelda Marcos. In 1980,
practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past he established his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of However, in 1986, during the days of People Power,
Philippine citizenship. relatives of the deposed President (Marcos), fearing for
their personal safety, fled the country. One of them are the
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will Romuladezes – they left the country and sought asylum in
fulfill his undertaking made under oath. Should he betray the United States.
that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss However, in 1991, the U.S. Immigration informed them to
of his Philippine citizenship through expatriation in depart from the U.S. or else they’ll be deported. Upon
appropriate proceedings.  In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the receipt of the information, Romuladez went back to the
court sustained the denial of entry into the country of Philippines and did not delay his return to his residence in
petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a Leyte and immediately registered himself as a voter.
naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal of his In 1992, herein private respondent Advincula filed a
Portuguese passport and declared in commercial petition to exclude petitioner from the list of the voters
documents executed abroad that he was a Portuguese alleging that the latter is a U.S. resident, and residency is a
national.  A similar sanction can be taken against any one qualification for a registered voter. However, the MTC
who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his denied the petition but when the respondent elevated the
foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act petition to the RTC, the appellate court reversed MTC’s
constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. ruling and disqualified Romuldez as a registered voter.
Hence, this case.
Aranado vs. COMELEC  
Issue: Whether petitioner is qualified to be a registered
Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost voter in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte despite his sudden
his Philippine citizenship after he was naturalized as departure to the U.S?
citizen of the USA. Petitioner applied for repatriation under  
RA 9225 before the Consul General of the Phil. in San Ruling:
Francisco, USA. He took an Oath of Allegiance to the  
Republic of the Phil and executed an Affidavit of The Court held that YES, Petitioner is qualified as a
Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Petitioner filed his registered voter because he is still considered a resident of
COC for the mayoralty post. However, Balua, another Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte.
mayoralty candidate filed a petition to disqualify Arnado Stating that, the political situation brought about by
and/or to cancel his COC on the ground, among others, people’s Power Revolution must have caused great fear to
that Arnado remained a US citizen because he continued the Romualdezes, and as having concern over the safety
to use his US passport for entry to and exit from the of their families, their self-exile is understandable.
Philippines after executing aforesaid Affidavit of Moreover, their sudden departure cannot be described as
Renunciation. Arnado won in the election, however, ‘voluntary’ or ‘abandonment of residence’.
It must be emphasized that the right to vote is a most 1. Nemo tenetur ad impossible. The law obliges no
precious political right; a bounden duty of every citizen one to perform an impossibility.
enabling them to participate in the government process to 2. Impossibilium nulla obligato est. In other words,
ensure the will of the people. there is no obligation to do an impossible thing.

AKBAYAN YOUTH v. COMELEC (2001) Ceniza v. Comelec (1980)

FACT: FACTS: Pursuant to Batas Blg 51 (enacted 22 Dec 1979),
Petitioners―representing the youth sector―seek to direct COMELEC adopted Resolution No. 1421 which effectively
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to conduct a bars voters in chartered cities (unless otherwise provided
special registration before the 14 May 2001 General by their charter), highly urbanized (those earning above
Elections, of new voters ages 18 to 21. According to P40 M) cities, and component cities (whose charters
petitioners, around four million youth failed to register on or prohibit them) from voting in provincial elections. The City
before the 27 December 2000 deadline set by the of Mandaue, on the other hand, is a component city NOT a
respondent COMELEC under Republic Act No. 8189. chartered one or a highly urbanized one. So when
Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the Report on the Request COMELEC added Mandaue to the list of 20 cities that
for a Two-day Additional Registration of New Voters Only cannot vote in provincial elections, Ceniza, in behalf of the
is submitted but was then denied by the COMELEC under other members of DOERS (Democracy or Extinction:
Resolution No. 3584 on 8 February 2001. Resolved to Succeed) questioned the constitutionality of
Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners filed a Petition for BB 51 and the COMELEC resolution. They said that the
Certiorari and Mandamus. regulation/restriction of voting being imposed is a
Section 8 (System of Continuing Registration of Voters) of curtailment of the right to suffrage. Further, petitioners
R.A. No. 8189 The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 claim that political and gerrymandering motives were
provides: behind the passage of Batas Blg. 51 and Section 96 of the
The personal filing of application of registration of voters Charter of Mandaue City. They contend that the Province
shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer of Cebu is politically and historically known as an
during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, opposition bailiwick and of the total 952,716 registered
be conducted during the period starting one hundred voters in the province, close to one-third (1/3) of the entire
twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) province of Cebu would be barred from voting for the
days before a special election. provincial officials of the province of Cebu. Ceniza also
said that the constituents of Mandaue never ratified their
ISSUE: charter. Ceniza likewise aver that Sec 3 of BB 885  insofar
1. Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed grave as it classifies cities including Cebu City as highly
abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution dated urbanized as the only basis for not allowing its electorate
8 February 2001. to vote for the provincial officials is inherently and palpably
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can compel unconstitutional in that such classification is not based on
respondent COMELEC, through the extraordinary writ of substantial distinctions germane to the purpose of the law
mandamus, to conduct a special registration of new voters which in effect provides for and regulates the exercise of
during the period between the COMELEC’s imposed 27 the right of suffrage, and therefore such unreasonable
December 2000 deadline and the 14 May 2001 general classification amounts to a denial of equal protection.
elections. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of
equal protection.
RULING: HELD: The thrust of the 1973 Constitution is towards the
1. It is well-settled that the law does not require that fullest autonomy of local government units. In the
the impossible be done. A two-day special registration Declaration of Principles and State Policies, it is stated that
for new voters would give rise to time constraints due “The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy
to additional pre-election matters. Accordingly, of local government units to ensure their fullest
COMELEC acted within the bounds and confines of development as self-reliant communities. The petitioners
the applicable law on the matter. In issuing the allegation of gerrymandering is of no merit, it has no
assailed Resolution, respondent simply performed its factual or legal basis. The Constitutional requirement
constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws that the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. the boundary of a province, city, municipality, or barrio
2. The Supreme Court cannot control the exercise of should be subject to the approval by the majority of the
discretion of a public officer where the law imposes votes cast in a plebiscite in the governmental unit or units
upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in affected is a new requirement that came into being only
reference to any manner in which he is required to act, with the 1973 Constitution. It is prospective in character
because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and and therefore cannot affect the creation of the City of
not that of the court. The remedy of mandamus lies Mandaue which came into existence on 21 June 1969.
only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty,
not a discretionary one. The classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and
MAXIM: component cities on the basis of their regular
annual income is based upon substantial distinction. The
revenue of a city would show whether or not it is capable years from approval of registration. Such affidavit shall
of existence and development as a relatively independent also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in
social, economic, and political unit. It would also show another country. Failure to return shall be cause for the
whether the city has sufficient economic or industrial removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent
activity as to warrant its independence from the province resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters
where it is geographically situated. Cities with smaller and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
income need thecontinued support of the
provincial government thus justifying Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residency
the continued participation of the voters in the election of requirement in Section 1 Article V of the Constitution which
provincialofficials in some instances requires the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for
The petitioners also contend that the voters in Mandaue at least one yr, and a resident in the place where he
City are denied equal protection of the law since the voters proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately
in other component cities are allowed to vote for preceding an election.
provincial officials. The contention is without merit. The
practice of allowing voters in one component city to vote
for provincial officials and denying the same privilege to However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold
voters in another component city is a matter of legislative water at present, and that the Court may have to discard
discretion which violates neither the Constitution nor the that particular ruling. Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit
voter’s right of suffrage. for without it, the presumption of abandonment of Phil
domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who
Macalintal vs. COMELEC executed an affidavit is deemed to have retained his
FACTS: domicile in the Philippines and presumed not to have lost
his domicile by his physical absence from this country.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition Section 5 of RA No. 9189 does not only require the
filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the Philippine promise to resume actual physical permanent residence in
Bar, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of
Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON
Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity.  Claiming he is a green card holder, a temporary visitor or even on
that he has actual and material legal interest in the subject business trip, must declare that he/she has not applied for
matter of this case in seeing to it that public funds are citizenship in another country. Thus, he/she must return to
properly and lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met
filed the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer. according to RA No. 9189.

ISSUES: Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not

return after he has exercised his right to vote, the Court is
(1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189 not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the law or to
violates the residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V repeal or modify it if such law is found to be impractical.
of the Constitution. However, it can be said that the Congress itself was
(2) Whether or not Section 18.5 of the same law violates conscious of this probability and provided for deterrence
the constitutional mandate under Section 4, Article VII of which is that the Filipino who fails to return as promised
the Constitution that the winning candidates for President stands to lose his right of suffrage. Accordingly, the votes
and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners by he cast shall not be invalidated because he was qualified
Congress. to vote on the date of the elections.

(3) Whether or not Congress may, through the Joint Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down
Congressional Oversight Committee created in Section 25 plainly its whole meaning, the Court is prevented from
of Rep. Act No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, making it mean what the Court pleases. In fine,
amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and considering that underlying intent of the Constitution, as is
Regulations that the Commission on Elections, promulgate evident in its statutory construction and intent of the
without violating the independence of the COMELEC framers, which is to grant Filipino immigrants and
under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution. permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to
exercise the right of suffrage (Section 1 Article V) the
HELD: Court finds that Section 5 of RA No. 9189 is not
constitutionally defective.
(1) No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who
are disqualified voting under this Act. It disqualifies an (2) Yes. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to
immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it. The
such in the host country. However, an exception is canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the
provided i.e. unless he/she executes, upon registration, an winning candidates for President and Vice President for
affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission the entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as
declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical its duty and power under Section 4 of Article VII of the
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 Constitution. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the
winning candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.

(3) No. By vesting itself with 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 with
no option but to withdraw from its usual silence in
declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.