AAJS, CALILUNG VS.

DATUMANONG
FACTS:
Petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition be issued to stop
respondent from implementing RA 9225, or Act Making the
Citizenship of the Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign
Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth
Act No. 63, as Amended, and for Other Purposes. Petitioner avers
that said Act is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of
the 1987 Constitution: "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 9225 is unconstitutional by recognizing and
allowing dual allegiance.
RULING:
No. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of
policy and is not self-executing provision.
What RA 9225 does is to allow dual citizenship to natural-born
Filipino citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship, by
reason of naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. In its face,
it does not recognize dual allegiance.
Japzon v Commission on Elections
Facts:

Petitioner Manuel Japzon and private respondent Jaime S.

Ty ran for Mayor of the Municipality of General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar in the local elections of 14 May 2007.

Japzon instituted before the COMELEC a Petitionto

disqualify and/or cancel Tys Certificate of Candidacy on the
ground of material misrepresentation. He averred that
Ty is a US citizen and had been residing in the USA
o
for the last 25 years.
When Ty filed his Certificate of Candidacy he falsely
o
represented therein that he was a resident of
Barangay 6, Poblacion, General Macarthur, Eastern
Samar (Barangay 6), for one year before 14 May
2007 and was not a permanent resident or
immigrant of any foreign country.
While Ty may have applied for the reacquisition of
o
his Philippine citizenship, he never actually resided
in Barangay 6 for a period of one year immediately
preceding the date of election as required under
Section 39 of LGC
Reacquisition of citizenship does not automatically
o
establish his domicile at Barangay 6.
He had also failed to renounce his foreign
o
citizenship as required by Republic Act No. 9225,
otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003

Ty admits that he had indeed lost his Philippine citizenship

when he was naturalized as a US citizen. However, he alleges
that prior to the election, he had successfully reacquired his
Filipino citizenship as shown by his act of executing an Oath
of Allegiance to RP and a duly notazaried Renunciation of
Foreign Citizenship. He had also complied with the 1-year
residencey rule as shown by the following:
CTC from Barangay 6 (March 2006)
o
Passport indicating that his residence is in Barangay
o
6 (Oct 2005)
Registered voter at Brgy 6 (July 2006)
o

Pending this case, Ty won the elections.

COMELEC 1st Division ruled for Ty.

COMELEC En Banc affirmed.

Issue: WON Ty complied with the one (1) year residency

requirement under the Local Government Code.
Held: YES. The term "residence" is to be understood not in its
common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation,"
but rather to "domicile" or legal residence, that is, "the place
where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,
where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time,
eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi).
A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is
usually the place where the childs parents reside and continues
until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new domicile
(domicile of choice). In Coquilla,the Court already acknowledged
that for an individual to acquire American citizenship, he must
establish residence in the USA. Since Ty himself admitted that he
became a naturalized American citizen, then he must have
necessarily abandoned Barangay 6 as his domicile of origin; and
transferred to the USA, as his domicile of choice.
Tys reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 had
no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile. He could
still retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily
regain his domicile in Barangay 6. Ty merely had the option to
again establish his domicile in the Municipality of General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said place becoming his
new domicile of choice. The length of his residence therein shall
be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice,
and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.
Tys intent to establish a new domicile of choice in Barangay 6
became apparent when, immediately after reacquiring his
Philippine citizenship on 2 October 2005, he applied for a
Philippine passport indicating in his application that his residence
in the Philippines was Barangay 6. For the years 2006 and 2007, Ty
voluntarily submitted himself to the local tax jurisdiction of the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, by paying
community tax and securing CTCs from the said municipality
stating therein his address as Barangay 6. Thereafter, Ty applied for
and was registered as a voter on 17 July 2006 in Precinct 0013A,
Barangay 6.
Macalintal vs Comelec
Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the
validity of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189).
He questions the validity of the said act on the following grounds,
among others:
1
That the provision that a Filipino already
considered an immigrant abroad can be allowed to participate in
absentee voting provided he executes an affidavit stating his intent
to return to the Philippines is void because it dispenses of the
requirement that a voter must be a resident of the Philippines for
at least one year and in the place where he intends to vote for at
least 6 months immediately preceding the election;
2
That the provision allowing the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) to proclaim 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 Constitution for it is Congress which is
empowered to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintals arguments are correct.

HELD: No.
1
There can be no absentee voting if the absentee
voters are required to physically reside in the Philippines within the
period required for non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in
election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used.
Hence, one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is
concerned). The domicile is the place where one has the intention
to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an affidavit stating
his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a resident of
the Philippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter (absentee
voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute the affidavit
then he is not qualified as an absentee voter.
2
The said provision should be harmonized. It
could not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to
include the proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential
and presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that
Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing
and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential
elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred
to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.

NICOLAS-LEWIS VS COMELEC
FACTS:
Petitions for certiorari and mandamus for exercising their rights to
suffrage under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act or RA No. 9189.
Petitioners are dual citizens who retained or reacquired Philippine
Citizenship under RA No. 9225, or Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003. COMELEC denied their petitions on the
ground that they fail to meet the qualification of 1-year residency
required by the Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not dual citizens may exercise their right to suffrage as
absentee voters even short of 1-year residency requirement.
RULING:
Yes. There is no provision in the RA 9225 requiring duals to actually
establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first
before they can exercise their right to vote. Congress enacted RA
9189 pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Constitution,
identifying in its Section 4 of the said Act who can vote under it,
among others, are Filipino immigrants and permanent residents in
another country opens an exception and qualifies the
disqualification rule under the Section 5(d) of the same Act.
By applying the doctrine of necessary implication, Constitutional
Commission provided for an exception to actual residency
requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of 1987 Constitution, with
respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. Filipino immigrants and
permanent residents in another country may be allowed to vote
even though they do not fulfill the residency requirement of said
Sec 1 Art V of the Constitution.