Maria Dominique B.

Vasallo

Macalintal v. Commission on Elections

[G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003]

Petitioner: Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal.

Respondents: Commission on Elections, Hon. Alberto Romulo, In His Official

Capacity As Executive Secretary, And Hon. Emilia T. Boncodin, Secretary Of
The Department Of Budget And Management.

Doctrine: The Court has no general powers of supervision over COMELEC

which is an independent body “except those specifically granted by the
Constitution,” that is, to review its decisions, orders and rulings. In the same vein,
it is not correct to hold that because of its recognized extensive legislative power
to enact election laws, Congress may intrude into the independence of the
COMELEC by exercising supervisory powers over its rule-making authority.

Facts:

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo
B. Macalintal, a lawyer and a taxpayer, seeking a declaration that certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and
material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public
funds are properly and lawfully used and appropriated.

R.A. 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,” appropriates funds under Section 29
thereof which provides that a supplemental budget on the General Appropriations
Act of the year of its enactment into law shall provide for the necessary amount
to carry out its provisions.

Petitioner raises three principal questions for contention:

 That Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 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, violates the residency requirement in Art. V, Sec. 1 of the
Constitution;
 That Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the COMELEC to proclaim
the winning candidates for national offices and party list representatives,
including the President and the Vice-President, violates the constitutional
mandate under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution that the winning
candidates for President and Vice-President shall be proclaimed as
winners only by Congress; and
 That Section 25 of the same law, allowing Congress (through the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee created in the same section) to
exercise the power to review, revise, amend, and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that the COMELEC shall
promulgate, violates the independence of the COMELEC under Art. IX-A,
Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
Issues:
 Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 violates Art. V, Sec. 1 of the
Constitution.
1
  Whether or not Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 violates Art. VII, Sec. 4 of
the Constitution.
 Whether or not Section 25 of R.A. No. 9189 violates Art. IX-A, Sec. 1 of
the Constitution

Ruling/Ratio:
 No, Sec 5(d) is valid.

The Court has relied on the discussions of the members of the

Constitutional Commission on the topics of absentee voting and absentee
voter qualification, in connection with Sec. 2, Art. V of the Constitution,
which reads:

“Sec. 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the

secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for
absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.”

It was clearly shown from the said discussions that the Constitutional
Commission intended to enfranchise as much as possible all Filipino
citizens abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin, which is
in the Philippines. The Commission even intended to extend to young
Filipinos who reach voting age abroad whose parents’ domicile of origin is
in the Philippines, and consider them qualified as voters for the first time.
That Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution is an exception to the
residency requirement found in Section 1 of the same Article was in fact
the subject of debate when Senate Bill No. 2104, which later became
R.A. No. 9189, was deliberated upon on the Senate floor, further
weakening petitioner’s claim on the unconstitutionality of Section 5(d) of
R.A. No. 9189.

Hence, Sec 5(d) is valid.

 Yes, Section 18.5 is unconstitutional.

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, granting merit to petitioner’s contention that said
Section 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.

Congress could not have allowed the COMELEC to usurp a power that
constitutionally belongs to it or, as aptly stated by petitioner, to encroach
“on the power of Congress to canvass the votes for President and Vice-
President and the power to proclaim the winners for the said positions.”

Hence, Section 18.5 is unconstitutional.

 Yes, Section 25 creating the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee

(JCOC) is unconstitutional.

The Commission on Elections is a constitutional body. It is intended to

play a distinct and important part in our scheme of government. In the
discharge of its functions, it should not be hampered with restrictions that
would be fully warranted in the case of a less responsible organization.
2
The Commission on Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its
contacts with political strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual
experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly
advantageous position to decide complex political questions.

The Court has no general powers of supervision over COMELEC which is

an independent body “except those specifically granted by the
Constitution,” that is, to review its decisions, orders and rulings. In the
same vein, it is not correct to hold that because of its recognized
extensive legislative power to enact election laws, Congress may intrude
into the independence of the COMELEC by exercising supervisory
powers over its rule-making authority. In line with this, this Court holds
that Section 25 of R.A. 9189 is unconstitutional and must therefore be
stricken off from the said law.

Hence, Section 25 creating the JCOC is unconstitutional.