Dual citizens can vote – SC
High Tribunal clarifies residency provision in law Grants petition of a group of Fil-Americans
By REY G. PANALIGAN - Manila Bulletin
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled yesterday that Filipinos who have become citizens of other countries but who have retained or re-acquired their Philippine citizenship, or those called dual citizens, can now vote in the elections under the system of absentee voting.
In a full court unanimous decision written by Justice Cancio C. Garcia, the SC said that "considering the unison intent of the Constitution and the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9189) and the expansion of the scope of that law with the passage of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003 (RA 9225), the irresistible conclusion is that ‘duals’ may now exercise the right of suffrage through the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters."
With the decision, the SC granted the petition filed by a group of dual citizens in the United States led by Loida Nicolas- Lewis, Gregorio Macabenta, Alejandro Esclamado, Armando Heredia, Reuben Seguritan, Eric Lachica Furbeyre, Teresita Cruz, Josefina Opena Disterhoft, Mercedes Opena, Cornelio Natividad, and Evelyn Natividad.
"Wherefore, the instant petition is granted. Accordingly, the court rules and so holds that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225… may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in RA 9189. . . ." the SC ruled.
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Senior Justice Reynato S. Puno, and Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares Santiago, Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico Nazario, and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. concurred in the decision.
The group of Nicolas- Lewis was successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225. Before the 2004 elections, they sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters.
But the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that while they have passed the requirements of RA 9225, they have yet no right to vote because of their lack of one- year residence in the Philippines as required by the Constitution.
On April 1, 2004, the group filed a petition with the SC pleading that they be allowed to vote. However, a week before the May 2004 elections, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) sought the denial of the group’s petition.
On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in a manifestation filed with the SC, said that "all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so." But the OSG said since the 2004 elections were over, the group’s petition had become moot and academic.
The SC decided to rule on the merits of the petition as a guide to future elections. Resolving the issue, the SC said that the Constitution provides residency requirement as a general eligibility to the right to vote under Section 1 of Article V.
But it said that Section 2 of Article V "authorizes Congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may, as an exception, to the residency prescription, be allowed to vote."
Thus, it said, Congress enacted RA 9189 which specifies that all citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not disqualified by law, may vote for president, vice-president, senators, and representatives. But RA 9189, it said, disqualifies those who have lost their Philippine citizenship or those who have been admitted as immigrants or permanent residents of other countries.
While the SC upheld the constitutionality of the disqualification under RA 9189, Congress enacted a new law, RA 9225, which sets the procedure for the retention or re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship.
"There is no provision in the dual citizenship law, RA 9225, requiring ‘duals’ to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote," the SC said.
"On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement that ‘duals’ are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA 9189," it said.
"It cannot be overemphasized that RA 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote," it added.
The SC pointed out that an unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship are deemed citizens of the Philippines upon the effectivity of RA 9225.
"It is very likely that a considerable number of those unmarried children below 18 years of age had never set foot in the Philippines. Now then, if the next generation of ‘duals’ may nonetheless avail themselves of the right to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5 of the Act, then there is neither no rhyme nor reason why the petitioners and other present day ‘duals’… be denied the right of suffrage as on overseas absentee voter. Congress could not have plausibly intended such absurd situation," it said
By REY G. PANALIGAN - Manila Bulletin
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled yesterday that Filipinos who have become citizens of other countries but who have retained or re-acquired their Philippine citizenship, or those called dual citizens, can now vote in the elections under the system of absentee voting.
In a full court unanimous decision written by Justice Cancio C. Garcia, the SC said that "considering the unison intent of the Constitution and the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9189) and the expansion of the scope of that law with the passage of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003 (RA 9225), the irresistible conclusion is that ‘duals’ may now exercise the right of suffrage through the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters."
With the decision, the SC granted the petition filed by a group of dual citizens in the United States led by Loida Nicolas- Lewis, Gregorio Macabenta, Alejandro Esclamado, Armando Heredia, Reuben Seguritan, Eric Lachica Furbeyre, Teresita Cruz, Josefina Opena Disterhoft, Mercedes Opena, Cornelio Natividad, and Evelyn Natividad.
"Wherefore, the instant petition is granted. Accordingly, the court rules and so holds that those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225… may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in RA 9189. . . ." the SC ruled.
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Senior Justice Reynato S. Puno, and Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares Santiago, Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico Nazario, and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. concurred in the decision.
The group of Nicolas- Lewis was successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225. Before the 2004 elections, they sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters.
But the Philippine embassy in the US advised them that while they have passed the requirements of RA 9225, they have yet no right to vote because of their lack of one- year residence in the Philippines as required by the Constitution.
On April 1, 2004, the group filed a petition with the SC pleading that they be allowed to vote. However, a week before the May 2004 elections, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) sought the denial of the group’s petition.
On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in a manifestation filed with the SC, said that "all qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of suffrage, may do so." But the OSG said since the 2004 elections were over, the group’s petition had become moot and academic.
The SC decided to rule on the merits of the petition as a guide to future elections. Resolving the issue, the SC said that the Constitution provides residency requirement as a general eligibility to the right to vote under Section 1 of Article V.
But it said that Section 2 of Article V "authorizes Congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non-resident may, as an exception, to the residency prescription, be allowed to vote."
Thus, it said, Congress enacted RA 9189 which specifies that all citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not disqualified by law, may vote for president, vice-president, senators, and representatives. But RA 9189, it said, disqualifies those who have lost their Philippine citizenship or those who have been admitted as immigrants or permanent residents of other countries.
While the SC upheld the constitutionality of the disqualification under RA 9189, Congress enacted a new law, RA 9225, which sets the procedure for the retention or re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship.
"There is no provision in the dual citizenship law, RA 9225, requiring ‘duals’ to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote," the SC said.
"On the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgement that ‘duals’ are most likely non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA 9189," it said.
"It cannot be overemphasized that RA 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote," it added.
The SC pointed out that an unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship are deemed citizens of the Philippines upon the effectivity of RA 9225.
"It is very likely that a considerable number of those unmarried children below 18 years of age had never set foot in the Philippines. Now then, if the next generation of ‘duals’ may nonetheless avail themselves of the right to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5 of the Act, then there is neither no rhyme nor reason why the petitioners and other present day ‘duals’… be denied the right of suffrage as on overseas absentee voter. Congress could not have plausibly intended such absurd situation," it said
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
6:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home