Makalintal vs.

Comelec 7/3/03

Makalintal filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking a declaration that provisions of RA 9189
(The overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) specifically sec 5 subpar D for allowing the registration of
voters who are immigrants or permanent residents in other countries by their mere act of executing an
affidavit ecpressing their intention to return to the Phils, violate the residenc requriemetn of Sec1 of Art
V of the OCnsti.

Issue: Does RA 9189 violates the Constitution?

Ruling: No. Petitioner only focused on Sec 1, Art V of the Constitution in ascribing constitutional infirmity
totally ignoring Sec 2 empowering Congress to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified
Filipnios abroad. Filipino immigrants and permanent residents are perceived as having left and
abandoned the Philippines to live permanently in their host countries and therefore, a provision in the
law enfranchising those who do not possess the residency requirement of the Constitution by the mere
act of executing an affidavit expressing their intent to return to the Phils within a given period, risks a
declaration of unconstitutionality.

RA 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of the first par of Sec 2 of Art V of the Constitution
that Cngress shall provide for a system for voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed that
Sec 2 does not provide for t parameters of the exercise of legislative authority in enacting said law,
Hence, in the absence of restrictions, Congress is presumed to have duly exercised function as defined in
Art. VI of the Constitution.

Frivaldo vs. Comelec 174 SCRA 245

Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of Sorsogon on 1/22/88 and assumed office in due time. On
10/27/88, the league of Municipalities, rep by its Pres. Estuye, wh was suing in his personal capacity,
filed with Comelec a petition for annulment of Firvaldo’s election and proclamation on the ground that
he was not a Fil Citizen, having been naturalized in US on 1/20/83. Petitioner admitted that he was
naturalized in US as alleged but pleaded the special affirmative defenses that he had sought US
citizenship only to protect himself against Pres. Marcos. His naturalization was merely forced upon
himself a sa means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s agents
abroad.

Issue:

1. WON petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

2. Is he qualified to hold office?

Ruling:
 1. No. He claims that by actively participating in the elections in this country, he automatically
forfeited US citizenship under the laws of US. Such law does not concern us here. The alleged
forfeiture is between him and US, his adopted country. It should be obvious that even if he did
lose his naturalized US citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of
automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. At best
what might happened as a result of loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a
stateless individual.
2. No. Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only
at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer’s entire
tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may reasonably be challenged.
This court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country
while owing exclusive allegiance to another country. The fact that he was elected by the people
does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment
only to the citizens of the country. The qualifications prescribed for the elective office cannot be
erased by the electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot
cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed that the candidate was
qualified, If a person seeks to serve RP, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only,
abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state.
lectoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of their respective Members.”

The electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns and
qualifications of candidates for either the Senate or House only when that latter become members of
either the Senate or House of Reps. A candidate who has not been proclaimed and who has not taken
his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of Res subject to Sec 17 of Constitution.

1. No. As a candidate for Representative, he must prove that he has established not just
residence but domicile of choice. The Consti requires that a person seeking election to the
House of Reps should be a resident of the district where he seeks election for a period of
not less than 1 year prior to the elections. SC is left with no choice but t affirm Comelec’s
conclusion declaring respondent ineligible on the basis of its findings that petitioner lacks
the one year residence in the district.
2. No. Ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible
candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or
defeated candidate cant be deemed elected to the office.