Aznar vs. COMELEC

Aznar vs. COMELEC

Facts: 

Herein private defendant filed for a certificate of candidacy for 1988 elections which is contested by Jose B. Aznar of Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council on the ground that private respondent is allegedly not a Filipino citizen.

Petitioner submitted a Certification that Osmeña is an American, Application for Alien Registration Form No.1, Alien Certificate Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence of the defendant, thus causing the suspension of the proclamation of the private defendant.

Osmeña, in response, maintained his being Filipino by alleging, that his ancestors are all Filipinos, that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport, that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth, that he hasn’t gone out of the country for more than six months, and that he has been a registered voter since 1965.

COMELEC First division dismissed the petition for not having been timely filed aside from the lack of proof to the allegation, after the proclamation of the defendant as a winner by the aforementioned division.

Under the statutes related to election, there are only two instances where the qualifications of a registered candidate may be questioned, both of which this case may not qualify, qualify, however, the court found it necessary to ascertain respondent’s citizenship and qualification to hold public office as a matter of interest.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondent is a Filipino citizen, thus, qualified to hold public office.

Held:

There are three modes thru which an individual loses his Filipino citizenship, (1) by naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to a foreign county. None of the aforementioned extinguished Osmeña’s Filipino citizenship.

Petitioner relied that private respondent was issued an alien certificate of registration as an American Citizen and was given a clearance and permit to re-enter the Philippines, hence, he is an American, and must have sworn allegiance to a foreign country. This is found to be a case of non sequitur or it does not follow. The mere fact that he bears a certification of being an American does not follow that he is not anymore a Filipino. Swearing of allegiance is also vehemently denied by the private respondent.

Also, repugnance of the Constitution to dual citizenship does not have retroactive effect.

Ruling: 

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed and the resolution of the COMELEC is affirmed.

 

DEMETRIA v. ALBA

G. R. No. 71977, FEB 27, 1987

DEMETRIA v. ALBA (separation of powers)

Facts:

Petitioners, who are members of the National Assembly as citizens and taxpayers, filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of Sec 44 of PD 1177 (Budget Reform Decree of 1977) on the grounds that: it infringes the law by authorizing the illegal transfer of public moneys, it failed to specify the objectives and purposes for which the proposed transfer of funds are to be made and that it allows the President to override the safeguards, form and procedure and approving appropriations, and is a continuous threat of excess of authority and jurisdiction.

The Solicitor General questioned the legal standing of the petitioners. Also filing a rejoinder to dismiss the petition on the ground that the abrogation of Section 16(5) of Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution by the Freedom Constitution, (“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the President, … may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”) allegedly rendered the petition moot and academic.

ISSUE:

1.       Whether Sec 44 of PD 1177 (Budget Reform Decree of 1977) is unconstitutional.

2.       Whether the Supreme Court can act upon the opposed Executive Act.

HELD:

1.       YES. Par. 1 of Sec 44 of P.D. No. 1177 unduly over extends the privilege granted under said Section 16 (5) of the 1973 Phil. Constitution. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department to another office or agency of the Executive Department to any program or activity included in the General Appropriations Act without regard as to whether the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item. It does not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.

Par 1 of Sec 44 puts all these safeguards into naught. Such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void.

2.       YES. The Constitution apportions the powers of the government but it does not make any one of the three departments subordinate to another. If an act is declared void, it is not because the judges have any control over the legislative power but because the act is forbidden by the Constitution.

Where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed to do as void.

NICOLAS-LEWIS, et al. vs. COMELEC

NICOLAS-LEWIS, et al (Petitioners) vs. COMELEC (Respondent)

G.R. No. 162759, August 4, 2006

FACTS:

Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine citizenship under Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act of 2003 (R.A. 9225). The Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act accords to such applicants the right of suffrage, among others. Long before the May 10, 2004 national and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as "overseas absentee voter" under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). The COMELEC advised that the applicants do not have the right to vote in such elections because they lack the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution for regular voters. The COMELEC argued that dual citizens under the Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act must first establish their domicile in the Philippines through positive acts before they can avail of themselves of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners and others who retained and / or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act.

HELD:

The Court granted the petition that those who retain or re‑acquire Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225), may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting according to the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9189).

Section 5, Paragraph 1 of the R.A. 9225 states that “Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws.

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law requiring dual citizens to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, the law acknowledged that dual citizens are most likely non-residents and granted them the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act. The Overseas Absentee Voting Act, in essence, aims to enfranchise as much as possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the residency requirements, are qualified to vote as an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions.

OTHER RELEVANT LAWS:

Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution prescribes residency requirement as a general eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other hand, Section 2 authorizes Congress to devise a system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a non‑resident may, as an exception to the residency prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to vote. In response to its mandate, Congress enacted the Overseas Absentee Voting Act.

NOTE:

Though the petition was rendered moot and academic because the May 2004 elections had been concluded before a decision on the petition had been issued, the Court still took on the case because of the broader and transcendental issue in the petition, the propriety of allowing dual citizens to participate and vote as absentee voter in future elections.