Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC

Dual citizens who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 may exercise the right to vote under the absentee voting system of R.A. 9189 without first establishing actual physical residence in the Philippines, the constitutional residency requirement being construed as domicile and subject to the exception for absentee voting under Section 2, Article V of the Constitution.

Natural-born Filipinos who became naturalized citizens of another country subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225. Before the May 2004 national and local elections, these dual citizens sought to register as overseas absentee voters. The Philippine Embassy, acting on a COMELEC directive, denied their registration on the ground that they lacked the one-year residence requirement prescribed by the Constitution, prompting the filing of the instant petition.

• Petitioners' Status: Petitioners are natural-born Filipinos who successfully applied for recognition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, rendering them "duals" or dual citizens.
• Attempt to Register: Long before the May 2004 elections, petitioners sought registration and certification as overseas absentee voters under R.A. 9189.
• COMELEC Rejection: The Philippine Embassy in the United States denied the registration, citing a COMELEC letter dated September 23, 2003, which stated that dual citizens lacked the one-year residence requirement under the Constitution. COMELEC subsequently clarified that R.A. 9189 was not enacted for dual citizens, and thus, they are considered regular voters who must meet the residency requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
• Filing of Petition: Unable to register or vote in the May 2004 elections, petitioners filed the petition for certiorari and mandamus on April 1, 2004.

• Right to Suffrage under R.A. 9225: Petitioners argued that as dual citizens who reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, they are entitled to full civil and political rights, including the right of suffrage, and should be allowed to avail themselves of the absentee voting mechanism under R.A. 9189.

• Residency Requirement: COMELEC argued that dual citizens must first establish their domicile and residence in the Philippines before voting, as their renunciation of Filipino citizenship and acquisition of foreign citizenship constituted an abandonment of their Philippine domicile.
• OAVL Coverage: COMELEC maintained that R.A. 9189 was not enacted for dual citizens, and thus they are considered regular voters who must meet the constitutional residency requirements under Section 1, Article V.

• Eligibility as Absentee Voters: Whether petitioners and others who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voters under R.A. 9189.

• Eligibility as Absentee Voters: Yes. Dual citizens under R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voters under R.A. 9189. Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, which mandates Congress to provide a system for absentee voting, constitutes an exception to the residency requirement in Section 1. Residency is construed as domicile (intent to return), not actual physical presence. R.A. 9225 implicitly acknowledges that duals are likely non-residents and grants them suffrage rights under the same conditions as absentee voters under R.A. 9189. Furthermore, derivative citizens (unmarried children below 18) who may have never set foot in the Philippines are deemed citizens under R.A. 9225, making it absurd to deny present-day duals the same right to vote as absentee voters.

• Doctrine of Necessary Implication — The strategic location of a constitutional provision immediately after a general rule indicates that the framers intended an exception to that rule. Applied to this case, the placement of Section 2, Article V (mandating absentee voting) immediately after Section 1, Article V (prescribing residency) demonstrates that the Constitutional Commission provided an exception to the actual residency requirement for qualified Filipinos abroad.
• Residence as Domicile in Suffrage — For purposes of absentee voting, the constitutional residency requirement is interpreted as synonymous with domicile, which denotes intent to return, rather than actual physical presence. If physical residence were strictly required, the constitutional mandate to establish a system for absentee voting would be rendered impossible to fulfill.

• "By the doctrine of necessary implication in statutory construction, …, the strategic location of Section 2 indicates that the Constitutional Commission provided for an exception to the actual residency requirement of Section 1 with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad."
• "It cannot be overemphasized that R.A. 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."

• Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003 — Followed. Upheld the constitutionality of Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189, ruling that the affidavit required of immigrants and permanent residents is proof of intention to resume residency and an explicit expression that domicile was not abandoned. Established that Section 2, Article V is an exception to the residency requirement in Section 1.
• Caasi v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88831, November 8, 1990 — Cited in Macalintal for the proposition that a "green card" holder is deemed to have abandoned domicile, but distinguished/limited by the statutory scheme of R.A. 9189 which allows execution of an affidavit to prove non-abandonment.

• Section 1, Article V, 1987 Constitution — Prescribes residency as a general eligibility factor for suffrage. Construed as domicile rather than physical residence for absentee voters.
• Section 2, Article V, 1987 Constitution — Mandates Congress to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. Held to be an exception to the residency requirement in Section 1.
• Sections 4 and 5, R.A. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) — Define coverage and disqualifications for absentee voting. Section 5(d) was previously upheld as constitutional in Macalintal.
• Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, R.A. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003) — Deem dual citizens as not having lost Philippine citizenship and grant them full civil and political rights, subject to conditions including meeting requirements under Article V and R.A. 9189.

Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr.