2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

directors, officers and employees, are its sole liabilities. (Santos vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 254 SCRA 673 [1996])
For the separate juridical personality of a corporation to be
disregarded, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly
established—it cannot be presumed. (Matugina Integrated Wood
Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 490 [1996])

——o0o——

G.R. No. 162759. August 4, 2006.*

LOIDA NICOLAS-LEWIS, GREGORIO B. MACABENTA,

ALEJANDRO A. ESCLAMADO, ARMANDO B. HEREDIA,
REUBEN S. SEGURITAN, ERIC LACHICA FURBEYRE,
TERESITA A. CRUZ, JOSEFINA OPENA DISTERHOFT,
MERCEDES V. OPENA, CORNELIO R. NATIVIDAD, EVELYN
D. NATIVIDAD, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
respondent.

Citizenship; Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003

(R.A. No. 9225); Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9189);
Suffrage; There is no provision in the dual citizenship law—R.A. 9225—
requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically stay in the
Philippines first before they can exercise the right to vote—on the contrary,
R.A. 9225, in implicit acknowledgment 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 R.A. 9189.—There is no provision in the
dual citizenship law—R.A. 9225—requiring “duals” to actually establish
residence and physically stay in the Philippines first before they can
exercise their right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit
acknowledgment that “duals” are most likely non-residents, grants under its

_______________

* EN BANC.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

650

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

Section 5(1) the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter
under R.A. 9189. 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.
Suffrage; Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (R.A.
No. 9225); Overseas Absentee Voting act of 2003 (R.A. 9189); Considering
the unison intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the
scope of that law with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible conclusion
is that “duals” may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee
voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters.—Considering the unison
intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the scope of
that law with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that
“duals” may now exercise the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting
scheme and as overseas absentee voters. R.A. 9189 defines the terms
adverted to in the following wise: “Absentee Voting” refers to the process
by which qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right to
vote; “Overseas Absentee Voter” refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is
qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who is abroad on the day of elections.
Same; Same; Same; The Court notes that the expanded thrust of R.A.
9189 extends also to what might be tagged as the next generation of
“duals”; If the next generation of “duals” may nonetheless avail themselves
the right to enjoy full civil and political rights under Section 5 of the Act,
then there is neither rhyme nor reason why the petitioners and other present
day “duals,” provided they meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V
of the Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189, be denied the right of suffrage
as an overseas absentee voter.—While perhaps not determinative of the
issue tendered herein, we note that the expanded thrust of R.A. 9189 extends
also to what might be tag as the next generation of “duals.” This may be
deduced from the inclusion of the provision on derivative citizenship in
R.A. 9225 which reads: SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship.—The unmarried
child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years
of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of
this Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines. It is very likely that a
considerable number of those unmarried children below eighteen (18) years
of age had never set foot in

651

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 651

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

the Philippines. Now then, if the next generation of “duals” may nonetheless
avail themselves 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,” provided they meet the
requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution in relation to
R.A. 9189, be denied the right of suffrage as an overseas absentee voter.
Congress could not have plausibly intended such absurd situation.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and

Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Sedfrey M. Candelaria for petitioners.
Alioden D. Dalaig for public respondent.

GARCIA, J.:
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioners, referring
to themselves as “duals” or dual citizens, pray that they and others
who retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition
Act of 2003, be allowed to avail themselves of the mechanism
provided under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 20031 (R.A.
9189) and that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
accordingly be ordered to allow them to vote and register as
absentee voters under the aegis of R.A. 9189.
The facts:
Petitioners are successful applicants for recognition of Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9225 which accords to such applicants the
right of suffrage, among others. Long before the May 2004 national
and local elections, petitioners sought registration and certification
as “overseas absentee voter”

_______________

1 Also known as Overseas Absentee Voting Law or “OAVL” for short.

652

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

only to be advised by the Philippine Embassy in the United

States that, per a COMELEC letter to the Department of Foreign
Affairs dated September 23, 2003,2 they have yet no right to vote in
such elections owing to their lack of the one-year residence

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

requirement prescribed by the Constitution. The same letter,

however, urged the different Philippine posts abroad not to
discontinue their campaign for voter’s registration, as the residence
restriction adverted to would contextually affect merely certain
individuals who would likely be eligible to vote in future elections.
Prodded for clarification by petitioner Loida Nicolas-Lewis in the
light of the ruling in Macalintal vs. COMELEC3 on the residency
requirement, the COMELEC wrote in response:

“Although R.A. 9225 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality …, it is

the Commission’s position that those who have availed of the law cannot
exercise the right of suffrage given under the OAVL for the reason that the
OAVL was not enacted for them. Hence, as Filipinos who have merely re-
acquired their citizenship on 18 September 2003 at the earliest, and as law
and jurisprudence now stand, they are considered regular voters who have to
meet the requirements of residency, among others under Section 1, Article 5
of the Constitution.”4

Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in the May
2004 elections owing to the COMELEC’s refusal to include them in
the National Registry of Absentee Voters, petitioner Nicolas-Lewis
et al.,5 filed on April 1, 2004 this petition for certiorari and
mandamus.

_______________

2 Signed by Florentino A. Tuason Jr., as then COMELEC Committee Chairman on

Overseas Absentee Voting; Rollo, p. 33.
3 G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003, 405 SCRA 614.
4 Concluding paragraph of letter dated November 4, 2003 of the Comelec to the
Balane Tamase Alampay Law Office (counsel for petitioners); Rollo, pp. 42-51.
5 The other petitioners executed deeds of Special Power of Attorney (SPA),
therein authorizing Loida Nicolas Lewis to file the Petition; Rollo, pp. 92-112.

653

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 653

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

A little over a week before the May 10, 2004 elections, or on

April 30, 2004, the COMELEC filed a Comment,6 therein praying
for the denial of the petition. As may be expected, petitioners were
not able to register let alone vote in said elections.
On May 20, 2004, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed
a Manifestation (in Lieu of Comment), therein stating that “all
qualified overseas Filipinos, including dual citizens who care to
exercise the right of suffrage, may do so,” observing, however, that

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

the conclusion of the 2004 elections had rendered the petition moot
and academic.7
The holding of the 2004 elections had, as the OSG pointed out,
indeed rendered the petition moot and academic, but insofar only as
petitioners’ participation in such political exercise is concerned. The
broader and transcendental issue tendered or subsumed in the
petition, i.e., the propriety of allowing “duals” to participate and
vote as absentee voter in future elections, however, remains
unresolved.
Observing the petitioners’ and the COMELEC’s respective
formulations of the issues, the same may be reduced into the
question of whether or not petitioners and others who might have
meanwhile retained and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship
pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter under R.A. 9189.
The Court resolves the poser in the affirmative, and thereby
accords merit to the petition.
In esse, this case is all about suffrage. A quick look at the
governing provisions on the right of suffrage is, therefore, indicated.
We start off with Sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the
Constitution, respectively reading as follows:

_______________

6 Rollo, pp. 53-67.

7 Rollo, pp. 77-78.

654

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the

Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen
years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one
year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months
immediately preceding the election. x x x.
SEC. 2. The Congress shall provide … a system for absentee voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad.

In a nutshell, the aforequoted Section 1 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 above mandate, Congress enacted R.A. 9189—
the OAVL8—identifying in its Section 4 who can vote under it and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

in the following section who cannot, as follows:

Section 4. Coverage.—All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are

not otherwise disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the
day of elections, may vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-
list representatives.
Section 5. Disqualifications.—The following shall be disqualified
from voting under this Act:
(a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with
Philippine laws;
(b) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine citizenship
and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign country;
(c) Those who have … [been] convicted in a final judgment by a court
or tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one
(1) year, including those who have … been found guilty of Disloyalty as
defined under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code, ….;
(d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in
the host country, unless he/she executes, upon registra-

_______________

8 Published in the February 16, 2003 issues of Today and Daily Tribune.

655

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 655

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

tion, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that
he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines
not later than three (3) years from approval of his/her registration under this
Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship
in another country. Failure to return shall be the cause for the removal of the
name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of
Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
(e) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or
incompetent by competent authority …. (Words in bracket added.)

Notably, Section 5 lists those who cannot avail themselves of the

absentee voting mechanism. However, Section 5(d) of the
enumeration respecting Filipino immigrants and permanent residents
in another country opens an exception and qualifies the
disqualification rule. Section 5(d) would, however, face a
constitutional challenge on the ground that, as narrated in
Macalintal, it—

“… violates Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Constitution which requires

that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one year and

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

in the place where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding an election. [The challenger] cites … Caasi vs. Court of Appeals9
to support his claim [where] the Court held that a “green card” holder
immigrant to the [US] is deemed to have abandoned his domicile and
residence in the Philippines.
[The challenger] further argues that Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution does not allow provisional registration or a promise by a voter
to perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise; that the
legislature should not be allowed to circumvent the requirement of the
Constitution on the right of suffrage by providing a condition thereon which
in effect amends or alters the aforesaid residence requirement to qualify a
Filipino abroad to vote. He claims that the right of suffrage should not be
granted to anyone who, on the date of the election, does not possess the
qualifications provided

_______________

9 G.R. No. 88831, 8 November 1990, 191 SCRA 229.

656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

for by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.”10 (Words in bracket added.)

As may be recalled, the Court upheld the constitutionality of

Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 mainly on the strength of the following
premises:

“As finally approved into law, Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 specifically
disqualifies an immigrant or permanent resident who is “recognized as such
in the host country” because immigration or permanent residence in another
country implies renunciation of one’s residence in his country of origin.
However, same Section allows an immigrant and permanent resident abroad
to register as voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit to show that
he/she has not abandoned his domicile in pursuance of the constitutional
intent expressed in Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that “all citizens of the
Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law” must be entitled to exercise
the right of suffrage and, that Congress must establish a system for absentee
voting; for otherwise, if actual, physical residence in the Philippines is
required, there is no sense for the framers of the Constitution to mandate
Congress to establish a system for absentee voting.
Contrary to the claim of [the challenger], the execution of the affidavit
itself is not the enabling or enfranchising act. The affidavit required in
Section 5(d) is not only proof of the intention of the immigrant or permanent
resident to go back and resume residency in the Philippines, but more
significantly, it serves as an explicit expression that he had not in fact

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

abandoned his domicile of origin. Thus, it is not correct to say that the
execution of the affidavit under Section 5(d) violates the Constitution that
proscribes “provisional registration or a promise by a voter to perform a
condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise.”11

Soon after Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 passed the test of

constitutionality, Congress enacted R.A. 9225 the relevant portion of
which reads:

_______________

10 Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, supra.

11 Id., at p. 645.

657

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 657

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.—It is hereby declared the policy of the

State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of this Act.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.—Any provision of law to
the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired
Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the
Republic:
x x x   x x x   x x x
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this
Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship.—The unmarried child, whether
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of
those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall
be deemed citizens of the Philippines.
SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities.—Those who retain
or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:
(1) 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;
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall
meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship …;
(3) x x x   x x x   x x x.
(4) x x x   x x x   x x x;
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public
office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those
who:

658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office

in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-
commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country
which they are naturalized citizens.

After what appears to be a successful application for recognition

of Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9189, petitioners now invoke
their right to enjoy . . . political rights, specifically the right of
suffrage, pursuant to Section 5 thereof.
Opposing the petitioners’ bid, however, respondent COMELEC
invites attention to the same Section 5 (1) providing that “duals” can
enjoy their right to vote, as an adjunct to political rights, only if they
meet the requirements of Section 1, Article V of the Constitution,
R.A. 9189 and other existing laws. Capitalizing on what at first
blush is the clashing provisions of the aforecited provision of the
Constitution, which, to repeat, requires residency in the Philippines
for a certain period, and R.A. 9189 which grants a Filipino non-
resident absentee voting rights,12 COMELEC argues:

4. ‘DUALS’ MUST FIRST ESTABLISH THEIR DOMICILE/RESIDENCE IN THE

PHILIPPINES
4.01. The inclusion of such additional and specific requirements in RA 9225 is
logical. The ‘duals,’ upon renouncement of their Filipino citizenship and
acquisition of foreign citizenship, have practically and legally abandoned
their domicile and severed their legal ties to the homeland as a consequence.
Having subsequently acquired a second citizenship (i.e., Filipino) then,
‘duals’ must, for purposes of voting, first of all, decisively and defi-

_______________

12 Constitution, Article V, Section 1: … … … at least one year and in the place

wherein they propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the
election ….

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

659

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 659

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

nitely establish their domicile through positive acts;13

The Court disagrees.

As may be noted, there is no provision in the dual citizenship law
—R.A. 9225—requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and
physically stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise their
right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in implicit
acknowledgment 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 R.A. 9189. 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.
Thus, wrote the Court in Macalintal:

“It is clear from these discussions of the … Constitutional Commission

that [it] intended to enfranchise as much as possible all Filipino citizens
abroad who have not abandoned their domicile of origin. 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.
It is in pursuance of that intention that the Commission provided for
Section 2 [Article V] immediately after the residency requirement of
Section 1. 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. The same
Commission has in effect declared that qualified Filipinos who are not in the
Philippines may be allowed to vote even though they do not satisfy the
residency requirement in Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
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

_______________

13 COMELEC’s Memorandum, p. 6, appended to the Rollo.

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

became R.A. No. 9189, was deliberated upon on the Senate floor, thus:
Senator Arroyo. Mr. President, this bill should be looked into in
relation to the constitutional provisions. I think the sponsor and I
would agree that the Constitution is supreme in any statute that we
may enact.
Let me read Section 1, Article V, of the Constitution ….
x x x   x x x   x x x
Now, Mr. President, the Constitution says, “who shall have
resided in the Philippines.” They are permanent immigrants. They
have changed residence so they are barred under the Constitution.
This is why I asked whether this committee amendment which in fact
does not alter the original text of the bill will have any effect on this?
Senator Angara.  Good question, Mr. President. And this has
been asked in various fora. This is in compliance with the
Constitution. One, the interpretation here of “residence” is
synonymous with “domicile.”
As the gentleman and I know, Mr. President, “domicile” is the
intent to return to one’s home. And the fact that a Filipino may have
been physically absent from the Philippines and may be physically
a resident of the United States, for example, but has a clear intent
to return to the Philippines, will make him qualified as a resident of
the Philippines under this law.
This is consistent, Mr. President, with the constitutional mandate
that we—that Congress—must provide a franchise to overseas
Filipinos.
If we read the Constitution and the suffrage principle literally as
demanding physical presence, then there is no way we can provide
for offshore voting to our offshore kababayan, Mr. President.
Senator Arroyo.  Mr. President, when the Constitution says, in
Section 2 of Article V, it reads: “The Congress shall provide a system
for securing the secrecy and

661

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 661

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by

qualified Filipinos abroad.”
The key to this whole exercise, Mr. President, is “qualified.” In
other words, anything that we may do or say in granting our
compatriots abroad must be anchored on the proposition that they
are qualified. Absent the qualification, they cannot vote. And
“residents” (sic) is a qualification.
x x x   x x x   x x x
Look at what the Constitution says—“In the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the
election.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

Mr. President, all of us here have run (sic) for office.

I live in Makati. My neighbor is Pateros …. We are separated only
by a creek. But one who votes in Makati cannot vote in Pateros
unless he resides in Pateros for six months. That is how restrictive
our Constitution is. ….
As I have said, if a voter in Makati would want to vote in Pateros,
yes, he may do so. But he must do so, make the transfer six months
before the election, otherwise, he is not qualified to vote.
x x x   x x x   x x x
Senator Angara. It is a good point to raise, Mr. President. But it is
a point already well-debated even in the constitutional commission of
1986. And the reason Section 2 of Article V was placed immediately
after the six-month/one-year residency requirement is to
demonstrate unmistakably that Section 2 which authorizes absentee
voting is an exception to the six-month/one-year residency
requirement. That is the first principle, Mr. President, that one must
remember.
The second reason, Mr. President, is that under our jurisprudence
…—“residency” has been interpreted as synonymous with
“domicile.”
But the third more practical reason, … is, if we follow the
interpretation of the gentleman, then it is legally and
constitutionally impossible to give

662

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

a franchise to vote to overseas Filipinos who do not physically

live in the country, which is quite ridiculous because that is
exactly the whole point of this exercise—to enfranchise them and
empower them to vote.14 (Emphasis and words in bracket added;
citations omitted)

Lest it be overlooked, no less than the COMELEC itself admits

that the Citizenship Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act expanded the
coverage of overseas absentee voting. According to the poll body:

1.05 With the passage of RA 9225 the scope of overseas absentee

voting has been consequently expanded so as to include Filipinos who are
also citizens of other countries, subject, however, to the strict prerequisites
indicated in the pertinent provisions of RA 9225;15

Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189

and the expansion of the scope of that law with the passage of R.A.
9225, the irresistible conclusion is that “duals” may now exercise
the right of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

absentee voters. R.A. 9189 defines the terms adverted to in the

following wise:

“Absentee Voting” refers to the process by which qualified citizens of

the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote;
“Overseas Absentee Voter” refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is
qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who is abroad on the day of elections;

While perhaps not determinative of the issue tendered herein, we

note that the expanded thrust of R.A. 9189 extends also to what
might be tag as the next generation of “duals.”

_______________

14 Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, supra, at pp. 641-644.

15 COMELEC’s Memorandum, p. 4, appended to the Rollo.

663

VOL. 497, AUGUST 4, 2006 663

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

This may be deduced from the inclusion of the provision on

derivative citizenship in R.A. 9225 which reads:

SEC. 4. Derivative Citizenship.—The unmarried child, whether

legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of
those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall
be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

It is very likely that a considerable number of those unmarried

children below eighteen (18) years of age had never set foot in the
Philippines. Now then, if the next generation of “duals” may
nonetheless avail themselves 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,” provided
they meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution in relation to R.A. 9189, be denied the right of suffrage
as an overseas absentee voter. Congress could not have plausibly
intended such absurd situation.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly,
the Court rules and so holds that those who retain or re‑acquire
Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship
Retention and Re‑Acquisition Act of 2003, may exercise the right to
vote under the system of absentee voting in Republic Act No. 9189,
the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
SO ORDERED.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 497

Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-
Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario and Velasco,
Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition granted, those who retain or re-acquire Philippine

citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, may exercise the right to
vote under Republic Act No. 9189.

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nicolas-Lewis vs.Commission on Election

Notes.—The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has

established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition
of Philippine citizenship. (Valles vs. Commission on Elections, 337
SCRA 543 [2000])
A former Filipino is no longer bound by Philippine personal laws
after he acquires another State’s citizenship. (Garcia-Recio vs.
Recio, 366 SCRA 437 [2001])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c3b95d3a461087ee003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14