Elec cases:

MACALINTAL VS. COMELEC

G.R. No. 157013, July 10 2003

FACTS:
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B.
Macalintal, a member of the Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain
provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and
material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that
public funds are properly and lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner filed
the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 9189 violates the residency
requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution.

(2) Whether or not Section 18.5 of the same law violates the constitutional
mandate under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution that the winning
candidates for President and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners
by Congress.

(3) Whether or not Congress may, through the Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee created in Section 25 of Rep. Act No. 9189, exercise the power to
review, revise, amend, and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations
that the Commission on Elections, promulgate without violating the
independence of the COMELEC under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution.

HELD:
(1) No. Section 5 of RA No. 9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting
under this Act. It disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is
recognized as such in the host country. However, an exception is provided i.e.
unless he/she executes, upon registration, 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 3 years from approval of
registration. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for
citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be 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.

Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residency requirement in Section 1

Article V of the Constitution which requires the voter must be a resident in the
Philippines for at least one yr, and a resident in the place where he proposes to
vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding an election.

However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present, and
that the Court may have to discard that particular ruling. Panacea of the
controversy: Affidavit for without it, the presumption of abandonment of Phil
domicile shall remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed an affidavit is
deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines and presumed not to
have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country. Section 5 of
RA No. 9189 does not only require the promise to resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of
registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a green card
holder, a temporary visitor or even on business trip, must declare that he/she
has not applied for citizenship in another country. Thus, he/she must return to
the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met according to RA No. 9189.

Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not return after he has
exercised his right to vote, the Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom
of the law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found to be impractical.
However, it can be said that the Congress itself was conscious of this
probability and provided for deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to
return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage. Accordingly, the votes
he cast shall not be invalidated because he was qualified to vote on the date of
the elections.

Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole
meaning, the Court is prevented from making it mean what the Court pleases.
In fine, considering that underlying intent of the Constitution, as is evident in
its statutory construction and intent of the framers, which is to grant Filipino
immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to
exercise the right of suffrage (Section 1 Article V) the Court finds that Section 5
of RA No. 9189 is not constitutionally defective.

(2) Yes. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to usurp a power that
constitutionally belongs to it. The canvassing of the votes and the
proclamation of the winning candidates for President and Vice President for the
entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its duty and power
under Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution. COMELEC has the authority to
proclaim the winning candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.

(3) No. By vesting itself with the powers to approve, review, amend and revise
the Implementing Rules & Regulations for RA No. 9189, Congress went beyond
the scope of its constitutional authority. Congress trampled upon the
constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC. Under such a
situation, the Court is left with no option but to withdraw from its usual silence
in declaring a provision of law unconstitutional.

People v Corral, G.R. No. L-42300 (Jan. 31, 1936)

http://docslide.us/documents/people-v-corral.html