The Supreme Court ruled that Filipinos who reacquire citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003) can vote as overseas absentee voters under Republic Act No. 9189 (the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003). The Court reconciled the residency requirements in the Constitution with the absentee voting provisions, clarifying that dual citizens are not required to establish residency in the Philippines to exercise their right to vote. This decision ensures that Filipinos abroad, who have retained or reacquired citizenship, can participate in Philippine elections without needing to reside in the country, upholding their right to suffrage.

Can “Duals” Vote? Navigating Citizenship, Residency, and the Ballot Box

The core issue in Loida Nicolas-Lewis vs. COMELEC revolves around the right of suffrage for Filipinos with dual citizenship. Petitioners, who had successfully reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, sought to register as overseas absentee voters. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) initially denied their request, citing the constitutional residency requirement. This prompted the petitioners to seek judicial intervention, questioning whether the COMELEC’s interpretation unduly restricted their right to vote as dual citizens.

The legal framework governing this issue involves several key provisions. Section 1, Article V of the Constitution generally requires voters to have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where they propose to vote for at least six months. However, Section 2 of the same article authorizes Congress to create a system for absentee voting by Filipinos abroad. Implementing this mandate, Congress enacted R.A. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act. Later, R.A. 9225 allowed natural-born Filipinos who become citizens of another country to reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship.

The COMELEC argued that while R.A. 9225 grants dual citizens political rights, it also requires them to meet the residency requirements outlined in the Constitution. The agency posited that dual citizens who had previously renounced their Filipino citizenship must re-establish their domicile in the Philippines before being eligible to vote. This interpretation effectively barred dual citizens residing abroad from participating in elections under the overseas absentee voting system. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the COMELEC’s interpretation too restrictive.

The Supreme Court emphasized that R.A. 9225 does not require dual citizens to establish residency in the Philippines before exercising their right to vote. Instead, the Court reconciled R.A. 9225 with R.A. 9189, noting that the latter law aims to enfranchise overseas Filipinos who, apart from residency, are qualified to vote. The Court referenced its earlier ruling in Macalintal vs. COMELEC, which affirmed that Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution provides an exception to the residency requirement for qualified Filipinos abroad. To deny dual citizens the right to vote under these circumstances would undermine the intent of the law.

Moreover, the Court noted that the intent of the Constitution and R.A. 9189, as expanded by R.A. 9225, is to allow “duals” to exercise their right to suffrage through the absentee voting scheme, classifying them as overseas absentee voters. Here’s how the decision aligns the legal landscape:

Legal Provision	Description
Constitution, Article V, Section 1	Sets general residency requirements for voting.
Constitution, Article V, Section 2	Authorizes Congress to create absentee voting system for Filipinos abroad.
R.A. 9189 (Overseas Absentee Voting Act)	Implements absentee voting, enfranchising qualified Filipinos abroad.
R.A. 9225 (Citizenship Retention Act)	Allows natural-born Filipinos to retain or reacquire citizenship, expanding the scope of absentee voting to include dual citizens.

The Court considered the derivative citizenship provision in R.A. 9225, which extends citizenship to unmarried children below eighteen years of age. Many of these individuals may never have resided in the Philippines. If these individuals can enjoy full civil and political rights, then there is no reason to deny the same right of suffrage to adult “duals” who meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, in relation to R.A. 9189. Such a situation would be illogical and contrary to the intent of the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Filipinos who reacquired citizenship under R.A. 9225 could vote as overseas absentee voters without meeting the standard residency requirements.
What is R.A. 9225?	R.A. 9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act, allows natural-born Filipinos who become citizens of another country to reacquire or retain their Philippine citizenship.
What is R.A. 9189?	R.A. 9189, also known as the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, implements a system for qualified Filipinos abroad to vote in Philippine elections.
Does this ruling require dual citizens to reside in the Philippines to vote?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that dual citizens are not required to establish residency in the Philippines to exercise their right to vote under the overseas absentee voting system.
Who are considered overseas absentee voters?	Overseas absentee voters are citizens of the Philippines qualified to register and vote under R.A. 9189, who are abroad on the day of the elections and not otherwise disqualified by law.
What rights do dual citizens have under R.A. 9225?	Under R.A. 9225, those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship enjoy full civil and political rights, subject to certain conditions and limitations as specified in the law.
Can children of dual citizens also claim Philippine citizenship?	Yes, Section 4 of R.A. 9225 provides for derivative citizenship, granting Philippine citizenship to unmarried children below eighteen years of age whose parents reacquire Philippine citizenship.
What was the COMELEC’s argument in this case?	The COMELEC argued that dual citizens must re-establish their domicile in the Philippines to vote, based on the residency requirements in the Constitution.
How did the Supreme Court reconcile the conflicting laws?	The Supreme Court reconciled the laws by stating that the intent of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, along with R.A. 9189 and R.A. 9225, allows overseas absentee voting as an exception to the standard residency requirements.

This landmark decision reinforces the right to suffrage for dual citizens, enabling them to participate in Philippine elections from abroad without the prerequisite of residing in the Philippines. By harmonizing the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, the Supreme Court has affirmed the inclusive intent of the law to enfranchise as many qualified Filipinos as possible, regardless of their residency status.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Loida Nicolas-Lewis, et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162759, August 04, 2006