SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Constitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of contemporary events. They should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that a Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels, but at the same time bend with the refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events.[1cräläwvirtualibräry

The deliberations on this case have been blessed with extensive and exhaustive discussions by the justices. The ponencia itself as well as the separate, the concurring and the dissenting opinions ably written by my esteemed colleagues scrutinized its many aspects and ramifications. Their thoroughness and scholarship helped distill the issues and enabled the Court to arrive at an informed judgment.

It is quite clear that there is unanimity of opinion in declaring unconstitutional those portions of RA 9189 (1) granting Congress oversight powers over the Comelec Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR); and (2) giving Comelec authority to proclaim presidential and vice-presidential winners -- a power expressly lodged in Congress by the Constitution.

Obviously, however, there is diversity of opinion on the question of whether Filipinos, who have become permanent foreign residents, may be allowed to vote after executing an affidavit showing an intent to reside in the Philippines within three years therefrom.

I will no longer belabor the penetrating legal pros and contras discussed by the justices in connection with this important issue. Let me just add one more point in favor of the constitutionality of the aforementioned provision in Section 5(d) of RA 9189.[2 It is a point that is borne, not of strict legalese, but of practical common sense that even lay persons will understand.[3 The Information Age has shrunk the world, enabled Filipinos abroad to keep abreast with current events in our country, and thus empowered them to be able to vote wisely for our national leaders.

Qualifications

of Voters

Let me start my explanation of my position by recalling that our Constitution[4 requires voters to possess, on the day of the election, a minimum of three qualities or attributes relating to (1) citizenship, (2) age and (3) residence. In addition, our fundamental law says that the citizen must not otherwise be disqualified by law from voting.

On the first, only those who owe allegiance to a country have the right to select its leaders and determine its destiny. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Thus, only Filipinos may vote in the Philippines; aliens cannot. By the same token, only Americans may vote in America,[5 and only Indians may vote in India.[6cräläwvirtualibräry

The second qualification, age, assures that only those who have reached the natural mental maturity are enfranchised to choose independently and sensibly. Hence, only those who have reached 18, the age of majority, are allowed to vote; only those capacitated by the law to enter into binding obligations and contracts[7 are allowed to elect the persons who would make and execute the law.

On the third, residence of at least one year in the Philippines -- of which six months must be in the place where the ballot is cast -- is required of voters. In our case today, this residence requirement is the crux or centerpoint. I respectfully submit that to understand how to interpret this qualification in relation to the Overseas Absentee Voting Law, it is necessary to inquire into the reason for requiring it as a condition for suffrage. Why does the Constitution insist on residence as a prerequisite to voting?

Reason for

Residence Requirement

I believe that, traditionally, the law requires residence[8 because presence in a certain locality enables a person to know the needs and the problems of that area. Equally important, it also makes one become acquainted with the candidates -- their qualifications, suitability for a particular office and platform of government.

Thus, the fundamental law requires, not just that there be a minimum of one-year residence in the country, but also that six months of that period be spent in the place where the ballot is to be cast. Such detailed requirement will hopefully give the voters sufficient knowledge about a specific town as to help them choose its local officials wisely, quite apart from understanding enough of the entire country so as to prepare them to vote sagaciously for national leaders.

The Supreme Court had occasions to discuss this common-sense reason for the residence requirement, in this wise:

We stress that the residence requirement is rooted in the desire that officials of districts or localities be acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their constituencies but, more important, with the constituents themselves their needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and development, and all matters vital to their common welfare. The requisite period would give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with their desired constituencies, and likewise for the electorate to evaluate the formers qualifications and fitness for the offices they seek.[9cräläwvirtualibräry

[T]he purpose of the residency requirement [is] to ensure that the person elected is familiar with the needs and problems of his constituency[.][10cräläwvirtualibräry

Although the foregoing discussions were used to justify the residence requirement vis--vis candidates for elective public offices, I believe that their rationale can easily and analogically fit the needs of voters as well.

The Essence

of My Opinion

The defining essence of my position is this: in the midst of the now available e-age communications facilities, actual presence in the Philippines is no longer indispensible to make discerning Filipinos know the problems of their country and to decide who among candidates for national positions deserve their mandate.

Indeed, the Information Age has given overseas Filipinos convenient means to inform themselves of our countrys needs, as well as of the suitability of candidates for national offices. After all, many of them live abroad, not because they want to abandon their land of birth, but because they have been constrained to do so by economic, professional, livelihood and other pressing pursuits. Ineluctably, they remit their hard-earned money to help their relatives here and their country as a whole.

Verily, their easy access to Philippine mass media keep them constantly aware of happenings in their native country. National dailies and other periodicals are sold regularly in Filipino enclaves in foreign shores. Several local and community publications in these areas cater mainly to Filipino expatriates, publishing news and opinions not only about their alien neighborhoods, but also quite extensively about their homeland.[11cräläwvirtualibräry

So, too, Philippine news and magazine-type broadcasts are available to overseas Filipinos on a daily basis over cable television, giving them the feeling and the intellectual status of being home. Interactive TV talk shows are now routinely participated in via long distance phones and cell phone text messages by people everywhere. Even more conveniently available are the websites of major dailies. Whatever news and views they print locally are instantly accessible everywhere on earth via the Internet.

Truly, the e-age has opened windows to the Philippines in a pervasive and thorough manner, such that actual presence in the country is no longer needed to make an intelligent assessment of whom to vote for as our national leaders.

I make this emphasis on national officials, because the Absentee Voting Law allows overseas voting only for President, Vice President, senators and party-list representatives.¹² This distinction is important, because the information available through websites and other modern media outlets is addressed mainly to national concerns.

To insist that only those who can demonstrate actual physical residence in the country for one year -- or only those who have complied with the more difficult-to-understand concept of domicile -- would be entitled to vote would be to cling adamantly and unreasonably to a literal interpretation of the Constitution without regard for its more liberating spirit or rationale. Such insistence would result in rendering inutile any meaningful effort to accord suffrage to Filipinos abroad.[13 Such proposition would make the constitutional interpretation anachronous in the face of the refreshing and pulsating realities of the world. In my view, it would be thoroughly unreasonable to expect foreign-based Filipinos to come back here for one year every three years and abandon their jobs just to be able to comply literally with the residential requirement of suffrage.

On the other hand, the advances of science and technology -- especially in the fields of computerization, miniaturization, digitization, satellite communications and fiber optics -- has so expanded the capabilities of our brothers and sisters abroad as to enable them to understand our national needs, without having to sit back and stay here for one continuous year. They are now able to help us bridge those needs, not only by remitting their hard-earned currency, but also by assisting locally based Filipinos to choose national leaders who will steer the country in the perilous new paths of development and peace.

Conclusion

In sum, I respectfully submit that physical presence in the country is no longer indispensible to arm Filipinos abroad with sufficient information to enable them to vote intelligently. The advent of the Information Age and the globalization of knowledge have empowered them to know enough about the Philippines to enable them to choose our national officials prudently and, in the process, to have a significant voice in the governance of the country they love and cherish.

I maintain that the constitutional provision on voter residence -- like every other law -- must be interpreted not by the letter that killeth but by the spirit that giveth life. As heralded by the quotation from Taada v. Angara, cited at the opening of this Opinion, our Constitution should be construed so it may bend with the refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events.

Finally, may I stress that when the reason for the law is accomplished, then the law itself is fulfilled. Since the law requiring residence is accomplished by the globalization of information, then the law itself is fulfilled. It is time to empower our overseas brothers and sisters to participate more actively in nation building by allowing them to help elect our national leaders.

WHEREFORE, I vote to uphold the constitutionality of Section 5 (d) of RA 9189. I also vote to declare as unconstitutional portions of Section 18.5 thereof insofar as they authorize Comelec to proclaim presidential and vice-presidential winners; and of Sections 17.1, 19 and 25 insofar as they subject to congressional oversight, review and approval the implementation of voting by mail and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Comelec.

---

Endnotes:

[1 Taada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, 64, May 2, 1997, per Panganiban, J.

[2 5(d) of RA 9189 states:

The following shall be disqualified from voting under this Act:

x x x

d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country, 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 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 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.

[3 I have always believed that the Constitution should, as much as possible, be interpreted in the sense understood by ordinary citizens. Thus, in my first opinion as a member of the Court, I wrote in my Dissent in Marcos v. Comelec, 255 SCRA xi, xv, October 25, 1995, the following:

The Constitution is the most basic law of the land. It enshrines the most cherished aspirations and ideals of the population at large. It is not a document reserved only for scholarly disquisitions by the most eminent legal minds of the land. The Constitution is not intended for lawyers to quibble over [or] to define legal niceties and articulate nuances about, in the ascertainment of its import. Its contents and words should be interpreted in the sense understood by the ordinary men and women who place their lives on the line in its defense, and who pin their hopes for a better life on its fulfillment.

See also J.M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413, 423, February 18, 1970, per Fernando, J., in which the Court declared that the Constitution is not primarily a lawyers document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the peoples consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have in common use.

[4 1 of Art. V of the Constitution provides:

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. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

[5 http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/citizenship/responsibilities.php

[6 http://www.eci.gov.in/infoeci/elec_sys/elecsys_fs.php

[7 The Family Code of the Philippines as amended by RA 6809 states:

ART 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen years.

ART 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases.

[8 I will no longer take up the question of whether residence should be equated with domicile, or the impact of this equation, as these matters are already adequately discussed in the Opinions of my colleagues.

[9 Torayno Sr. v. Commission on Elections, 337 SCRA 574, 587, August 9, 2000, per Panganiban, J.

[10 Perez v. Commission on Elections, 375 Phil. 1106, 1119, October 28, 1999, per Mendoza, J. See also Aquino v. Commission on Elections, 248 SCRA 400, September 18, 1995.

[11 For instance, the Filipino Reporter, published in the East Coast of the US, has successfully done this service for over 30 years now.

[12 The Absentee Voting Law (RA 9189) states:

SEC. 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.

[13 Overseas voting is mandated by 2 of Art. V of the Constitution as follows:

SEC. 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.