Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SD3ERH
SD3ERH
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
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)1 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.
The Court upholds the right of petitioner to file the present petition.
R.A. No. 9189, entitled, "An Act Providing for A System of Overseas
Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes," appropriates funds
under Section 29 thereof which provides that a supplemental budget on the
General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into law shall
provide for the necessary amount to carry out its provisions. Taxpayers,
such as herein petitioner, have the right to restrain officials from wasting
public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute.2 The
Court has held that they may assail the validity of a law appropriating public
funds3 because expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the
purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of
such funds.4
The challenged provision of law involves a public right that affects a great
number of citizens. The Court has adopted the policy of taking jurisdiction
over cases whenever the petitioner has seriously and convincingly
presented an issue of transcendental significance to the Filipino people.
This has been explicitly pronounced in Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa
Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Tan,5 where the Court held:
Objections to taxpayers’ suit for lack of sufficient personality standing, or
interest are, however, in the main procedural matters. Considering the
importance to the public of the cases at bar, and in keeping with the Court’s
duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or not the other
branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the
Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion
given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of procedure and
has taken cognizance of these petitions.6
Indeed, in this case, the Court may set aside procedural rules as the
constitutional right of suffrage of a considerable number of Filipinos is
involved.
. . . despite the inhibitions pressing upon the Court when confronted with
constitutional issues, it will not hesitate to declare a law or act invalid when
it is convinced that this must be done. In arriving at this conclusion, its only
criterion will be the Constitution and God as its conscience gives it in the
light to probe its meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and
political considerations are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decisions.
Blandishment is as ineffectual as intimidation, for all the awesome power of
the Congress and Executive, the Court will not hesitate "to make the
hammer fall heavily," where the acts of these departments, or of any
official, betray the people’s will as expressed in the Constitution . . .9
The need to consider the constitutional issues raised before the Court is
further buttressed by the fact that it is now more than fifteen years since the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution requiring Congress to provide a system
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. Thus, strong reasons of
public policy demand that the Court resolves the instant petition10 and
determine whether Congress has acted within the limits of the Constitution
or if it had gravely abused the discretion entrusted to it.11
A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 allowing the registration of
voters who are immigrants or permanent residents in other countries by
their mere act of executing an affidavit expressing their intention to return to
the Philippines, violate the residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V
of the Constitution?
A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 violate Section 1, Article V
of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines?
Section 5(d) provides:
.........