G.R. No. 157013 July 10, 2003
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, in his official capacity as Executive Secretary, and HON. EMILIA T. BONCODIN, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, respondents.

FACTS

Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition as a taxpayer and lawyer, seeking a declaration that specific provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) are unconstitutional. The challenged provisions are: Section 5(d), which allows immigrants or permanent residents abroad to register as voters by executing an affidavit of intent to return to the Philippines; Section 18.5, which empowers the COMELEC to proclaim winning candidates for national offices, including the President and Vice-President; and Section 25, which creates a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee with powers to review, revise, amend, and approve the COMELEC’s Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Petitioner asserts a legal interest as a taxpayer, arguing that the law appropriates public funds for its implementation, and that the expenditure of funds for an unconstitutional statute constitutes a misapplication of public money. He contends these provisions contravene specific constitutional mandates on residency requirements, the congressional duty to proclaim presidential and vice-presidential winners, and the constitutional independence of the COMELEC.

ISSUE

The principal issues are: (1) Whether Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 violates the constitutional residency requirement; (2) Whether Section 18.5 infringes on Congress’s constitutional power to proclaim the President and Vice-President; and (3) Whether Section 25 violates the constitutional independence of the COMELEC by allowing congressional oversight over its rule-making.

RULING

The Court, addressing the transcendental importance of the constitutional right of suffrage involved, assumed jurisdiction over the petition. On the merits, the Court ruled as follows: First, Section 5(d) is constitutional. The affidavit requirement is a sufficient guarantee of the voter’s intent to resume residency, satisfying the constitutional requirement of residency in the Philippines for at least one year prior to the elections. The law does not equate the execution of the affidavit with actual residency but treats it as a concrete manifestation of intent to fulfill the residency requirement, which remains a condition for the exercise of the right to vote.
Second, Section 18.5 is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President. The Constitution explicitly vests the authority to proclaim the winners for these offices in Congress, as stated in Article VII, Section 4. This is a non-delegable power. The provision is declared void, but the severability clause of the law preserves the rest of its provisions.
Third, Section 25 is unconstitutional. The power of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to review, revise, amend, and approve the COMELEC’s IRR constitutes an impermissible intrusion into the rule-making authority of the COMELEC, violating its constitutional independence under Article IX-A, Section 1. Congress is limited to monitoring and ensuring the proper implementation of the law, not to altering or supplanting the COMELEC’s rules. This provision is declared void for infringing on the COMELEC’s independence.