Macalintal vs.

COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner Romulo Macalintal files a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking a
declaration that certain provisions of R.A. 9189 The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
are unconstitutional. The court upholds petitioners right to file the instant petition stating in
essence that the petitioner has seriously and convincingly presented an issue of
transcendental significance to the Filipino people considering that the public funds are to be
used and appropriated for the implementation of said law.
The petitioner contends that Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 which allows the registration of
voters who are immigrants or permanently residing in other countries by merely executing
an affidavit expressing their intention to return to the Philippines, violates the residency
requirement in Art. V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 violates Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 does not violate Art. V, Section 1 of the
Constitution. Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 entitled The Act Providing for a system of Overseas
Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Thereof
and for Other Purposes, provides the disqualification of 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 which the Commission declaring that
he/she resumes actual physical permanent residence in the Philippine not later than three
(3) years from approval of his/her registration under this Act.
The Petitioner posits that Section 5(d) is unconstitutional in that it violates the requirement
that voters must be a resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year and in the place where he
proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election as provided under
Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution. For the resolution of this issue, the Court relied on
Section 2 of Article V of the Constitution which states that: The Congress shall provide a
system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well a system for absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
By the doctrine of necessary implication in statutory construction, which may be applied in
construing constitutional provisions, the strategic location of Section 2 indicates that the
Constitutional Commission provided for an exception to the actual residency requirement of
Section 1 with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. The Commission in effect declared that
qualified Filipinos who are not in the Philippines may be allowed to vote even though they do
not satisfy the residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of the Constitution.

Doctrine of necessary implication: what may be necessarily implied from the statute
should in any event, be consistent with and not contrary to the Constitution or to existing
laws. An implication which is violative of the law is unjustified and unwarranted.