WAIT AND SEE MUNA: Filipinos and ex-Filipinos residing abroad who had been led to believe that a law is about to be signed enabling them to vote in national elections, plebiscites and referenda starting with the 2004 presidential polls better be cautioned against being too optimistic.

There are substantial conflicts between the two bills passed separately by the House and the Senate. It will take Solomonic wisdom to hammer out a compromise that will satisfy the sector it seeks to serve — Filipinos abroad aged 18 years or older.

Meantime the electoral and legislative clocks tick on. Congress is running on an ever-tightening schedule toward the May 2004 polls, the first electoral process covered by the proposed absentee voting law.

Absentee voting will be an entirely new political experience for us. It will surely involve experimentation, errors and frantic corrections, even confusion — and a lot of money.

Aside from the law itself, the administrative network still has to be defined, laid out, staffed and funded. There is no allocation in the proposed 2003 national budget earmarked for the initial absentee voting in 2004. Where do we get the millions for this additional expense?

* * *

TWO ELEMENTS: Section 1 of Article V (Suffrage) of the Constitution says: “Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least 18 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….”

Two key points in discussing absentee voting rights are citizenship and residence. Once the two elements are established, the other points would be easier to tackle.

Both Senate and House versions of the bill deny voting rights to Filipinos who have been naturalized in their country of residence and who in the process may have renounced their Filipino citizenship. This is understandable since suffrage is a right reserved for citizens.

In the gray area are emigrants, who have left the country, are poised to apply for foreign citizenship, and who have taken up permanent residence in their host countries. Technically, they still satisfy the requirement for Filipino citizenship, so the focus shifts to their residence status.

* * *

LET EMIGRANTS VOTE?: The Constitution requires, we repeat, one-year residence in the Philippines and six months in the locality where the citizen-voter intends to vote.

Should Filipinos who have emigrated and have been granted permanent resident status in other countries be allowed to vote?

The House bill says “No” both to emigrants (permanent residents) and those who had been naturalized in other countries. On the other hand, by not explicitly disqualifying emigrants (who are still citizens), the Senate version impliedly glosses over their residence status and allows them to vote.

We agree with the Senate version allowing Filipino emigrants (so-called “green card” holders, if in the US) who are enjoying permanent resident status abroad to vote in national elections, plebiscites and referenda on national issues.

Our basic reason is that they are still Filipinos whose political rights are or should be intact — as long as they have not been naturalized as citizens of the country where they now live, work or study. (It is another story if they have been naturalized.)

* * *

SHRINKING WORLD: With the blurring of national boundaries and with communication technology continuously shrinking time and space, it no longer matters if a citizen is in Manila, Madrid or Manhattan as long as he remains a Filipino with the intention of returning home.

An absentee voting law expands our present interpretation of residence for voting purposes. It will include domicile in another country where a citizen has resided for at least six months.

Now if the Senate prevails and emigrants are deemed to be residents of an administrative community clustered around a Philippine embassy or consulate, what about the other requirement that they must have resided in the Philippines at least one year prior to the election?

Since an absentee voting law cannot amend the Constitution, that one-year residence (in the Philippines) requirement stays. Would we then be inviting a constitutionality challenge to the absentee voting law?

The lawyers are expected to trot out the argument that residence does not mean physically living in the Philippines and that a clear intention to return, in case one is away, is enough to satisfy the residence requirement. We’ll see.

* * *

DUAL CITIZENSHIP: The status and rights of Filipinos who had been naturalized in other countries will be easier to sort out once we pass the companion piece of legislation on dual citizenship.

Ostensibly, the purpose of a dual citizenship law is to define more clearly who are citizens. Once a person is recognized as a citizen — regardless of other citizenships that he may hold — it follows that he could vote if he has all the other qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

The two items (suffrage and citizenship) cannot be taken up in just one bill since every measure must embrace only one subject. Congress should rush action on the dual citizenship measure so it can catch up with the absentee voting bill.

If a law is passed recognizing as citizens certain Filipinos who had been naturalized as citizens of their adoptive countries or allows them to regain their native citizenship by legislation, judicial action or some other process, the list of absentee voters may swell.

We think this is a welcome development as the enfranchising of Filipinos residing abroad and who have been helping prop up the home country would improve the quality of our voting population.

* * *

HOUSE WAS RUSHING: The administrative details have not been laid down. But the general idea is to make our embassies and consulates the voting centers and the nerve centers for operations abroad. Neighboring areas with substantial Filipino communities may be clustered for better administration.

But the Commission on Elections in Manila will be manning the switchboard and calling the shots. Agencies dealing with Filipinos abroad — such as the foreign office, labor department, POEA, OWWA and the Commission on Filipinos Overseas — will lend a hand and incur extra expenses in the process.

In the Senate version, the voter either goes to the embassy/consulate to register and, later, cast his vote personally, or he does all that by mail. Using the mail would be a nightmare in the Philippines, but such mode is feasible, in fact very convenient, in many civilized countries.

Congressmen, scarred veterans of Philippine-style politics, ruled out registration and voting by mail. In the House version, the Filipino voter abroad must go out, register and vote in person.

* * *

CAMPAIGN RULES: The House also banned campaigning abroad, but the Senate allowed it, leaving it to the Comelec to lay down the ground rules.

Was the gathering of Filipinos abroad to meet and listen to President Macapagal Arroyo prohibited? No. In the first place, the President will disclaim ever campaigning. And then, the law has not been passed, so no act is covered by it, yet.

The Senate version is more accommodating to Filipino organizations abroad, allowing them membership in election bodies and watchdog organizations. The House has ruled out their participating in the process.

The House versions reads (to us) more as a rush piece of legislation. It would seem that congressmen, including Speaker Jose de Venecia who promised to resign if the bill was not passed before the last recess, railroaded it and left its polishing to the Senate.