Article V, Sections 1 and 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution among others, provide for the qualifications for voting, as well as as made it mandatory (by the use of the term" shall "), for Congress to provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting for qualified Filipinos abroad. There have been several attempts in both lower and upper house of the legislature, to pass an overseas voting bill but have since failed to muster enough support to pass into law. According to a report of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas, bills on absentee voting were separately filed by Senators Teopisto Guingona, Blas Ople and Raul Roco before the 11th Congress. These senate bills Nos. 463, 469 and 653, seek to enable qualified Filipinos abroad to vote in Filipino elections, the next of which is scheduled in May, 2001.
Senator Raul S. Roco was recently in Geneva and on 28 February took time out from his work at the InterParliamentary Union committee meetings in order to consult with and discuss his views on the overseas voting bills with an enthusiastic cross section of the Geneva Filipino community. He also briefly discussed other issues not related to the bill, such as dual citizenship, taxation, and other topics brought up during the open forum that followed. Senator Roco also encouraged his audience to make known their comments, opinions and views to him either by mail or email to help him in the sponsorship of the bill.
The author is a member and co-Chair of Geneva Forum for Philippine Concerns, and was present during Roco's talk. Geneva Forum for Philippine Concerns is a small non governmental organisation that is primarily into migrants rights advocacy and protection, and is registered with the Canton of Geneve. It is part of a bigger network of about 70 PHilippine NGOs based in 14 European countries, and in the Philippines, and coordinates its efforts mainly with the Commission on Filipino Migrant Workers(CFMW), whose migrant initiatives are centered around a Filipino Migrant Agenda that seek to protect migrants rights in the PHilippines as well as in Europe. Part of this migrant agenda is the advocacy for the early passage of the law on absentee voting. In August last year, CFMW sent a delegation to Manila which met with President Estrada, the Labor Secretary, heads of migrant regulatory offices, and leaders of Congress, to lobby for more migrants rights protection. Most of the observations and views here were previously sent by email to Senator Roco in letter form, in response to his invitation for overseas Filipinos to make known their views to help him in his sponsorship of the bill. The letter to Senator Roco had been revised into this paper's present format, and which now includes additional recommendations in preserving the sanctity of the ballot, observations on potential problem areas, and listing of existing resources which may be utilised to cut on expenses. Hopefully it will generate a healthy and vigorous discussion on the issue, assist our legislators in crafting a bill that will not unduly exclude otherwise qualified voters, and finally to heighten awareness among overseas Filipinos of the importance of exercising their voting rights, and its relation to choosing their future leaders who will genuinely look after their interests.
The Role of NGOs in the Absentee Voting Process
Senator Roco underscored the critical role of non governmental organisations in the absentee voting process. We cannot agree more. NGOs will not only supplement the resources of our PHilippine embassies and missions, they are eminently qualified in ensuring the integrity of the voter registration, campaign , and the actual voting and counting processes, as the prospect of cheating seems to be the general concern of those who are not enthusiastic about this bill. NGOs are in touch with, and enjoy the confidence of overseas Filipinos, particularly the undocumented . They look for their own funds, do not rely on the Philippine government for financial support, and workers services are usually donated. Hence, they have the independence, commitment, and a vast experience in mobilising and organising information campaigns concerning an orderly and clean electoral process abroad.
The role of NGOs or people's organisations is enshrined no less than in Article II, Sec. 23, and Sections 15 and 16 of ARticle XIII of our Constitution. Whether the PHilippine government will admit it or not, NGOs and other support groups abroad have contributed a lot to the amelioration of the welfare of overseas Filipinos, particularly those in distress, as well as in exposing inadequacies in government services abroad which have led to the passage of new laws that give migrants more protection. It must be mentioned that even some foreign governments like France, Italy , Spain, Greece, and others that have administered amnesty programs for undocumented workers within the last few years, have relied upon our own Filipino NGOs to assist them in identifying and screening Filipinos qualified for the amnesty program. As mentioned, NGOs will be able to assist our embassies and missions in screening and going over documents of voter registrants. Since they work directly with migrants, they might be able to identify effectively, or have knowledge of, any legal impediment suffered by a potential registrant.
The Overseas Filipino as a Voter and the Prospect of Cheating
As the good senator himself said, although election cheating can happen anywhere, Filipinos abroad would have a tendency to
be more law abiding . I believe this is because given the huge financial and emotional investment at stake, Filipinos have to be
resourceful, disciplined, and obedient to duly constituted authority, in an effort to enhance their competitiveness, and would
hesitate to do anything that will jeopardise their jobs. Many overseas Filipinos, particularly those in developed countries,
have long been immersed in systems that demand strict adherence to laws and regulations, but which systems give back to
its adherents, most of the perks of good citizenship. Of course bad habits resurface every now and then, but I believe there
is general preference for abiding with law and promoting the common good. For the same reason, I would also say that
overseas Filipinos might have the tendency to focus on issues than on personalities, and can easily distinguish between sincerity
and showmanship. I must add too that overseas Filipinos will be far distant from patronage politics, the real bane of our
electoral processes. Vote buying should never happen abroad because almost everybody earns here, and one will most
probably be as self sufficient as the other. Since voting centers will be the embassies, and are therefore thousands of miles
apart, flying voters should not be considered a threat. If ever there will be cheating, it would not come from the voters, but from
the government itself, and in the counting process.
Provisions of Draft Bill that may Disenfranchise Overseas Voters
Lack of voting registration , residence requirement or for being foreign permanent residents.
One of our primary concerns prior to hearing Senator Roco were that some sections of a draft Absentee Voting Bill that we received on the internet, threaten to disenfranchise a significant portion of overseas Filipinos. As of December 1996, the Commission on Overseas Filipinos, an arm of the Department of Foreign Affairs, estimated that there were approximately 6.49 million Filipinos in 139 countries. These include migrant workers, estimated at 2.71 million, immigrants, estimated at 1.92 million, and the undocumented overseas Filipinos estimated at 1.86 million. Under Section 2, coverage is inclusive only to "All Filipinos abroad who are registered voters in the PHilippines xxxxxxxx". while Sec. 3 disqualifies from absentee voting, " An immigrant who is recognised as such in the host country."
Section 1, Article V(Suffrage) of the Constitution states that the right of suffrage may be exercised by all Filipinos not disqualified by law, who are at least 18 years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year(immediately prior to election) and six months in the place wherein they propose to vote(also immediately prior to election). It is submitted that this refers only to the general exercise of suffrage. The residence requirement clearly refers to those voting in the Philippines, because to hold otherwise would render nugatory the mandate in Section 2 making it mandatory for Congress to provide a system for so that Filipinos residing abroad can vote in absentia. It must be mentioned that under the same Sectioin 1, Congress cannot impose a substantive requirement on the exercise of suffrage, and for it to impose a residence requirement in the Philippines prior to the election or some other requirement that is a physical impossibility, is substantive and is therefore unconstitutional.
Almost all, if not a big majority of overseas Filipinos would have forfeited by now ,any previous voter registration due to prolonged absence from the Philippines. Thus, the draft threatens to arbitrarily deny Filipino immigrants or permanent residents, their political right to vote. This would be unconstitutional and is also unrealistic. When the framers put these absentee voting provisions into our constitution, they must have been conscious of the reality that the absentee Filipinos would be resident abroad and not in the Philippines. To require some form of prolonged Philippine residence or voter registration prior to an election would nullify the constitutional provisions and result in an absurdity. We are relieved then, that in his talk, Senator Roco categorically stated that he was also of the same view, and also considered a strict residence requirement as unrealistic and abhorrent to the very idea of absentee voting.
Voting will be limited only to countries with huge concentration of Filipinos or only where there are diplomatic posts.
The draft bill contained transitory provisions which proposed that voting be only limited to certain places abroad, probably picked on a basis of a heavy concentration of Filipinos. This means those who are not resident of these places will not be able to vote. We submit that there is no valid justification for disenfranchising a Filipino citizen just because there are not enough Filipinos or there is no diplomatic post in a given locality. Given the advanced state of telecommunications at present, even Filipinos working and residing in places where there are no diplomatic posts or where these are inaccessible, should be able to vote by fax, email or any other means similar to current global banking or commercial practice that allow confirmation of identity anywhere in the world. There are PHilippine posts in most of the 139 countries where there are Filipinos, and I believe that it is better that the privilege to vote in the next elections are already established by law, rather than restrict voting only to certain posts. Sec. 1, ARticle V of the Constitution already established who are qualified to vote, and if implementing legislation for absentee voting effectively bars certain Filipinos from voting in absentia on account of some physical inconvenience or the absence of diplomatic posts, it would be tantamount to amending the aforementioned constitutional provisions, much in the same way that disenfranchisement would result if Filipino residents overseas are disqualified from voting just because they are residents abroad or could not present a previous voter registration.
Potential Problem Areas/Technicalities
The taxation issue.
Overseas Filipinos, whether documented or undocumented, rarely report to their embassy unless they have to renew their passports, have a document authenticated or secure some other consular service. It is the practice of diplomatic posts to require an overseas Filipino worker to declare and pay income taxes before a passport is issued or renewed. While it is true that the Comprehensive Tax Reform Act had exempted income of overseas workers from tax, this is effective only for income made beginning 1998 onwards, but not previous years income, which up to now, are levied prior to rendering a consular service. We have an estimated 1.86 million undocumented workers many of whom are exploited by employers by reason of their status, and who receive substandard salaries(some receive 100US dollars/month), are overworked, abused, and receive no social security or health insurance at all. But because they still have to remit the bulk of it to their folks back home, every centime counts.
Hence, matters like the Nationality Principle, and the patriotic duty of overseas Filipinos to pay taxes to their government, are principles that are difficult to explain and justify to migrants particularly when their meager salaries are reduced even further by the government, especially too when there is a yawning communication gap between migrants and their respective consular officials. If we are to attract our overseas voters to come forward to the missions and exercise their right of suffrage, there should be a moratorium on tax collection, at least for the duration of the election period. I believe that the campaign for voter registration and registration of overseas Filipinos with their embassies or consulates may be done simultaneously, but it should be made clear that these are done without any strings attached or hidden agenda.
Problems of Documentation.
There are many Filipinos overseas who have traveled abroad using another name, or passports belonging to other persons. Many of them still use these passports, although others have corrected this irregularity by obtaining a passport in their true names. But it is believed the majority who still carry spurious documentation will continue to do so until they no longer have a choice. It will be difficult to get them to come forward and apply for registration, for fear their status will expose them to prosecution not only in the Philippines but in the host country as well. The only way that this problem may be addressed would be for NGOs and consular officials to get together and plan out an unobtrusive campaign for the regularisation of documents This of course needs careful study and involves not only the issue of voter qualification but also the issue of legal status, but I would surmise this would require no less than assurances of immunity from prosecution, and a more sympathetic attitude from our consular officials.
Role of former Filipinos in the process.
Another interesting point brought up is the possible role in absentee voting electoral process, of Overseas Filipinos who are Naturalised citizens of the host countries, who while perhaps not being able to vote, might be called upon to perform roles that do not in any direct way, interfere with the election result. There are many overseas Filipinos now naturalised, who still passionately love and keep close ties with the motherland, and participate in activities abroad that they believe will be for the good of our people and country. Even now, there are NGOs that we know, at least in Europe and the Philippines, which are actively working for the passage of the overseas voting bill. These groups not only work for the bill's passage, but they also organise various symposia and discussions, as well as publish newsletters that aim to inform overseas Filipinos on various important issues that affect our country and our people, particularly overseas Filipinos. And not a few of these foreign based NGOs have volunteers and staff who are already of foreign citizenship usually due to marriage to foreigners, and who, technically, as far as I remember our election law, are not allowed to engage in any partisan electoral activity.
The key word is partisan, and I believe that an absentee voting bill should allow and even encourage them to engage in certain aspects of the political exercise that will not directly or indirectly influence the election of any particular candidate or party, such as dissemination of information , generating more awareness on the respective platforms of candidates and their political records and professional achievements, assisting our diplomatic posts in screening registrants, and assisting the registrants themselves in assembling documents of identification and informing them about the importance of the electoral exercise . Allowing these activities would provide them an important outlet for expressing their patriotic sentiments in place of actually voting in the elections. Thus the potential of voters coming from the ranks of dual nationals could also be effectively minimised.
Dual citizenship/a unique case of dual citizenship
Dual citizenship is another issue important to overseas Filipinos. As articulated by several Filipinos during the open forum, Filipinos have taken to another nationality basically in order to survive and be competitive in the foreign countries where they reside. But deep inside, they are still Filipinos. As we commented during the open forum, it is dual allegiance, and not dual citizenship, that our constitution finds anathema.
While it is obvious that Filipino citizens who have acquired foreign citizenship by choice or by swearing allegiance to another country may not yet be allowed to vote, there is a situation where Filipinas married to foreigners who acquired the citizenship of their husbands not by choice or swearing allegiance to another country, but by operation of law. Since our constitution provides that marriage by a Filipina does not operate to deprive her of Philippine citizenship, these Filipinas are technically dual citizens, but do not necessarily owe simultaneous allegiance to the PHilippines and to the country of their husbands.
As we said, citizens who acquired foreign nationality by swearing allegiance to a foreign country may not be allowed to vote because they are deemed to have lost PHilippine citizenship, but those who acquired it by operation of law without swearing allegiance to a foreign government, should not be disqualified from voting. We know that our foreign office will have a difficulty accepting this distinction, but we believe this should be made clear while deliberating the overseas voting bill. It appears that this case does not need to go through a constitutional amendment.
Some Recommendations for a Simple Process of Voter Registration and Voting
Last August, when our Europe delegation requested President Estrada to certify an overseas voting bill to Congress, he was not very enthusiastic because of the government's lack of money. However, Senator Roco advised that the President had included the subject in his State of the Nation Address, and hopefully he will certify the bill as urgent to Congress. If this happens, then theoretically, a bill would have smooth sailing in congress, and theoretically, could pass within a few days. This only proves that "kung talagang gusto natin, puede." Anyway if we are concerned about the lack of resources, we believe it would be advisable to take an inventory of what we really need to do and what resources we already have that can be utilised in setting up the mechanisms necessary to ensure orderly and foolproof procedures of absentee voting.
a.For documented Migrants.
Official estimates of POEA place the stock of OCWs(migrant workers, not including immigrants) at 4.2 million in 1995. Of these, 2.4 million are documented, with the bulk going to Middle East Countries, mainly to Saudia Arabia. The POEA processed the documentation of these 2.4 million documented OCWs,all of whom had to prove that they are Filipinos, are over 18, have no criminal records, and are physically and mentally fit- basically the same qualifications for the exercise of suffrage. Having gone through a travel documentation process which is perhaps a hundred times more rigorous than a simple voters registration process, we do not see why overseas Filipinos who wish to vote have to go through yet another registration process which demand the same requirements.
Why not let the official list of migrants on file with the POEA be considered as a voters list of qualified absentee voters who will be automatically allowed to vote.The Comelec/POEA can simply just notify the migrant through their official foreign work addresses that they are eligible to vote, and which they can exercise either by proceeding to the embassy or other voting center and vote, after identifying himself with his passport or POEA ID, or send his ballot by mail to the voting centers designated. This simple system will save the government the expense of having to process 2.4 million applications, and will merely entail confirming the overseas voter's eligibility to vote and informing him/her of his voter's security code or number, sending ballots to those who wish to vote by mail, and confirming the authenticity of the ballot cast or mailed by the voter, and then counting the votes.
Sec. 20 of RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides for the establishment of a Shared government information system for migration:
"An interagency committee composed of the Department of Foreign Affairs and its attached agency, the Commission on Filipinos Overseas, the Department of Labor and Employment, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration, the Department of Tourism, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Immigration, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the National Statistics Office shall be established to implement a shared government information system for migration. The inter-agency committee shall initially make available to itself the information contaioned in existing data bases/files. The second phase shall involve linkaging of computer facilities in order to allow free-flow data exchanges and sharing among concerned agencies.
The inter-agency committee shall convene to identify existing data bases which shall be declassified and shared among member agencies. These shared data bases shall initially include, but not be limited to, the following information:
Incidentally, Section 77 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations implementing RA 8042, mentions an allocation of the amount of P10,000,000 from the PCSO to carry out this shared government information system for migration, and thereeafter, the actual budget of the Inter-Agency Committee shall be drawn from the General Appropriations Act in accordance with Section 38 of RA 8042. Further, these master lists are to be reported by the Department of Foreign Afairs and Department of Labor and Employment to Congress under Sec. 33 of the same law, with penalties for failure to submit such reports. Theoretically therefore, our government should already have the official master lists of documented overseas contract workers, seafarers, and others who have gone through the passporting process of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Further, there are supposed to be already computer linkages between these agencies who have these records. So we have the basic tools as suggested above, for utilising existing resources for the absentee voting process, by just linking the Comelec to the system.
To preserve the ballot's sanctity, Comelec/POEA can assign security codes or numbers and which will be sent to the migrant's official foreign address(through his employer or recruiter sometime prior to the election. This security number or code will be known only to the migrant, so that when the official ballot is received, either from the embassy, if voting in person, or by mail, she or he will be required to fill out such code or number in a space provided in the ballot. Perhaps the official ballot can also already print the names of all the candidates, and all the voter has to do would be to check or blacken a space corresponding to the choice- thus, the computer can easily validate the ballots by reading the security codes, and then proceed to count the votes.
Through this method, spurious ballots could not be fed to the computer because the machine is programmed only to read ballots with security codes. If ever some people or groups wish to subvert the ballot, they would have to connive with those in possession of the master list of migrant voters and their security codes or those operating the computer which counts the votes. Knowing that it is only the POEA, the Comelec and perhaps the consular personnel who have access to the whole voting process, that in itself is a built-in deterrent to those who may wish to cooperate in destabilising the electoral process. Banks and credit card companies are businesses which rely on their computers in order to process , authenticate and confirm millions of banking transactions or credit card purchases done daily and globally. Airline companies in modern airports likewise confirm boarding passes of passengers by feeding them to a machine that is connected to a computer. We are quite confident our technical and computer experts would be able to adapt such systems to work for our absentee voting system, perhaps even for the regular voters in the Philippines.
b. Seafarers
In the same manner, the NSO can generate the same list of seafarers, and automatically allow them to vote by mail, if at sea, or appearing personally at the nearest diplomatic post.
c. Immigrants and Permanent Residents.
The Commission on Overseas Filipinos-DFA which, as of December 1996, have processed immigrants estimated at 1.92 million should be allowed to generate the same voters list from those they have processed, and we would have saved the government again, millions in time, money, and manpower.
d. List of registered Filipinos in diplomatic posts.
Diplomatic posts also do have a list of Filipinos whose Phlippine citizenship could be confirmed because they have been issued PHilippine passports or travel documents or an ID card, through the authentication of documents by consular officials, or paid taxes to the Philippine government for income earned abroad. These Filipinos should be automatically allowed to vote without
further application on the same rationale as above.
Dissemination of information will be done by diplomatic posts, NGOs and service organisations abroad and through a media campaign, advising such overseas Filipinos through their employers, recruitment or shipping agents, of their eligibility to vote. The POEA has records of their foreign work addresses through their employers or recruiters. Those wishing to vote may just go to their embassies on election day, while those far from posts, may request for official ballots which may then be returned by mail even before election day.
Sec. 19 of RA 8042 , and Sec. 41 of the DFA Implementing Rules, calls for the establishment of Filipinos Resource Centers in countries where there are at least 20,000 migrant workers, and which would provide counseling, legal assistance , information programs, and registration of undocumented workers, and other services, and staffed by foreign service personnel, and if available, individual volunteers and bonafide nongovernment organisations from the host countries. This existing structure can be utilised for the registration and voting process. If the DFA intends to improve its registration of Filipinos abroad, maybe this can now be done simultaneously with voter registration. Sec. 41of the Implementing Rules may be modified, by making mandatory the membership of a local NGO representative in the Filipino Resource Center, instead of just leaving it to the embassy or mission officials to call on NGOs whenever they feel like it. To be accredited to the PHilippine mission, NGOs should be also accredited or recognised by the host country government , must not receive Philippine government funding, and have a good track record for assisting overseas Filipinos.
As we previously suggested, voter registration can also be utilised as an effective means of improving the registration and statistics on overseas Filipinos. When Filipinos are notified of their eligibility to vote on the basis of the migrants master list, the POEA/Comelec can attach a registration form that must be filled out and submitted , if the vote is cast personally, or mailed together with the ballot to the diplomatic posts nearest their residence abroad. It will not only serve as another confirmation of identity for voting purposes, it will also constitute registration as an overseas Filipino.
To ensure further the integrity of the voting process in the field, observers from international organisations and foreign media should be invited to witness the voting process. In fact, international agencies which have advanced and sophisticated computers might be able to be called upon to assist or improve our management information systems.
Voting in Person. Any person in the migrant list above, or anyone with a valid passport, POEA ID or some other identification, may cast his or her vote personally in the diplomatic posts or voting center near his residence, and the votes counted in the presence of consular officials, NGO representatives, volunteer watchers and possibly international observers.
Ballots sent by mail. I believe that ballots sent by mail should not be sent to the Comelec, but to the diplomatic posts nearest the voter. We have nothing against the Comelec, but our postal authorities cannot still prevent or even minimise pilferage of letters. On the other hand, the postal system abroad is generally safe, and besides, which foreign postal authority would care about our voting process?
Voting Period. Migrants normally have different days off while working abroad, and most of these off days or hours occur on weekends or past office hours. Some unlucky ones do not even have days off. It is suggested that voters, whether voting personally or by mail, be given perhaps two weeks prior to the election, within which to cast their vote. This would address the time problem, as well as compensate for possible delays in the postal system in some countries.
Counting of votes. Ballots cast in person or by mail, will all be received by the diplomatic posts or field voting centers, and must be counted thereat, and therefore should be considered the primary results of the election results from overseas voting. Counting may be done manually in case the voting centers do not have the special computer equipment designed for validating and counting of votes, in which case, votes counted can be sent right away to Comelec by email . Votes counted by special computer equipment should simultaneously register with Comelec if there is an online link that it should have.
Applicants for voter registration not appearing in the above lists, should be made to undergo a fairly simple procedure. If there is doubt or a need to confirm the authenticity of an application, resort should be made to the network of government agencies mentioned above, t hat would normally have extant records of a persons Philippine citizenship and other voter qualifications. These agencies would be the DFA itself, the Bureau of Immigration and National Computer Center, which have passenger records, the SSS or GSIS, and the NBI, among others. Now that our government has or is supposed to have a shared migrant information system, all we have to do it to consult computer experts to write programs linking the various computer systems of these offices to the diplomatic posts or the Comelec where applications for voting are going to be received. As we said, the idea is to utilise existing resources, and not to require hosts of documents or bureaucratic procedures.
In this way, the government will be able to apportion and properly farm out where and how much resources should be concentrated on a given place. 64% of our OCWs are in the middle east, 30% in East Asia and the Asean, while the rest go to North America and Europe. Knowledge of where overseas workers are will also give an idea of what sort of communication facilities are available on site and what type of resources will still be needed to augment where there is inadequacy.
It is hoped that our legislators will be open minded, creative, and less bureaucratic or restrictive, in the deliberations of the absentee voting bill. We also hope that our executive agencies like the POEA have done their homework by completing the master lists of migrants and submitting them to Congress, and have implemented the computer linkaging as envisioned in RA 8042.
The Senate had tried in the past at least 6 times to pass an overseas voting bill, the lower house 8 times. During President Ramos' term, so many bills of a more complicated nature were passed. It is indeed a wonder that despite the vast repository of talent we have in both houses of Congress, a simple law allowing suffrage to overseas Filipinos has always fallen by the wayside. Is it a question of lack of funds, or lack of priorities? Only our legislators can answer that.
To be fair, the efforts of past administrations and legislatures were concentrated in reconstructuring our economy and restoring democratic processes left in shambles by 20 years of martial rule. There ought to be no more excuse now for our legislature and executive branch to get their acts together and pass an enabling law allowing absentee voting. However, there might still be some quarters who do not favor overseas voting. I would surmise objections would come from traditional politicians who fear the political clout of seven million potentially independent, less corruptible, and discriminating overseas voters. Others say that allowing overseas voting will only increase the number of voters who will choose candidates on the basis of physical attributes or popularity rather than solid achievements. Actually a number of overseas Filipinos themselves feel that they are abroad to work, and should not involve themselves with political exercises. Of course this is not the point, and we hope that the debate has gone beyond whether it is wise to give overseas voters a chance to vote. The constitutional mandate is there and we cannot continue denying overseas Filipinos the right to choose their leaders.
I. F. BAGASAO
Chemin des Tuileries 6
1293 Bellevue, Geneve
Switzerland
Tel (41 22) 774 1955
Email: tbagasao@worldcom.ch
See also: Materials on Overseas Voting
