G.R. No.

120295 June 28, 1996

JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL
R. LEE, respondents.

3.

G.R. No. 123755 June 28, 1996

RAUL R. LEE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JUAN G.
FRIVALDO, respondents.

Resolution suspending the proclamation of Frivaldo.

Frivaldo assails the resolutions based on Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code. He contends that the failure of the Comelec to act on the
petition for disqualification within fifteen days prior to the election is a
jurisdictional defect which renders the said Resolutions null and void.
The Consolidated Issues

PANGANIBAN, J.
Who should be declared the rightful governor of Sorsogon:
a. Juan G. Frivaldo - Despite lack of Philippine citizenship, Frivaldo was elected
governor with a margin of 27,000 votes in the 1988 elections, 57,000 in 1992, and
20,000 in 1995 over Raul Lee. Twice, he was disqualified but now claims that he
now has Philippine Citizenship.
b. Raul R. Lee second highest votes
c. Oscar G. Deri - The incumbent Vice-Governor who should ascend
Lee vs. Commission on Elections
This is a special civil action under for certiorari and preliminary injunction to review
and annul a Resolution of the respondent Comelec denying petitioner's (Raul Lee)
motion for reconsideration.
The Facts

Juan G. Frivaldo filed for candidacy for governorship. This was contested by
Raul Lee who filed a petition with the Comelec praying that Frivaldo be
disqualified because he was not a Filipino citizen.
Second Division of the Comelec promulgated a Resolution granting petition.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo remained unacted upon
until after the elections. His candidacy continued and he was voted. Three
days after, the Comelec affirmed the previous Resolution.
Board of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election and determined
that Frivaldo garnered the largest number of votes, followed by Lee.
Lee filed another petition praying for his proclamation as Governor
Petition was granted. Lee was declared Governor.
Frivaldo filed a new petition. He alleged that he already took his oath of
allegiance on June 30, 1995 and that there was no more legal impediment
his proclamation as governor.
In the alternative, Frivaldo averred that pursuant to the case of Labo vs.
Comelec, the Vice-Governor should occupy said position of governor.
On December 19, 1995, the Comelec First Division annulled the
proclamation of Lee and proclaimed Frivaldo as rightful governor.
Lee filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Comelec.
Thus, the a petition was filed (GR123755).

Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections (same facts)

This is a petition to annul three Resolutions of the respondent Comelec

1.
2.

Resolution disqualifying Frivaldo from running for governor of Sorsogon

Resolution of the Comelec en banc, promulgated on May 11, 1995; and

1.

Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal?

Is it enough to qualify him to be proclaimed Governor?

May it be given retroactive effect?

2.

Is Frivaldo's disqualification for lack of Filipino citizenship a continuing bar

to his eligibility to run for, be elected to or hold office as governor?

3.
4.
5.

Did the respondent Comelec have jurisdiction over Frivaldos petition?

Was the proclamation of Lee valid and legal?
Did the respondent Commission on Elections exceed its jurisdiction in
promulgating the assailed Resolutions, given the Election Code provision?

Issue 1: Frivaldo's Repatriation

Lees Contention
Lee argues that P.D. No. 725 had been
repealed. Cory Aquino in a
memorandum which directed the special
committee on naturalization to cease
and desist from undertaking any and all
proceedings.
There were serious irregularities in the
proceeding. The application was
approved only in a day, which
prevented careful evaluation of merits.
Citizenship could only be effective as of
Jun30,95 whereas the citizenship
qualification prescribed must exist on
the date of his election, if not when the
certificate of candidacy is filed

Court Findings
- President Aquino did not expressly
state that P.D. 725 was being repealed.
It was just an executive policy.
- It is a basic rule that repeals by
implication are not favored unless it is
clear that the two laws cannot co-exist.
- no repeal
- Frivaldo actually filed on Aug17,94 and
that the special committee was
reactivated only on Jun8,95. The process
is easy and does not take much time.
- Presumption of regularity of
performance is to be rebutted.
- Reference was mere obiter dictum
- Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code
does not specify any particular date or
time when the candidate must possess
citizenship

Purpose of the citizenship qualification is so that no person owing

allegiance to another nation shall govern our people.
Impediment no longer existed.
It should be noted that Section 39 of the Local Government Code speaks of
qualifications of officials, not of candidates. Citizenship is necessary at
the time he is proclaimed and at the start of his term.

Sub-Issue 1: Is Frivaldos election valid given that it is also a requirement that he

be a voter, which in turn necessitates that he be a Phlippine citizen?

While the concern in citizenship is allegiance, being a registered voter

requires that the official be registered as a voter IN THE AREA OR
TERRITORY he seeks to govern.
Lee has not disputed that Frivaldo is a registered voter of Sorsogon, and
that the latters registration as a voter was sustained valid by judicial
declaration. Frivaldo has voted in four elections.
Frivaldo is a registered voter

Sub-Issue 2: Should the repatriation be given retroactive effect?

Laws which creates new rights are given retroactive effect.

P.D. 725 creates a new right and also provides for a new remedy.
o It granted a new right to women to re-acquire Filipino citizenship
during their marriage to an alien; new right in favor of other
natural born Filipinos who lost their Philippine citizenship but now
desire to re-acquire Philippine citizenship through an easier
process (repatriation instead of naturalization).
Therefore, it was intended to give the decree retroactive effect
Not just the decree, but even the repatriation granted under said
law to Frivaldo is to be deemed to have retroacted to the date of
his application on August 17, 1994.
Retroactivity to the date of filing would prevent prejudice to applicants.
If not given retroactive effect, applicants may become stateless.
Since his repatriation has retroactive effect, his registration as a
voter is validated.
Retroactivity would not grant Frivaldo dual citizenship (which could have
disqualified him) since he had long renounced his American citizenship. He
was stateless when he renounced his US citizenship until repatriation.

Issue 2: Is Lack of Citizenship a Continuing Disqualification?

Lee: Court's two rulings that Frivaldo is an alien (previous elections) have
become final and executory and is a continuing bar.
NO. Decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship
cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a
person may subsequently reacquire or lose his citizenship.

Issue 3: Does the Comelec have Jurisdiction Over Frivaldos Petition?

Lee: proclaimed on June 30, 1995 and Frivaldo filed the petition beyond
the 5-day reglementary period.
YES to issue. The Comelec has to power annul proclamations.

This is based on an assumption that the proclamation is no

proclamation at all. Assumption of office cannot deprive the
COMELEC of the power of declaration of nullity.

Power to annul a proclamation must be done within ten days after

proclamation and petition was filed after six. Comelec had jurisdiction.

Issue 4: Was Lees Proclamation Valid?

Lee: Had the people been aware of Frivaldos disqualification, they would
not have voted for him. The electorate intentionally wasted their votes.
It has not been shown that Frivaldos ineligibility was notoriously known.
Decision as to the disqualification of candidate was not yet final as well.
NO to issue. If Frivaldo was disqualified, the vice-governor ascends. In
losing the election, Lee was obviously not the choice of the people
The ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the
eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be
declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed
elected to the office.

Issue 5: Is Section 78 of the Election Code Mandatory?

Frivaldo claims that the assailed Resolutions of the Comelec disqualifying

him should be annulled because of the 15-day prescription period.
Issue is now moot and academic since it was already superseded by
subsequent resolutions declaring Frivaldo governor.
Section 78 is merely directory as Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 authorizes
the Commission to try and decide petitions for disqualifications even after
the elections. Comelec did not exceed jurisdiction.

Decision: Frivaldo is Governor

(1) Lees petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions of the respondent
Commission are AFFIRMED.
(2) Frivaldos petition is also DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
Separate Opinions
PUNO, J., concurring:

Upholding the sovereign will of the people. The sovereignty of our people is
the primary postulate of the 1987 Constitution.
Agrees with Davide that sovereignty is indivisible but it need not always be
exercised by the people together, all the time. (only our district electorates
vote for our congressmen, only our provincial electorates vote for the
members of our provincial boards)

Issue is: whether the will of the voters be given a decisive value
considering the uncertainty on when a candidate ought to satisfy the
qualification of citizenship.
Davide warns that should the people of Batanes stage a rebellion, we
cannot prosecute them because of the doctrine of people's sovereignty.
Analogy is not appropriate since rebellion is concededly a crime. In the
case at bar, it cannot be held with certitude that the people of Sorsogon
violated the law by voting for Frivaldo as governor. It will not be disastrous
for the State if balance is tilted in favor of the people of Sorsogon.
In election cases, courts should strive to align the will of the legislature as
expressed in its law with the will of the sovereign people as expressed in
their ballots. For law to reign, it must respect the will of the people.

Davides Dissent
Davide argues that President Aquino's
memorandum dated should be viewed
as a suspension, not a repeal. (related
to issue 1)
Allowing Frivaldo to register and to
remain as a registered voter makes a
"mockery" of two previous judgments
declaring him a non-citizen. (related to
issue 1.2 and 2)
Petition must be filed within the 25-day
period prescribed therein. (related to
issue 5)
Frivaldo was not stateless prior to
repatriation. Informal renunciation or is
not a ground to lose American
citizenship. (related to issue 1.2)
Lee should be declared winner in all
three elections because Frivaldo's
ineligibility for being an American was
publicly known (related to issue 4)

The qualifications under Sec39 of the

Refutation of Dissent
Whether it decrees a suspension or a
repeal is a purely academic distinction.
Said issuance is not a statute that can
amend or abrogate an existing law.
Retroactivity did not change his
disqualifications in 1988 and 1992. His
qualification for the 1995 elections is the
one affected. No mockery
There is no inconsistency nor conflict.
The court holds that issue may be
decided even after the fifteen day
period mentioned in Section 78.
Courts cannot rule on the legal question
of who are or who are not Americans.
Furthermore, Comelec made a finding of
fact to arrive at that conclusion.
There is no evidence of public
knowledge. It cannot also be public
knowledge if it is still being tried in
court. Declaring Lee as the winner would
constitute post facto for the previous
two elections.
If the qualifications were intended to

Local Government Code refers to those

of an elective local officials and not
elected officials. (related to issue 1.1)

Only after taking the oath of allegiance

shall applicants be deemed to have
reacquired Philippine citizenship.
(related to issue 1.2)

apply to candidates, laws would have

stated so. Secondly, if Congress had
meant that the qualification be
possessed at election day at the latest, it
would have done so as it did in the other
qualifications.
The provision should be understood as:
that after taking the oath of allegiance
the applicant is deemed to have
reacquired Philippine citizenship, which
reacquisition is deemed for all purposes
and intents to have retroacted to the
date of his application therefor.