G.R. No. 120295 June 28, 1996
JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL
R. LEE, respondents.
------------------------------------
G.R. No. 123755 June 28, 1996
RAUL R. LEE, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JUAN
G. FRIVALDO, respondents.
TOPIC: Citizenship, election, disqualification,
rule of majority
GIST:
VOTES:
Juan G. Frivaldo 73,440
Raul R. Lee 53,304
Antonio H. Escudero, Jr. 51,060
Frivaldo had the highest votes for
Sorsogon governor in the 1995 elections. However, his win was being questioned
by Lee, second to him in said election, due to his dual citizenship and alleged
invalid repatriation. Frivaldo could have been technically easy to refuse to
grant retroactivity to the effects of his repatriation and hold him still
ineligible for his failure to show his citizenship at the time of his
registration as a voter in 1995. Or the COMELEC's factual findings that he was
stateless at the time of repatriation and thus hold his consequent dual
citizenship as a disqualification "from running for any elective local
position." Still, the real essence of justice is more than mere
technicality. In case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give life
and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the
ballot. Since it was the will of majority in Sorsogon, he was declared
Governor.
RATIONALE:
Substantial justice over pure
legalisms.
It is public policy to cause
elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority.
In case of doubt, political laws
must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely
expressed through the ballot.
Salus populi est suprema lex - the good of the people is
the supreme law.
FACTS:
1. Juan G. Frivaldo and Raul R.
Lee were candidates for Sorsogon governor in the 1995 elections.
2. (1995)
March 20: Frivaldo filed his
Certificate of Candidacy for the office of Governor of Sorsogon
March 23: Lee filed a
petition with the Comelec docketed as SPA No. 95-028 praying that Frivaldo
"be disqualified from seeking or holding any public office or position by
reason of not yet being a citizen of the Philippines",
and that his Certificate of Candidacy be canceled.
May 1: COMELEC, 2nd division
granted Lee's petition and frivaldo was declared DISQUALIFIED to run for office
on the ground that he is NOT a CITIZEN of the Philippines.
May 8: (election
day) Frivaldo's motion for reconsideration remained unacted upon
until this day of election. His candidacy continued.
May 11: COMELEC en banc AFFIRMED
the resolution of the 2nd division.
May 27: the canvass of votes
showed:
1. Juan G. Frivaldo
73,440
2. Raul R. Lee 53,304
June 09: Lee filed SPA No. 95-028,
a (supplemental) petition praying that he be proclaimed as the duly-elected
Governor of Sorsogon.
June 21 (order): Comelec en banc
directed the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon to reconvene for
the purpose of proclaiming candidate Raul Lee as the winning gubernatorial
candidate in the province of Sorsogon on June 29, 1995
June 30 @ 8:30pm: Lee was proclaimed governor
of Sorsogon.
July 6: Frivaldo filed with
the Comelec for the annulment of Lee's proclamation & for his own
proclamation alleging that on
June 30 @2:30 p.m.: he took his oath of
allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after "his petition for
repatriation under P.D. 725 which he filed with the Special Committee on
Naturalization in September 1994 had been granted"
Thus, when "the
said order (dated June 21, 1995) (of the Comelec) was released and received by
Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 at 5:30 o'clock in the evening, there was no more
legal impediment to the proclamation (of Frivaldo) as governor.
December 19: COMELEC 1st division
proclaimed Frivaldo as duly-elected governor for "having garnered the
highest number of votes" and that lee was not legally entitled to be
proclaimed for "not having garnered the highest number of
votes,"
3. After finality, the
Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed to immediately reconvene and
proclaim petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo as the duly elected Governor of Sorsogon
with the qualifications of:
- having garnered the highest
number of votes
- having reacquired his
Filipino citizenship by repatriation on June 30, 1995 under the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 725
4. December 26: Lee
filed a motion for reconsideration but COMELEC en banc denied it on
its February 23, 1996 resolution.
5. (1996)
February 26: the present
petition for a temporary restraining order was filed before the SC.
February 27: SC issued a
resolution to maintain the status quo prevailing prior to the filing of
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Frivaldo's lack of
citizenship requirement can be cured by retroactively applying his repatriation
by virtue of P.D. No. 725 and he be affirmed as the duly-elected governor or
Sorsogon.
ARGUMENTS:
FIRST
|
Lee’s
Arguments |
Supreme
Court Ruling |
|
Ø
P.D. No.
725 had "been effectively repealed" Ø then President Corazon Aquino exercising
legislative powers under the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution, forbade the grant of citizenship by Presidential Decree
or Executive Issuances as the same poses a serious and contentious
issue of policy which the present government, in the exercise of prudence and
sound discretion, should best leave to the judgment of the first
Congress under the 1987 Constitution" Ø
in
her memorandum dated March 27, 1987 to the members of
the Special Committee on Naturalization constituted for
purposes of Presidential Decree No. 725, President Aquino directed them "to
cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings within your
functional area of responsibility as defined under Letter of
Instructions (LOI) No. 270 dated April 11, 1975, as amended." |
Ø
no express
repeal was made because President Aquino did not categorically
and/or impliedly state that P.D. 725 was being repealed or was being rendered without any legal
effect; she did not even mention it specifically by its number or text. An
implied repeal will not be allowed "unless it is convincingly and
unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are clearly repugnant and patently
inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. Ø
Memorandum
dated 27 March 1987 cannot be regarded as a legislative enactment but be
treated as an executive policy addressed to the Special Committee. Ø
Then Pres.
Cory did not repeal P.D. 725 but left it to the first Congress -- once
created -- to deal with the matter. If she had intended to repeal such
law, she should have unequivocally said so instead of referring the matter to
Congress. The fact is she carefully couched her presidential issuance in
terms that clearly indicated the intention of "the present government,
in the exercise of prudence and sound discretion" to leave the matter of
repeal to the new Congress. |
SECOND
|
Lee’s Arguments |
Frivaldo’s arguments |
|
Ø
Frivaldo's
application therefor was filed on June 29, 1995 and
was approved in just one day or on June 30, 1995 which prevented
a judicious review and evaluation of the merits thereof. |
Ø
He filed
his application for repatriation with the Office of the
President in Malacañang Palace on August 17, 1994 –
confirmed by OSG. Ø
The Special
Committee was reactivated only on June 8, 1995, when presumably the said
Committee started processing his application. On June 29, 1995, he
filled up and re-submitted the FORM that the Committee required.
Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there was
"indecent haste" in the processing of his application. |
|
SC: Lee
was not able to prove irregularity in the repatriation of Frivaldo. The fact
that proceedings were speeded up is not a ground to conclude it
was tainted since the requirements under P.D. No. 725 are not difficult to
comply with. |
THIRD. When
should an aspirant for public office be a citizen?
|
Lee’s Arguments |
Supreme Court |
|
Ø
Assuming
that the repatriation is valid, it could only be effective as of 2:00 p.m.
of 30 June 1995; the citizenship qualification must EXIST on the DATE
of his election
|
Ø the law does not specify any
particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship, unlike that for residence
(which must consist of at least one year's residency immediately preceding
the day of election) and age (at least twenty three years of age on election
day). Ø the purpose of the
citizenship qualification is to ensure
that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall
govern our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof. Now, an
official begins to govern or to discharge his functions only upon his
proclamation and on the day the law mandates his term of office to begin. Ø
Since
Frivaldo re-assumed his citizenship on June 30, 1995 -- the very
day the term of office of governor, he
was already qualified to govern his native Sorsogon. |
|
SC: t the repatriation of
Frivaldo RETROACTED to the date of the filing of his application on August
17, 1994 since P.D. No. 725 is CURATIVE in nature. https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1975/pd_725_1975.html |
How can the retroactivity of P.D.
725 benefit Frivaldo considering that said law was enacted on June 5, 1975,
while Frivaldo lost his Filipino citizenship much later, on January 20, 1983,
and applied for repatriation even later, on August 17, 1994?
it is not only the law itself
(P.D. 725) which is to be given retroactive effect, but even the repatriation
granted under said law to Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 is to be deemed to have
retroacted to the date of his application therefor, August 17, 1994. The reason
for this is simply that if, as in this case, it was the intent of the
legislative authority that the law should apply to past events -- i.e.,
situations and transactions existing even before the law came into being -- in
order to benefit the greatest number of former Filipinos possible thereby
enabling them to enjoy and exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right of
citizenship, and such legislative intention is to be given the fullest effect
and expression, then there is all the more reason to have the law apply in a
retroactive or retrospective manner to situations, events and transactions
subsequent to the passage of such law. That is, the repatriation granted to
Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 can and should be made to take effect as of date of
his application. As earlier mentioned, there is nothing in the law that would
bar this or would show a contrary intention on the part of the legislative
authority; and there is no showing that damage or prejudice to anyone, or
anything unjust or injurious would result from giving retroactivity to his
repatriation. Neither has Lee shown that there will result the impairment of
any contractual obligation, disturbance of any vested right or breach of some
constitutional guaranty.
RULING:
YES. P.D. No. 725's nature is
remedial or curative granting him a new right to resume his political
status, considering the legislative intent behind it and his unique
situation of having been forced to give up his citizenship and political
aspiration as his means of escaping a Marcos' regime.
In repatriation the applicant is a
former natural-born Filipino who is merely seeking to reacquire his previous
citizenship. In the case of Frivaldo, he was undoubtedly a natural-born
citizen who openly and faithfully served his country and his province prior to
his naturalization in the United States.
His repatriation is to be given
retroactive effect as of the date of his application therefor (September 1994),
during the pendency of which he was stateless, he having given up his U.S.
nationality.
Frivaldo could have been
technically easy to refuse to grant retroactivity to the effects of his
repatriation and hold him still ineligible for his failure to show his
citizenship at the time of his registration as a voter in 1995. Or the
COMELEC's factual findings that he was stateless at the time of repatriation
and thus hold his consequent dual citizenship as a disqualification "from
running for any elective local position."
But SC has time and again
liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to give
fullest effect to the manifest will of our people. For in case of doubt,
political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular
mandate freely expressed through the ballot. Legal niceties and technicalities
cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will. For it was held:
(L)aws governing election contests
must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the
choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.
Sovereign will is important in
order to ensure the survival of our democracy.
Frivaldo only sought American
citizenship to escape Marcos' dictatorship. His loyalty and dedication to this
country cannot be doubted since at the first opportunity, he returned to this
land, and sought to serve the people of Sorsogon one more; who overwhelmingly
voted for him three times. He took an oath of allegiance to this Republic
every time he filed his certificate of candidacy and during his failed
naturalization bid.
He demonstrated tenacity and
sheer determination to re-assume his nationality despite legal setbacks even at
the age of 81. He could have stayed in the US and enjoy a life of ease in a
first world country, but he chose to go back and serve. Thus,
Sorsogon certainly deserve to be governed by, Frivaldo, a leader of their
overwhelming choice.
SC Decision:
1. Lee's petition in G.R. No.
123755 is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions of the respondent
Commission are AFFIRMED.
2.
Frivaldo's petition in G.R. No. 120295 is also DISMISSED for being moot and
academic. In any event, it has no merit.
ADDITIONAL INFO:
The Local Government Code of
199119 expressly requires Philippine citizenship as a qualification for
elective local officials, including that of provincial governor, thus:
Sec. 39. Qualifications
(a) An elective local official
must be
- a citizen of the Philippines
- a registered voter in the
barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the
district where he intends to be elected
- a resident therein for at least
one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election
- and able to read and write
Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
(b) Candidates for the position of
governor, vice governor or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, or mayor,
vice mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities
must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day.
----
* Citizenship may be reacquired by
direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation.
-----
P.D. No. 725.
The requirements of repatriation
under P.D. No. 725 are not difficult to comply with, nor are they tedious and
cumbersome.
In repatriation the applicant is a
former natural-born Filipino who is merely seeking to reacquire his previous
citizenship.
The rules and regulations to
implement the said decree were left to the Special Committee to promulgate
Unlike in naturalization where an
alien covets a first-time entry into Philippine political life, in repatriation
the applicant is a former natural-born Filipino who is merely seeking to
reacquire his previous citizenship.
*There no express repeal was made
by the then President Aquino because in her memorandum -- based
on the copy furnished us by Lee -- did not categorically and/or impliedly state
that P.D. 725 was being repealed or was being rendered without any legal
effect.
Comments
Post a Comment