JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, SORSOGON CHAPTER, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SALVADOR NEE ESTUYE, respondents; G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989

TOPIC: CITIZENSHIP

GIST:  The Allegiance and Loyalty to the Philippines is very important for anyone residing and claiming to be one of the citizen of the country.

FACTS:

1. Juan G. Frivaldo Admitted that he acquired an American Citizenship, however, according to him, it was only a precautionary measure, to protect himself against the regime of Marcos. He claimed that his naturalization as an Amerian citizen was not because of voluntariness.

2. Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the Province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988. Only eight months after his proclamation that his position was challenged by the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon chapter, claiming that he has no right of this office for he has acquired American Citizenship.

3. He claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, because the way he was naturalized was not of his own free-will, but as a protection.

4. In accordance with the laws of our country, Under CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine Citizenship may be acquired by:

    1. Direct act of Congress;

    2. By Naturalization ; and

    3. By repatriation

He claims that by actively participating in the elections in the Philippines, he automatically forfeited American Citizenship, it's how it works in the American Laws, but it's not the case in the Philippines Laws. In order to be recognized as a Natural-Born Filipino Citizen, it must be done in any way of the above-mentioned process. However, the petitioner failed to do so, Resulting in his disqualification.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines by the time of his election on January 18, 1988, as the Provincial Governor of Sorsogon.

RULING:

COMELEC, decided that Frivaldo was an alien, and therefore, he's not allowed in his government position in the Philippines.

He claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of valid repatriation. He claims that by actively participating in the local elections, he automatically forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the United States of America. The Court stated that that the alleged forfeiture was between him and the US. If he really wanted to drop his American citizenship, he could do so in accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD 725. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by:

1. direct act of Congress

2. naturalization, or 

3. repatriation.

This evidence is not denied by the petitioner. In fact, he expressly admitted it in his answer. Nevertheless, as earlier noted, he claims it was "forced" on him as a measure of protection from the persecution of the Marcos government through his agents in the United States.

The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. Even so, it cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced into embracing American citizenship. His feeble suggestion that his naturalization was not the result of his own free and voluntary choice is totally unacceptable and must be rejected outright.

There were many other Filipinos in the United States similarly situated as Frivaldo, and some of them subject to greater risk than he, who did not find it necessary — nor do they claim to have been coerced — to abandon their cherished status as Filipinos. They did not take the oath of allegiance to the United States, unlike the petitioner who solemnly declared "on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen," meaning in his case the Republic of the Philippines. 

The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone.