MIGUEL LOUIE SARIGUMBA III

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 120295 June 28, 1996

JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL R. LEE, respondents.

FACTS:

Frivaldo filed with the Comelec a new petition,11 docketed as SPC No. 95-317, praying for the
annulment of the June 30, 1995 proclamation of Lee and for his own proclamation. He alleged
that on June 30, 1995, at 2:00 in the afternoon, 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". As such, 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 . . ." In the alternative, he averred that pursuant to the two cases of Labo
vs. Comelec,12 the Vice-Governor - not Lee - should occupy said position of governor.

Juan G. Frivaldo, who unquestionably obtained the highest number of votes in three successive
elections but who was twice declared to be disqualified to hold such office due to his alien
citizenship, and who now claims to have re-assumed his lost Philippine citizenship thru
repatriation.

Frivaldo told the Court in G.R. No. 104654 and during the oral argument that he tried to resume
his citizenship by direct act of Congress, but that the bill allowing him to do so "failed to
materialize, notwithstanding the endorsement of several members of the House of
Representatives" due, according to him, to the "maneuvers of his political rivals." In the same
case, his attempt at naturalization was rejected by this Court because of jurisdictional, substantial
and procedural defects.

Despite his lack of Philippine citizenship, Frivaldo was overwhelmingly elected governor by the
electorate of Sorsogon, with a margin of 27,000 votes in the 1988 elections, 57,000 in 1992, and
20,000 in 1995 over the same opponent Raul Lee. Twice, he was judicially declared a non-Filipino
and thus twice disqualified from holding and discharging his popular mandate. Now, he comes to
us a third time, with a fresh vote from the people of Sorsogon and a favorable decision from the
Commission on Elections to boot. Moreover, he now boasts of having successfully passed
through the third and last mode of reacquiring citizenship: by repatriation under P.D. No. 725, with
no less than the Solicitor General himself, who was the prime opposing counsel in the previous
cases he lost, this time, as counsel for co-respondent Comelec, arguing the validity of his cause
(in addition to his able private counsel Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.). That he took his oath of allegiance
under the provisions of said Decree at 2:00 p.m. on June 30, 1995 is not disputed. Hence, he
insists that he -- not Lee -- should have been proclaimed as the duly-elected governor of Sorsogon
when the Provincial Board of Canvassers met at 8:30 p.m. on the said date since, clearly and
unquestionably, he garnered the highest number of votes in the elections and since at that time,
he already reacquired his citizenship.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Juan G. Frivaldo reacquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation.

RULING:

Yes

We further hold P.D. No. 725 to be in full force and effect up to the present, not having been
suspended or repealed expressly nor impliedly at any time, and Frivaldo's repatriation by virtue
thereof to have been properly granted and thus valid and effective. Moreover, by reason of the
remedial or curative nature of the law granting him a new right to resume his political status and
the legislative intent behind it, as well as his unique situation of having been forced to give up his
citizenship and political aspiration as his means of escaping a regime he abhorred, his repatriation
is to be given retroactive effect as of the date of his application therefor, during the pendency of
which he was stateless, he having given up his U.S. nationality. Thus, in contemplation of law, he
possessed the vital requirement of Filipino citizenship as of the start of the term of office of
governor, and should have been proclaimed instead of Lee. Furthermore, since his reacquisition
of citizenship retroacted to August 17, 1994, his registration as a voter of Sorsogon is deemed to
have been validated as of said date as well. The foregoing, of course, are precisely consistent
with our holding that lack of the citizenship requirement is not a continuing disability or
disqualification to run for and hold public office. And once again, we emphasize herein our
previous rulings recognizing the Comelec's authority and jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions
for annulment of proclamations.

This Court 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,66 for in case of doubt, political laws must
be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.
Otherwise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will.
Consistently, we have 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 (citations
omitted).67

The law and the courts must accord Frivaldo every possible protection, defense and refuge, in
deference to the popular will. Indeed, this Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving
effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the survival of our democracy. In any action involving
the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to
resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely
sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority.
To successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly
demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic68 to constitutional and legal principles
that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people, would
ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that
our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. In this undertaking, Lee has
miserably failed.

In Frivaldo's case. it would have been technically easy to find fault with his cause. The Court could
have refused to grant retroactivity to the effects of his repatriation and hold him still ineligible due
to his failure to show his citizenship at the time he registered as a voter before the 1995 elections.
Or, it could have disputed the factual findings of the Comelec 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 the real essence of justice does not emanate from quibblings over
patchwork legal technicality. It proceeds from the spirit's gut consciousness of the dynamic role
of law as a brick in the ultimate development of the social edifice. Thus, the Court struggled
against and eschewed the easy, legalistic, technical and sometimes harsh anachronisms of the
law in order to evoke substantial justice in the larger social context consistent with Frivaldo's
unique situation approximating venerability in Philippine political life. Concededly, he sought
American citizenship only to escape the clutches of the dictatorship. At this stage, we cannot
seriously entertain any doubt about his loyalty and dedication to this country. At the first
opportunity, he returned to this land, and sought to serve his people once more. The people of
Sorsogon 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. And let it
not be overlooked, his demonstrated tenacity and sheer determination to re-assume his
nationality of birth despite several legal set-backs speak more loudly, in spirit, in fact and in truth
than any legal technicality, of his consuming intention and burning desire to re-embrace his native
Philippines even now at the ripe old age of 81 years. Such loyalty to and love of country as well
as nobility of purpose cannot be lost on this Court of justice and equity. Mortals of lesser mettle
would have given up. After all, Frivaldo was assured of a life of ease and plenty as a citizen of the
most powerful country in the world. But he opted, nay, single-mindedly insisted on returning to
and serving once more his struggling but beloved land of birth. He therefore deserves every liberal
interpretation of the law which can be applied in his favor. And in the final analysis, over and
above Frivaldo himself, the indomitable people of Sorsogon most certainly deserve to be
governed by a leader of their overwhelming choice.