G.R. NO. 120295. JUNE 28, 1996 Antonio H. Escudero, Jr. 51,060 ; Juan G.

Frivaldo
73,440; Raul R. Lee 53,304; Isagani P. Ocampo 1,925
JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, and RAUL R. LEE, respondents 7. On June 9, 1995, Lee filed in said SPA No. 95-
028, a (supplemental) petition praying for his
G.R. NO. 123755. JUNE 28, 1996
proclamation as the duly-elected Governor of
RAUL R. LEE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON Sorsogon.
ELECTIONS and JUAN G. FRIVALDO, respondents. 8. In an order 10 dated June 21, 1995, but
promulgated according to the petition "only on June
29, 1995," the Comelec en banc directed "the
G.R. NO. 123755 Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon to
reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming candidate
This is a special civil action under Rules 65 and 58 of the Raul Lee as the winning gubernatorial candidate in
Rules of Court for certiorari and preliminary injunction the province of Sorsogon on June 29, 1995 . . ."
to review and annul a Resolution of the respondent Accordingly, at 8:30 in the evening of June 30, 1995,
Commission on Elections (Comelec), First Division, Lee was proclaimed governor of Sorsogon.
promulgated on December 19, 1995 and another 9. On July 6, 1995, Frivaldo filed with the Comelec
Resolution of the Comelec en banc promulgated a new petition, 11 docketed as SPC No. 95-317,
February 23, 1996 denying petitioner's motion for praying for the annulment of the June 30, 1995
reconsideration. proclamation of Lee and for his own proclamation.
He alleged that on June 30, 1995, at 2:00 in the
FACTS
afternoon, he took his oath of allegiance as a citizen
1. On March 20, 1995, private respondent Juan G. of the Philippines after "his petition for repatriation
Frivaldo filed his Certificaate of Candidacy for the under P.D. 725 which he �led with the Special
office of Governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 Committee on Naturalization in September 1994
elections. had been granted". As such, when "the said order
2. On March 23, 1995, petitioner Raul R. Lee, (dated June 21, 1995) (of the Comelec) was released
another candidate, filed a petition with the Comelec and received by Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 at 5:30
docketed as SPA No. 95-028 praying that Frivaldo o'clock in the evening, there was no more legal
“be disqualified from seeking or holding any public impediment to the proclamation (of Frivaldo) as
office or position by reason of not yet being a citizen governor" In the alternative, he averred that
of the Philippines”, and that his Certificate of pursuant to the two cases of Labo vs. Comelec, 12
Candidacy be cancelled. the Vice-Governor — not Lee — should occupy said
3. On May 1, 1995, the Second Division of the position of governor.
Comelec promulgated a Resolution granting the 10. On December 19, 1995, the Comelec First
petition and declares that respondent is Division promulgated the herein assailed Resolution
DISQUALIFIED to run for the Office of Governor of holding that Lee, "not having garnered the highest
Sorsogon on the ground that he is not a citizen of number of votes," was not legally entitled to be
the Phils. And his COC is cancelled. proclaimed as duly-elected governor; and that
4. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo Frivaldo, "having garnered the highest number of
remained unacted upon until after the May 8, 1995 votes, and . . . having reacquired his Filipino
elections. So, his candidacy continued and he was citizenship by repatriation on June 30, 1995 under
voted during the elections held onsite. the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 725 (is)
5. On May 11, 1995, the Comelec en banc affirmed qualified to hold the office of governor of Sorsogon"
the aforementioned Resolution of the Second 11. On December 26, 1995, Lee filed a motion for
Division. reconsideration which was denied by the Comelec
6. The Provincial Board of Canvassers completed en banc in its Resolution 14 promulgated on
the canvass of the election returns and a Certificate February 23, 1996.
of Votes 8 dated May 27, 1995 was issued showing 12. On February 26, 1996, the present petition was
the following votes obtained by the candidates for filed. Acting on the prayer for a temporary
the position of Governor of Sorsogon:
 restraining order, this Court issued on February 27, 5. Did the respondent Commission on Elections exceed
1996 a Resolution which inter alia directed the its jurisdiction in promulgating the assailed Resolutions,
parties "to maintain the status quo prevailing prior all of which prevented Frivaldo from assuming the
to the filing of this petition." governorship of Sorsogon, considering that they were
not rendered within the period referred to in Section 78
G.R. NO. 120295
of the Omnibus Election Code, viz., "not later than
1. The facts of this case are essentially the same as fifteen days before the elections"?
those in G.R No. 123755. However, Frivaldo assails the
The First Issue: Frivaldo’s Repatriation
above-mentioned resolutions on a different ground:
that under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, 1. The validity and effectivity of Frivaldo’s
which is reproduced hereinunder that the Comelec had repratriation is the lis mota in this case.
no jurisdiction to issue said resolutions because they 2. Local Government Code of 1991
were not rendered with the period of 15 days before the "Sec. 39. Qualifications. — (a) An elective local
election. And failure of the Comelec to act on the official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a
petitions for disqualification within the period of 15 registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city,
days prior to the election as provided by law is a or province or, in the case of a member of the
jurisdictional defect which renders the said Resolution sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
null and void. panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district
where he intends to be elected; a resident therein
2. On March 12, 1996, the Court consolidated G.R. Nos. for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the
120295 and 123755 since they are intimately related in day of the election; and able to read and write
their factual environment and are identical in the Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
ultimate question raised, viz., who should occupy the (b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice
position of governor of the province of Sorsogon. governor or member of the sangguniang
3. On March 19, 1995, the Court heard oral argument panlalawigan, or mayor, vice mayor or member of
from the parties and required them thereafter to file the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized
simultaneously their respective memoranda. cities must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age
on election day.
The Consolidated Issues
3. Inasmuch as Frivaldo had been declared by this Court
From the foregoing submissions, the consolidated issues 20 as a non-citizen, it is therefore incumbent upon him
may be restated as follows: to show that he has reacquired citizenship; in fine, that
he possesses the qualifications prescribed under the
1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal? If so,
said statute (R.A. 7160). Frivaldo told this Court in G.R.
did it seasonably cure his lack of citizenship as to qualify
No. 104654 22 and during the oral argument in this case
him to be proclaimed and to hold the Office of
that he tried to resume his citizenship by direct act of
Governor? If not, may it be given retroactive effect? If
Congress, but that the bill allowing him to do so "failed
so, from when?
to materialize, notwithstanding the endorsement of
2. Is Frivaldo's "judicially declared" disquali�cation for several members of the House of Representatives" due,
lack of Filipino citizenship a continuing bar to his according to him, to the "maneuvers of his political
eligibility to run for, be elected to or hold the rivals." In the same case, his attempt at naturalization
governorship of Sorsogon? was rejected by this Court because of jurisdictional,
substantial and procedural defects.
3. Did the respondent Comelec have jurisdiction over
the initiatory petition in SPC No. 95-317 considering that 4. Lee, on the other hand, Frivaldo’s repatriation is
said petition is not "a pre-proclamation case, an election tainted with serioud defects:
protest or a quo warranto case"?
a. Lee tells us that P.D. No. 725 had "been effectively
4. Was the proclamation of Lee, a runner-up in the repealed", asserting that "then President Corazon
election, valid and legal in light of existing Aquino exercising legislative powers under the
jurisprudence? Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, forbade
the grant of citizenship by Presidential Decree or filed," citing our decision in G.R. 104654 30 which held
Executive Issuances as the same poses a serious and that "both the Local Government Code and the
contentious issue of policy which the present Constitution require that only Philippine citizens can run
government, in the exercise of prudence and sound and be elected to Public office." Obviously, however, this
discretion, should best leave to the judgment of the �rst was a mere obiter as the only issue in said case was
Congress under the 1987 Constitution", adding that in whether Frivaldo's naturalization was valid or not — and
her memorandum dated March 27, 1987 to the NOT the effective date thereof. Since the Court held his
members of the Special Committee on Naturalization naturalization to be invalid, then the issue of when an
constituted for purposes of Presidential Decree No. 725, aspirant for public office should be a citizen was NOT
President Aquino directed them "to cease and desist resolved at all by the Court. Which question we shall
from undertaking any and all proceedings within your now directly rule on.
functional area of responsibility as defined under Letter
Under Sec 39 of the Local Government Code does not
of Instructions (LOI) No. 270 dated April 11, 1975, as
specify any particular date or time when the candidate
amended."
must possess citizenship, unlike that for residence
The former President did not repeal P.D. 725 but left it (which must consist of at least one year’s residency
to the first Congress — once created — to deal with the immediately preceding the day of election and age (at
matter. If she had intended to repeal such law, she least twenty three years of age on election day)
should have unequivocally said so instead of referring
Since Frivaldo re-assumed his citizenship on June 30,
the matter to Congress. The fact is she carefully couched
1995 — the very day 32 the term of office of governor
her presidential issuance in terms that clearly indicated
(and other elective officials) began — he was therefore
the intention of "the present government, in the
already qualified to be proclaimed, to hold such o�ce
exercise of prudence and sound discretion" to leave the
and to discharge the functions and responsibilities
matter of repeal to the new Congress. Any other
thereof as of said date. In short, at that time, he was
interpretation of the said Presidential Memorandum,
already qualified to govern his native Sorsogon. This is
such as is now being proffered to the Court by Lee,
the liberal interpretation that should give spirit, life and
would visit unmitigated violence not only upon statutory
meaning to our law on qualifications consistent with the
construction but on common sense as well.
purpose for which such law was enacted. So too, even
b. Second. Lee also argues that "serious congenital from a literal (as distinguished from liberal)
irregularities �awed the repatriation proceedings," construction, it should be noted that Section 39 of the
asserting that Frivaldo's application therefor was "�led Local Government Code speaks of "Qualifications" of
on June 29, 1995 . . . (and) was approved in just one day "ELECTIVE OFFICIALS", not of candidates. Why then
or on June 30, 1995 ", which "prevented a judicious should such qualification be required at the time of
review and evaluation of the merits thereof." election or at the time of the filing of the certi�cates of
candidacies, as Lee insists? Literally, such quali�cations
Anent Lee's charge that the "sudden reconstitution of
— unless otherwise expressly conditioned, as in the
the Special Committee on Naturalization was intended
case of age and residence — should thus be possessed
solely for the personal interest of respondent," 27 the
when the "elective [or elected] official" begins to
Solicitor General explained during the oral argument on
govern, i.e., at the time he is proclaimed and at the start
March 19, 1996 that such allegation is simply baseless
of his term — in this case, on June 30, 1995.
as there were many others who applied and were
Paraphrasing this Court's ruling in Vasquez vs. Giap and
considered for repatriation, a list of whom was
Li Seng Giap & Sons, 33 if the purpose of the citizenship
submitted by him to this Court, through a Manifestation
requirement is to ensure that our people and country
28 filed on April 3, 1996.
do not end up being governed by aliens, i.e., persons
c. Lee further contends that assuming the assailed owing allegiance to another nation, that aim or purpose
repatriation to be valid, nevertheless it could only be would not be thwarted but instead achieved by
effective as at 2:00 p.m. of June 30, 1995 whereas the construing the citizenship qualification as applying to
citizenship quali�cation prescribed by the Local the time of proclamation of the elected official and at
Government Code "must exist on the date of his the start of his term.
election, if not when the certificate of candidacy is
So too, during the oral argument, his counsel stead- the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective. . .
fastly maintained that "Mr. Frivaldo has always been a provincial . . . officials." Instead of dwelling at length on
registered voter of Sorsogon. He has voted in 1987, the various petitions that Comelec, in the exercise of its
1988, 1992, then he voted again in 1995. In fact, his constitutional prerogatives, may entertain, suffice it to
eligibility as a voter was questioned, but the court say that this Court has invariably recognized the
dismissed (sic) his eligibility as a voter and he was Commission's authority to hear and decide petitions for
allowed to vote as in fact, he voted in all the previous annulment of proclamations — of which SPC No. 95-317
elections including on May 8, 1995. 37 It is thus clear obviously is one.
that Frivaldo is a registered voter in the province where
The Court however cautioned that such power to annul
he intended to be elected.
a proclamation must "be done within ten (10) days
There is yet another reason why the prime issue of following the proclamation." Inasmuch as Frivaldo's
citizenship should be reckoned from the date of petition was filed only six (6) days after Lee's
proclamation, not necessarily the date of election or proclamation, there is no question that the Comelec
date of filing of the certificate of candidacy. Section 253 correctly acquired jurisdiction over the same.
of the Omnibus Election Code gives any voter,
The Fourth Issue: Was Lee's Proclamation Valid?
presumably including the defeated candidate, the
opportunity to question the ELIGIBILITY (or the There has been no sufficient evidence presented to
disloyalty) of a candidate. This is the only provision of show that the electorate of Sorsogon was "fully aware in
the Code that authorizes a remedy on how to contest fact and in law" of Frivaldo's alleged disqualification as
before the Comelec an incumbent's ineligibility arising to "bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety;"
from failure to meet the qualifications enumerated in other words, that the voters intentionally wasted
under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code. their ballots knowing that, in spite of their voting for
him, he was ineligible. If Labo has any relevance at all, it
The Second Issue: Is Lack of Citizenship a Continuing
is that the vice governor — and not Lee — should be
Disqualification?
proclaimed, since in losing the election, Lee was, to
It should be noted that our first ruling in G.R. No. 87193 paraphrase Labo again, "obviously not the choice of the
disqualifying Frivaldo was rendered in connection with people" of Sorsogon.
the 1988 elections while that in G.R. No. 104654 was in
As we have earlier declared Frivaldo to have seasonably
connection with the 1992 elections. That he was
re-acquired his citizenship and inasmuch as he obtained
disqualified for such elections is final and can no longer
the highest number of votes in the 1995 elections, he —
be changed.
not Lee — should be proclaimed. Hence, Lee's
Indeed, decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of proclamation was patently erroneous and should now
citizenship cannot govern a person's future status with be corrected.
finality. This is because a person may subsequently
The Fifth Issue: Is Section 78 of the Election Code
reacquire, or for that matter lose, his citizenship under
Mandatory?
any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose.
Frivaldo claims that the assailed Resolution of the
The Third Issue: Comelec's Jurisdiction Over The
Comelec (Second Division) dated May 1, 1995 and the
Petition in SPC No. 95-317
confirmatory en banc Resolution of May 11, 1995
Lee also avers that respondent Comelec had no disqualifying him for want of citizenship should be
jurisdiction to entertain the petition in SPC No. 95-317 annulled because they were rendered beyond the
because the only "possible types of proceedings that fifteen (15) day period prescribed by Section 78 of the
may be entertained by the Comelec are a pre- Omnibus Election Code
proclamation case, an election protest or a quo
warranto case".
This claim is now moot and academic inasmuch as these
This argument is not meritorious. The Constitution 57
resolutions are deemed superseded by the subsequent
has given the Comelec ample power to "exercise
ones issued by the Commission (First Division) on
exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to
December 19, 1995, affirmed en banc 63 on February
23, 1996, which both upheld his election. At any rate, it
is obvious that 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, thus: "SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.
— Any candidate who has been declared by final
judgment to be disquali�ed shall not be voted for, and
the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any
reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for
and receives the winning number of votes in such
election, the Court or Commission shall continue with
the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest
and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor,
may during the pendency thereof order the suspension
of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong."

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing:

(1) The petition in G.R. No. 123755 is hereby DISMISSED.

(2) The petition in G.R. No. 120295 is also DISMISSED for