CITIZENSHIP (HOW REACQUIRED)

Frivaldo vs Comelec and the League of Municipalities

June 23 1989

FACTS:

Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the province of Sorsogon and assumed office in due time. The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States.

Frivaldo admitted the allegations but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he was naturalized as American citizen only to protect himself against President Marcos during the Martial Law era. And that his active participation in the 1987 congressional elections had divested him of American citizenship under the laws of the United States, thus restoring his Philippine citizenship.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Frivaldo is a Filipino citizen.

RULING:

No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.

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. Such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. At best, what might have happened as a result of the loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless individual. 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. (Repatriation of Natural born Filipinos) Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.

Frivaldo vs Comelec and Raul Lee

June 28 1996

G.R. No. 120295, June 28 1996, 257 SCRA 727

FACTS:

Juan G. Frivaldo ran for office again, this time for Governor of Sorsogon again and won. Raul R. Lee, the second placer questioned his citizenship again. Frivaldo contended 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) x x x 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. He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 and was able to take his oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen.

However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the Court had already ruled based on his previous attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship, and had proclaimed Lee, who got the second highest number of votes, as the newly elect Governor of Sorsogon.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Frivaldo’s repatriation was valid.

HELD:

The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application to run for governor. The steps to reacquire Philippine Citizenship by repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 are: (1) filing the application; (2) action by the committee; and (3) taking of the oath of allegiance if the application is approved. It is only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the applicant is deemed ipso jure to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. If the decree had intended the oath taking to retroact to the date of the filing of the application, then it should not have explicitly provided otherwise. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of Sorsogon.

While it is true that the law was already in effect at the time that Frivaldo became an American citizen, nevertheless, 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.

Being a former Filipino who has served the people repeatedly, Frivaldo deserves a liberal interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever defects there were in his nationality should now be deemed mooted by his repatriation.

Note: This case was decided before RA 9225(2003)