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 Frivaldos 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)