Republic Act No.

8189

June 11, 1996

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION, PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURES THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS THEREFOR Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as "The Voters Registration Act of 1996." Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Section 3. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act: a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; b) Registration Record refers to an application for registration duly approved by the Election Registration Board; c) Book of Voters refers to the compilation of all registration records in a precinct; d) List of Voters refers to an enumeration of names of registered voters in a precinct duly certified by the Election Registration Board for use in the election; e) Illiterate or Disabled person refers to one who cannot by himself prepare an application for registration because of his physical disability and/or inability to read and write; f) Commission refers to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC); g) Election Registration Board refers to the body constituted herein to act on all applications for registration; h) Voters Identification Number (VIN) refers to the number assigned by the Commission on Elections to a registered voter that shall consist of three (3) parts: (1) The current address (city/municipality and province); (2) the current precinct assignment of the voter and (3) the permanent birth and name code unique to every voter; i) Political Parties refer to local, regional or national political parties existing and duly registered and accredited by the Commission; j) Precinct refers to the basic unit of territory established by the Commission for the purpose of voting; k) Precinct Maps refers to a sketch or drawing of a geographical area stated in terms of streets or street blocks or sitios the residents of which would belong to a particular precinct; l) Polling place refers to the place where the Board of Election Inspectors conducts its proceeding and where the voters cast their votes; m) Voting center refers to the building or place where the polling place is located; n) Election Officer refers to the highest official or authorized representative of the Commission in a city or municipality; and o) Board of Election Inspectors refers to the body which conducts the election in the polling place of the precinct usually composed of three (3) public school teachers appointed by the Commission.

Section 4. Permanent List of Voters. There shall be a permanent list of voters per precinct in each city or municipality consisting of all registered voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of every precinct indicated by the precinct maps. Such precinct-level list of voters shall be accompanied by an addition deletion list of the purpose of updating the list. For the purpose of the 1997 general registration, the Commission shall cause the preparation and posting of all precinct maps in every barangay nationwide. Five days before the 1997 general registration, individual precinct maps shall be posted at the door of each polling place. Subsequently, the Election Officer shall be responsible for the display, throughout the year, of precinct maps in his office and in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall. The precinct assignment of a voter in the permanent list of voters shall not be changed or altered or transferred to another precinct without the express written consent of the voter: Provided, however, That the voter shall not unreasonably withhold such consent. Any violation thereof shall constitute an election offense which shall be punished in accordance with law. Section 5. Precincts and their Establishment. In preparation for the general registration in 1997, the Commission shall draw updated maps of all the precincts nationwide. Upon completion of the new precinct maps, all the precincts established in the preceding elections shall be deemed abolished. For the purpose of the general registration, the Commission shall create original precincts only. Spin-off precinct may be created after the regular elections of 1998 to accommodate additional voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the original precincts. The Commission shall introduce a permanent numbering of all precincts which shall be indicated by Arabic numerals and a letter of the English alphabet. Original or mother precincts shall be indicated by the Arabic numeral and letter "A of the English alphabet. Spin-off or daughter precincts shall be indicated by the Arabic numeral and letter of the English alphabet starting with letter B and so on. No territory comprising an election precinct shall be altered or a new precinct be established at the start of the election period. Splitting of an original precinct or merger of two or more original precincts shall not be allowed without redrawing the precinct map/s one hundred twenty (120) days before election day. Section 6. Arrangement of Precincts. Every barangay shall have at least one (1) precinct. Each precinct, shall have no more than two hundred (200) voters and shall comprise contiguous and compact territories. a) A precinct shall be allowed to have less than 200 registered voters under the following conditions: 1) As soon as the 200-limit for every precinct has been reached, a spin-off or daughter precinct shall be created automatically by the Commission to accommodate voters residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the original precinct. Thereafter, a separate list of new voters shall be prepared by the Election Officer; and 2) An island or group of islands with less than two hundred (200) voters may comprise one (1) original precinct. b) Every case of alteration of precincts shall be duly announced by posting a notice thereof in a conspicuous place in the precinct, in the office of the election officer and in the city or municipal hall and by providing political parties and candidates a list of all the precincts at the start of the campaign period; and c) Consolidation or merger of at most three (3) precincts may be allowed: Provided, That the computerized counting shall be implemented: Provided, further, That the merger of such precincts shall be effected ninety (90) days before election day.

Section 7. General Registration of Voters. Immediately after the barangay elections in 1997, the existing certified list of voters shall cease to be effective and operative. For purposed of the May 1998 elections and all elections, plebiscites, referenda, initiatives, and recalls subsequent thereto, the Commission shall undertake a general registration of voters before the Board of Election Inspectors on June 14, 15, 21, and 22 and, subject to the discretion of the Commission, on June 28 and 29, 1997 in accordance with this Act. Section 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. The personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election. Section 9. Who may Register. All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the election, may register as a voter. Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities, work in the military or naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the National Police Forces, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law, shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence. Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of residence but, who, on the day of the election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a voter. Section 10. Registration of Voters. A qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city or municipality wherein he resides to be able to vote in any election. To register as a voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form for registration as prescribed by the Commission in three (3) copies before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having acquired the qualifications of a voter. The application shall contain the following data: a) Name, surname, middle name, and/or maternal surname; b) Sex; c) Date, and place of birth; d) Citizenship; e) Civil status, if married, name of spouse; f) Profession, occupation or work; g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration; h) Exact address with the name of the street and house number for location in the precinct maps maintained by the local office of the Commission, or in case there is none, a brief description of his residence, sitio, and barangay; i) A statement that the applicant possesses all the qualifications of a voter; j) A statement that the applicant is not a registered voter of any precinct; and k) Such information or data as may be required by the Commission. The application for registration shall contain three (3) specimen signatures of the applicant, clear and legible rolled prints of his left and right thumbprints, with four (4) identification size copies of his latest photograph, attached thereto, to be taken at the expense of the Commission.

Before the applicant accomplishes his application for registration, the Election Officer shall inform him of the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by law for a voter, and thereafter, see to it that the accomplished application contains all the data therein required and that the applicants specimen signatures, fingerprints, and photographs are properly affixed in all copies of the voters application. Section 11. Disqualification. The following shall be disqualified from registering: a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the firearms laws or any crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law: Provided, That he shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; and c) Insane or incompetent persons declared as such by competent authority unless subsequently declared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent. Section 12. Change of Residence to Another City or Municipality. Any registered voter who has transferred residence to another city or municipality may apply with the Election Officer of his new residence for the transfer of his registration records. The application for transfer of registration shall be subject to the requirements of notice and hearing and the approval of the Election Registration Board, in accordance with this Act. Upon approval of the application for transfer, and after notice of such approval to the Election Officer of the former residence of the voter, said Election Officer shall transmit by registered mail the voters registration record to the Election Officer of the voters new residence. Section 13. Change of Address in the Same City or Municipality. Any voter who has changed his address in the same city or municipality shall immediately notify the Election Officer in writing. If the change of address involves a change in precinct, the Board shall transfer his registration record to the precinct book of voters of his new precinct and notify the voter of his new precinct All changes of address shall be reported to the office of the provincial election supervisor and the Commission in Manila. Section 14. Illiterate or Disabled Applicants. Any illiterate person may register with the assistance of the Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizens arms. The Election Officer shall place such illiterate person under oath, ask him the questions, and record the answers given in order to accomplish the application form in the presence of the majority of the members of the Board. The Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizens arm shall read the accomplished form aloud to the person assisted and ask him if the information given is true and correct The accomplished form shall be subscribed by the applicant in the presence of the Board by means of thumbmark or some other customary mark and it shall be subscribed and attested by the majority of the members of the Board. The attestation shall state the name of the person assisted, the name of the Election Officer or the member of the accredited citizens arm who assisted the applicant, the fact that the Election Officer placed the applicant under oath, that the Election Officer or the member of the accredited citizens arm who assisted the applicant read the accomplished form to the person assisted, and that the person assisted affirmed its truth and accuracy, by placing his thumbmark or some other customary mark on the application in the presence of the Board. The application for registration of a physically disabled person may be prepared by any relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity or by the Election Officer or any member of an accredited citizens arm using the data supplied by the applicant. The fact of illiteracy or disability shall be so indicated in the application. Section 15. Election Registration Board.There shall be in each city and municipality as many as Election Registration Boards as there are election officers therein. In thickly populated cities/municipalities, the Commission may appoint additional election officers for such duration as may be necessary.

The Board shall be composed of the Election Officer as chairman and as members, the public school official most senior in rank and the local civil registrar, or in this absence, the city or municipal treasurer. In case of disqualification of the Election Officer, the Commission shall designate an acting Election Officer who shall serve as Chairman of the Election Registration Board. In case of disqualification or non-availability of the Local Registrar or the Municipal Treasurer, the Commission shall designate any other appointive civil service official from the same locality as substitute. No member of the Board shall be related to each other or to any incumbent city or municipal elective official within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. If in succeeding elections, any of the newly elected city or municipal officials is related to a member of the board within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, such member is automatically disqualified to preserve the integrity of the Election Registration Board. Every registered party and such organizations as may be authorized by the Commission shall be entitled to a watcher in every registration board. Section 16. Compensation of the Members of the Board. Each member of the Board shall be entitled to an honorarium to Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) for each day of actual service rendered in the Board, which amount the Commission may adjust every three (3) years thereafter. No member of the Board shall be entitled to travelling expenses. Section 17. Notice and Hearing of Applications. Upon receipt of applications for registration, the Election Officer shall set them for hearing, notice of which shall be posted in the city or municipal bulletin board and in his office for at least one (1) week before the hearing, and furnish copies thereof to the applicant concerned, the heads or representatives of political parties, and other accredited groups or organizations which actively participate in the electoral process in the city or municipality. On the date of the hearing, the Election Officer shall receive such evidence for or against the applicant. A registrant whose application is not seasonably objected to shall be notified in writing stating therein that no objection was raised against his application and that he need not appear on the date set for the hearing of his application. Physical presence of the applicant concerned shall, however, be mandatory in all cases where objections against his application have been seasonably filed with the proper Election Registration Board for him to rebut or refute evidence presented in opposition thereto. All applications for registration shall be heard and processed on a quarterly basis. For this purpose, the Election Registration Board shall meet and convene on the third Monday of April, July, October, and January of every calendar year, or on the next following working day if the designated days fail on a non-working holiday, except in an election year to conform with the one hundred twenty (120) days prohibitive period before election day. Should one day be sufficient for the processing of all accepted applications, the Board shall adjourn from day to day until all the applications shall have been processed. Section 18. Challenges to Right to Register. Any voter, candidate or representative of a registered political party may challenge in writing any application for registration, stating the grounds therefor. The challenge shall be under oath and be attached to the application, together with the proof of notice of hearing to the challenger and the applicant. Oppositions to contest a registrants application for inclusion in the voters list must, in all cases, be filed not later than the second Monday of the month in which the same is scheduled to be heard or processed by the Election Registration Board. Should the second Monday of the month fall on a non-working holiday, oppositions may be filed on the next following working day. The hearing on the challenge shall be heard on the third Monday of the month and the decision shall be rendered before the end of the month. Section 19. Power to Administer Oath and Issue Summons. For purposes of determining the right of the applicants to be registered as a voter, the Election Officer shall have the power to administer oath, issue subpoena duces tecum and swear in witnesses. The fees and expenses incidental thereto shall be paid in advance by the party in whose behalf the summons is issued. Section 20. Approval and Disapproval of Application. The Election Officer shall submit to the Board all applications for registration filed, together with the evidence received in connection therewith. The Board shall, by majority vote, approve or disapprove the applications.

Upon approval, the Election Officer shall assign a voters identification number and issue the corresponding identification card to the registered voter. If the Board disapproves the application, the applicant shall be furnished with a certificate of disapproval stating the ground therefor. In cases of approval or disapproval, any aggrieved party may file a petition for exclusion or inclusion, as the case may be, with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court as provided for in this Act. Section 21. Publication of Action on Application for Registration. Within five (5) days from approval or disapproval of application, the Board shall post a notice in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in the office of the Election Officer, stating the name and address of the applicant, the date of the application, and the action taken thereon. The Election Officer shall furnish a copy of such notice personally, or by registered mail or special delivery to the applicant and heads or representatives of registered political parties in the city or municipality. Section 22. Preservation of Voters Registration Records. The Election Officer shall compile the original copies of the approved applications for registration per precinct and arrange the same alphabetically according to surname. He shall preserve the book of voters and ensure its integrity. The second and third copies of the registration records shall be sent to the provincial and national central files within three (3) days after the approval of the Board. Section 23. Provincial File. There shall be a provincial file consisting of the duplicate copies of all registration records in each precinct of every city and municipality in the province. It shall be in the custody of the Provincial Election Supervisor and shall be compiled and arranged by precinct, by municipality and alphabetically by surnames of voters. Should the book of voters in the custody of the Election Officer be lost or destroyed at a time so close to election day that there is no time to reconstitute the same, the corresponding book of voters in the provincial file shall be used during the voting. Section 24. National Central File.There shall be a national central file under the custody of the Commission in Manila consisting of the third copies of all approved voter registration records in each city or municipality. It shall be compiled by precinct in each city/municipality and arranged alphabetically by surname so as to make the file a replica of the book of voters in the possession of the Election Officer. Thereafter a national list shall be prepared following the alphabetical arrangements of surnames of voters. There shall be a national file consisting of the computerized voters list (CVL), both in print and in diskette, submitted by the Election Officers in each city and municipality concerned, under the custody of the Commission in Manila. The computerized voters list shall make use of a single and uniform computer program that will have a detailed sorting capability to list voters alphabetically by the precincts where they vote, by the barangays, municipalities, cities or provinces where they reside and by their voters identification number (VIN). Section 25. Voters Identification Card. The voters identification card issued to the registered voter shall serve as a document for his identification. In case of loss or destruction, no copy thereof may be issued except to the registered voter himself and only upon the authority of the Commission. The Commission shall adopt a design for the voters identification card which shall be, as much as possible, tamper proof. It shall provide the following: the name and address of the voter, his date of birth, sex, photograph, thumbmark, and the number of precinct where he is registered, the signature of the voter and the chairman of the Election Registration Board and the voters identification number (VIN). Section 26. Voters Identification Number (VIN). The Commission shall assign every registered voter a voters identification number (V1N) consisting of three parts, each separated by a dash. For example: 7501 -00191 -C145BCD. a) Part 1: Current Address of the Voter 1) the first two digits 75 stand for the province; and 2) The last two digits, 01, stand for the city, municipality, or a district, particularly in Manila.

The code assignment for provinces, cities and municipalities shall follow the Urban Code devised by the National Census and Statistics Office (NCSO). b) Part II: Current Precinct Assignment of the Voter 1) The first four digits, 0019, stand for the permanent number of the precinct where the voter is currently assigned: and 2) The letter indicates whether it is a mother or a daughter precinct. The number assigned to the precinct in every city or municipality shall be permanent but the voter may transfer his precinct number. The VIN reflects the current precinct assignment of the voter. c) Part III: Permanent Birth and Name Code Unique to the Voter 1) The letter, C, stands for the month, i.e., A for January, B for February, and so forth; 2) The next two digits, 14, stand for the date of birth; 3) The next two digits, 51, stand for the year of birth; and 4) The last three letters, BCD, stand for the name code, i.e., Bayani Cruz Davide. The last three letters shall stand for the first letter of the first name, the middle name, and the last name in that order. The Commission shall ensure that Part III hereof of the voters identification number (VIN) shall be permanent and unique to each voter. If necessary, the Commission may expand and modify the same. d) The combined birth and name code is assigned during the lifetime of every voter. Upon transfer of the voter to another precinct, the first two parts of the VIN shall change. Section 27. Deactivation of Registration. The board shall deactivate the registration and remove the registration records of the following persons from the corresponding precinct book of voters and place the same, properly marked and dated in indelible ink, in the inactive file after entering the cause or causes of deactivation: a) Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to vote under this paragraph shall automatically reacquire the right to vote upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence as certified by the clerks of courts of the Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan; b) Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or tribunal of having caused/committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly constituted government such as rebellion, sedition, violation of the anti-subversion and firearms laws, or any crime against national security, unless restored to his full civil and political rights in accordance with law; Provided, That he shall regain his right to vote automatically upon expiration of five (5) years after service of sentence; c) Any person declared by competent authority to be insane or incompetent unless such disqualification has been subsequently removed by a declaration of a proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent; d) Any person who did not vote in the two (2) successive preceding regular elections as shown by their voting records. For this purpose, regular elections do not include the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections;

e) Any person whose registration has been ordered excluded by the Court; and f) Any person who has lost his Filipino citizenship. For this purpose, the clerks of court for the Municipal/Municipal Circuit/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Courts and the Sandiganbayan shall furnish the Election Officer of the city or municipality concerned at the end of each month a certified list of persons who are disqualified under paragraph (a) hereof, with their addresses. The Commission may request a certified list of persons who have lost their Filipino Citizenship or declared as insane or incompetent with their addresses from other government agencies. The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a certified list of those persons whose registration were deactivated and the reasons therefor, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of political parties, the national central file, provincial file, and the voter concerned. Section 28. Reactivation of Registration. Any voter whose registration has been deactivated pursuant to the preceding Section may file with the Election Officer a sworn application for reactivation of his registration in the form of an affidavit stating that the grounds for the deactivation no longer exist any time but not later than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) days before a special election. The Election Officer shall submit said application to the Election Registration Board for appropriate action. In case the application is approved, the Election Officer shall retrieve the registration record from the inactive file and include the same in the corresponding precinct book of voters. Local heads or representatives of political parties shall be properly notified on approved applications. Section 29. Cancellation of Registration. The Board shall cancel the registration records of those who have died as certified by the Local Civil Registrar. The Local Civil Registrar shall submit each month a certified list of persons who died during the previous month to the Election Officer of the place where the deceased are registered. In the absence of information concerning the place where the deceased is registered, the list shall be sent to the Election Officer of the city or municipality of the deceaseds residence as appearing in his death certificate. In any case, the Local Civil Registrar shall furnish a copy of this list to the national central file and the proper provincial file. The Election Officer shall post in the bulletin board of his office a list of those persons who died whose registrations were cancelled, and furnish copies thereof to the local heads of the political parties, the national central file, and the provincial file. Section 30. Preparation and Posting of the Certified List of Voters. The Board shall prepare and post certified list of voters ninety (90) days before a regular election and sixty (60) days before a special election and furnish copies thereof to the provincial, regional and national central files. Copies of the certified list, along with a certified list of deactivated voters categorized by precinct per barangay, within the same period shall likewise be posted in the office of the Election Officer and in the bulletin board of each city/municipal hall. Upon payment of the fees as fixed by the Commission, the candidates and heads of registered political parties shall also be furnished copies thereof. The Board shall also furnish two (2) certified copies for said certified list of voters, along with a certified list of deactivated voters to the Board of Election Inspectors for posting in the polling place and for their reference on election day. Section 31. Sealing of Precinct Book of Voters. The Board shall notify within fifteen (15) days before the start of the campaign period of all registered political parties and members of the Board of Election Inspectors to inspect and verify the completeness of the voters registration records for each precinct compiled in the book of voters. After verification and certification by the Board of Election Inspectors and party representatives as to the completeness of the voters registration records in the precinct book of voters, the Board shall seal the book of voters in the presence of the former at the start of the campaign period and take custody of the same until their distribution to the Board of Election Inspectors on election day. The Election Officer shall deliver the sealed precinct book of voters to the chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors when the latter secures its official ballots and other paraphernalia for election day.

Section 32. Common Rules Governing Judicial, Proceedings in the Matter of Inclusion, Exclusion, and Correction of Names of Voters. a) Petition for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters shall be filed during office hours; b) Notice of the place, date and time of the hearing of the petition shall be served upon the members of the Board and the challenged voter upon filing of the petition. Service of such notice may be made by sending a copy thereof by personal delivery, by leaving it in the possession of a person of sufficient discretion in the residence of the challenged voter, or by registered mail. Should the foregoing procedures not be practicable, the notice shall be posted in the bulletin board of the city or municipal hall and in two (2) other conspicuous places within the city or municipality; c) A petition shall refer only to one (1) precinct and implead the Board as respondents; d) No costs shall be assessed against any party in these proceedings. However, if the court should find that the application has been filed solely to harass the adverse party and cause him to incur expenses, it shall order the culpable party to pay the costs and incidental expenses; e) Any voter, candidate or political party who may be affected by the proceedings may intervene and present his evidence; f) The decision shall be based on the evidence presented and in no case rendered upon a stipulation of facts. If the question is whether or not the voter is real or fictitious, his non-appearance on the day set for hearing shall be prima facie evidence that the challenged voter is fictitious; and g) The petition shall be heard and decided within ten (10) days from the date of its filing. Cases appealed to the Regional Trial Court shall be decided within ten (10) days from receipt of the appeal. In all cases, the court shall decide these petitions not later than fifteen (15) days before the election and the decision shall become final and executory. Section 33. Jurisdiction in Inclusion and Exclusion Case. The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Court within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall immediately become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. Section 34. Petition for Inclusion of Voters in the List. Any person whose application for registration has been disapproved by the Board or whose name has been stricken out from the list may file with the court a petition to include his name in the permanent list of voters in his precinct at any time except one hundred five (105) days prior to a regular election or seventy-five (75) days prior to a special election. It shall be supported by a certificate of disapproval of his application and proof of service of notice of his petition upon the Board. The petition shall be decided within fifteen (15) days after its filing. If the decision is for the inclusion of voters in the permanent list of voters, the Board shall place the application for registration previously disapproved in the corresponding book of voters and indicate in the application for registration the date of the order of inclusion and the court which issued the same. Section 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List. Any registered voters, representative of a political party or the Election Officer, may file with the court a sworn petition for the exclusion of a voter from the permanent list of voters giving the name, address and the precinct of the challenged voter at any time except one hundred (100) days prior to a regular election or sixty-five (65) days before a special election. The petition shall be accompanied by proof of notice to the Board and to the challenged voter and shall be decided within ten (10) days from its filing. If the decision is for the exclusion of the voter from the list, the Board shall, upon receipt of the final decision, remove the voters registration record from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of exclusion therein, and thereafter place the record in the inactive file.

Section 36. Verification of Registered Voters. The Election officer shall, in order to preserve the integrity of the permanent list of voters, file exclusion proceedings when necessary, and verify the list of the registered voters of any precinct by regular mail or house to house canvass. The Commission may enlist the help of representatives of political parties and deputize non-government organizations (NGOs), civic organizations and barangay officials to assist in the verification and house to house canvass of registered voters in every precinct. Section 37. Voter Excluded Through Inadvertence or Registered with an Erroneous or Misspelled name. Any registered voter who has not been included in the precinct certified list of voters or who has been included therein with a wrong or misspelled name may file with the Board an application for reinstatement or correction of name. If it is denied or not acted upon, he may file on any date with the proper Municipal Circuit, Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court a petition for an order directing that his name be entered or corrected in the list. He shall attach to the petition a certified copy of his registration record or identification card or the entry of his name in the certified list of voters used in the preceding election, together with the proof that his application was denied or not acted upon by the Board and that he has served notice to the Board. Section 38. Voters Excluded through Inadvertence or Registered with an Erroneous or Mispelled Name. Any registered voter whose registration record has not been included in the precinct book of voters, or whose name has been omitted in the list of voters or who has been included therein with a wrong or mispelled name may file with the Board an application for inclusion of his record, or reinstatement or correction of his name as the case may be. If it is denied or not acted upon, the voter may file on any date with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court a petition for an order directing that the voters name be entered or corrected in the list. The voters shall attach to the petition a certified true copy of his registration record or identification card or the entry of his name in the list of voters used in the preceding election, together with proof that his application was denied or not acted upon by the Board and that he has served notice thereof to the Board. Section 39. Annulment at Book of Voters. The Commission shall, upon verified petition of any voter or election officer or duly registered political party, and after notice and hearing, annul any book of voters that is not prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act or was prepared through fraud, bribery, forgery, impersonation, intimidation, force or any similar irregularity, or which contains data that are statistically improbable. No order, ruling or decision annulling a book of voters shall be executed within ninety (90) days before an election. Section 40. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Registration Records. The Commission shall reconstitute all registration records which have been lost or destroyed by using the corresponding copies of the provincial or national central files. In case of conflict the Commission shall determine which file shall be used for reconstitution purposes. If this is not feasible, the Commission shall conduct a general registration of voters in the affected area: Provided, That there is a scheduled election before the next scheduled general registration of voters in accordance with the Omnibus Election Code. All such voters shall retain their voters identification number. Reconstituted forms shall be clearly marked with the word "reconstituted." It shall be the duty of the Election Officer to immediately report to the Commission any case of loss or destruction of registration record in his custody. The reconstitution of any lost or destroyed registration records shall not affect the criminal liability of any person who is responsible for such loss or destruction. Section 41. Examination of Registration Records. All registration records/computerized voters list in the possession of the Election officer, the Provincial Election Supervisor, and the Commission in Manila shall, during regular office hours, be open to examination by the public for legitimate inquiries on election related matters, free from any charge or access fee. Law enforcement agencies may, upon prior authorization and subject to regulations promulgated by the Commission, have access to said registration records should the same be necessary to and in aid of their investigative functions and duties. Section 42. Right to Information. - The duly authorized representative of a registered political party or of a bonafide candidate shall have the right to inspect and/or copy at their expense the accountable registration forms and/or the list of registered voters in the precincts constituting the constituency of the

bonafide candidate or at which the political party is fielding candidates. The inspection and copying shall be conducted during business hours of the Commission and shall be subject to reasonable regulations. Section 43. Computerization at Permanent List of Voters. - A permanent and computerized list arranged by precinct, city or municipality, province and region shall be prepared by the Commission. Thereafter, another list shall be prepared consisting of the names of the voters, arranged alphabetically according to surnames. The computer print-outs of the list of voters duly certified by the Board are official documents and shall be used for voting and other election related purposes as well as for legitimate research needs. The total number of voters in the permanent list shall be the basis for the printing of the official ballots by the Commission. Section 44. Reassignment of Election Officers. No Election Officer shall hold office in a particular city or municipality for more than four (4) years. Any election officer who, either at the time of the approval of this Act or subsequent thereto, has served for at least four (4) years in a particular city or municipality shall automatically be reassigned by the Commission to a new station outside the original congressional district. Section 45. Election Offenses. - The following shall be considered election offenses under this Act: a) to deliver, hand over, entrust or give, directly or indirectly, his voters identification card to another in consideration of money or other benefit of promise; or take or accept such voters identification card, directly or indirectly, by giving or causing the giving or money or other benefit or making or causing the making of a promise therefore; b) to fail, without cause, to post or give any of the notices or to make any of the reports re-acquired under this Act; c) to issue or cause the issuance of a voters identification number or to cancel or cause the cancellation thereof in violation of the provisions of this Act; or to refuse the issuance of registered voters their voters identification card; d) to accept an appointment, to assume office and to actually serve as a member of the Election Registration Board although ineligible thereto, to appoint such ineligible person knowing him to be ineligible; e) to interfere with, impede, abscond for purpose of gain or to prevent the installation or use of computers and devices and the processing, storage, generation, and transmission of registration data or information; f) to gain, cause access to use, alter, destroy, or disclose any computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified; g) failure to provide certified voters and deactivated voters list to candidates and heads of representatives of political parties upon written request as provided in Section 30 hereof; h) failure to include the approved application form for registration of a qualified voter in the book of voters of a particular precinct or the omission of the name of a duly registered voter in the certified list of voters of the precinct where he is duly, registered resulting in his failure to cast his vote during an election, plebiscite, referendum, initiative and/or recall. The presence of the form or name in the book of voters or certified list of voters in precincts other than where he is duly registered shall not be an excuse hereof; i) the posting of a list of voters outside or at the door of a precinct on the day of an election, plebiscite, referendum, initiative and/or recall, and which list is different in contents from the certified list of voters being used by the Board of Election Inspectors; and j) Violation of the provisions of this Act.

Section 46. Penalties. Any person found guilty of any Election offense under this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than six (6) years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be deported after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000). Section 47. Funding. The amount of Two billion pesos (2,000,000,000) is hereby included in the General Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997 to defray the expenses for the registration activities. Section 48. Multi-partisan Monitoring and Evaluation Committee. A Monitoring and Evaluation Committee is hereby created composed of seven (7) members to be based on party representation of the seven (7) major political parties that fielded presidential candidates in the 1992 synchronized elections. The Committee is an ad hoc body attached to the Commission but not subject to its supervision and control. The task of the Committee is to monitor and evaluate the system, procedures or guidelines prepared by the Commission for the conduct of the general registration and the continuing system of registration in accordance with this Act. The Committee shall prepare two reports outlining the findings and recommendations for immediate action or institution of corrective measures by the Commission and/or Congress. The first report shall be submitted to the Commission and Congress three (3) months before the holding of the general registration. The second report shall be due at the end of the year on the initial implementation of the system of continuing registration. The amount not less than Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000) but not more than One hundred million pesos (P100,000,000) is hereby allocated from the Two billion pesos (P2,000,000,000) allocation provided in the preceding section for the operations of the Committee. This amount shall be held in trust by the Commission subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures. Section 49. Rules and Regulations. - The Commission shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act not later than ninety (90) days before the first day of registration as provided for in this Act. Section 50. Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions hereof shall remain valid and effective. Section 51. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 52. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved, June 11, 1996.

G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 RAMON L. LABO, Jr., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ROBERTO ORTEGA, respondents. G.R. No. 105384 July 3, 1992 ROBERTO C. ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAMON L. LABO, Jr., respondents.

BIDIN, J.: This is the second time 1 that this Court is called upon to rule on the citizenship of Ramon Labo, Jr., who, believing that he is a Filipino citizen launched his candidacy for mayor of Baguio City in the last May 11, 1992 elections by filing his certificate of candidacy on March 23, 1992. Petitioner Roberto Ortega (GR No. 105384), on other hand, also filed his certificate of candidacy for the same office on March 25, 1992. Shortly after petitioner Labo filed his certificate of candidacy, petitioner Ortega filed on March 26, 1992, a disqualification proceeding against Labo before the Commission on Elections (Comelec), docketed as SPA No. 92-029, seeking to cancel Labo's certificate of candidacy on the ground that Labo made a false representation when he stated therein that he (Labo) is a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines. Summons in the disqualification case was issued by the Comelec on March 27, 1992 to petitioner Labo followed by a telegram dated April 1, 1992, requiring him to file his Answer within three (3) non-extendible days but the latter failed to respond. On April 15, 1992, Ortega filed a motion to declare Labo in default for failure to file his Answer. On April 24, 1992, the Comelec issued another order directing the Election Registrar of Baguio City to personally deliver the summons. On May 4, 1992, the disqualification case was set for reception of evidence. At the said hearing, Ortega presented the decision of this Court in Labo v. Commission on Elections (176 SCRA 1 [1989]) declaring Labo not a citizen of the Philippines. Labo, on the other hand, though represented by counsel, did not present any evidence. It was only on May 5, 1992 that petitioner submitted his Answer claiming Filipino citizenship. On May 9, 1992, respondent Comelec issued the assailed resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby resolves, to grant the petition; respondent's (Labo's) certificate of candidacy is hereby DENIED due course and ordered CANCELLED; the City Election Registrar of Baguio City is hereby directed to delete the name of the respondent (Labo) from the list of candidates for City Mayor of Baguio City. (Rollo, pp. 47-48; GR No. 105111) On the same date, Labo filed a motion to stay implementation of said resolution until after he shall have raised the matter before this Court. On May 10, 1992, respondent Comelec issued an Order which reads: Acting on the "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification", filed by respondent (Labo) on May 9, 1992,the Commission resolves that the decision promulgated on May 9, 1992 disqualifying respondent Ramon L. Labo, Jr., shall become final and executory only after five (5) days from promulgationpursuant to Rule 18, Section 13, Paragraph (b) of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

Accordingly, respondent (Labo) may still continue to be voted upon as candidate for City Mayor of Baguio City on May 11, 1992 subject to the final outcome of this case in the event the issue is elevated to the Supreme Court either on appeal or certiorari. (Rollo, p. 53; GR No. 105111; emphasis supplied) On May 13, 1992, respondent Comelec resolved, motu proprio to suspend the proclamation of Labo in the event he wins in the elections for the City Mayor of Baguio. (Rollo, pp. 64-65; GR No. 105111) On May 15, 1992, petitioner Labo filed the instant petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 105111 with prayer, among others, for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to set aside the May 9, 1992 resolution of respondent Comelec; to render judgment declaring him as a Filipino citizen; and to direct respondent Comelec to proceed with his proclamation in the event he wins in the contested elections. On the same date, or on May 15, 1992 petitioner Ortega filed before the Comelec an urgent motion for the implementation of its May 9, 1992 resolution cancelling Labo's certificate of candidacy. After an exchange of pleadings, respondent Comelec, in its resolution dated May 26, 1992, denied Ortega's motion in view of the pending case (G.R. No. 105111) earlier filed by Labo of the same nature before this Court. On June 1, 1992, Ortega filed a petition for mandamus docketed as G.R. No. 105384 praying for the implementation of the Comelec's May 9, 1992 resolution. Petitioner Ortega argues that respondent Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to implement its May 9, 1992 resolution notwithstanding the fact that said resolution disqualifying Ramon Labo has already become final and executory. After the parties have submitted their respective pleadings, the Court, on June 16, 1992, Resolved to consider the case submitted for decision. I. GR No. 105111 In essence, it is the contention of petitioner Labo that he is a Filipino citizen. Alleging lack of trial on the merits as well as the lack of opportunity to be heard in Labo v. Commission on Elections (supra), it is the submission of petitioner that he can prove his Filipino citizenship. Petitioner cites the 1980 US case of Vance v. Terrazas (444 US 252), wherein it was held that in proving expatriation, an expatriating act an intent to relinquish citizenship must be proved by a preponderance of evidence. Petitioner contends that no finding was made either by the Commission on Immigration or the Comelec as regards his specific intent to renounce his Philippine citizenship. Petitioner also faults the Comelec for the supposed abbreviated proceedings in SPA No. 92-029 which denied him adequate opportunity to present a full-dress presentation of his case. Thus: a) only one (1) day was set for hearing of the case, i.e., May 4, 1992; b) two days later, May 6, 1992 the hearing was set; c) instead of holding a hearing, the Comelec issued the questioned resolution on May 9, 1992. If only to refresh the mind of petitioner Labo, as well as that of his counsel, records disclose that summons were issued by respondent Comelec as early as March 27, 1992 followed by a telegram on April 1, 1992. But petitioner chose to ignore the same. Came April 15, 1992, petitioner Ortega filed a motion to declare petitioner Labo in default. Over-extending him (Labo) the benefit of due process, respondent Comelec issued another order dated April 24, 1992, this time directing the Acting City Election Registrar of Baguio to personally serve the summons. The alleged delay in the resolution of SPA No. 92-029 can only be attributed to petitioner Labo and no one else. Thus, the respondent Comelec in its resolution dated May 9, 1992 stated: On May 4, 1992, the Acting Regional Election Registrar called this case for reception of evidence. Surprisingly, while as of that date respondent had not yet filed his Answer, a lawyer appeared for him.

The petitioner (Ortega) presented the certificate of candidacy of respondent Ramon L. Labo, Jr., which contained in item 9 thereof the verified statement that respondent is a "natural-born" Filipino citizen. To prove that respondent is not a Filipino citizen, petitioner submitted the decision of the Supreme Court in "Ramon L. Labo, Jr., petitioner, v. Comelec, et al.," GR No. 86564, August 1, 1989, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, petitioner Ramon J. (sic) Labo, Jr. is hereby declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve as Mayor of Baguio City. He is ordered to VACATE his office and surrender the same to the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City once this decision becomes final and executory. No evidence was adduced for the respondent as in fact he had no Answer as of the hearing. On May 5, 1992, respondent (Labo) filed his verified Answer, insisting that he is a Filipino citizen and continue to maintain and preserve his Filipino citizenship; that he does not hold an Australian citizenship; that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply in citizenship; and that "existing facts support his continuous maintenance and holding of Philippine citizenship" and "supervening events now preclude the application of the ruling in the Labo v. Comelec case and the respondent (Labo) now hold and enjoys Philippine citizenship. No evidence has been offered by respondent to show what these existing facts and supervening events are to preclude the application of the Labo decision. (emphasis supplied) The Commission is bound by the final declaration that respondent is not a Filipino citizen. Consequently, respondent's verified statement in his certificate of candidacy that he is a "natural-born" Filipino citizen is a false material representation." (Rollo, pp. 45-48; GR No. 105111) Up to this moment, petitioner Labo still failed to submit a scintilla of proof to shore his claim before this Court that he has indeed reacquired his Philippine citizenship. Instead, petitioner relies in the US case of Vance v. Terrazas (supra). Suffice it to state that petitioner has already pleaded Vance in his motion for reconsideration in Labo v. Comelec (supra; Rollo, p. 375). Having been previously passed upon, the Court sees no pressing need to re-examine the same and make a lengthy dissertation thereon. At any rate, the fact remains that he has not submitted in the instant case any evidence, if there be any, to prove his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship either before this Court or the Comelec. On this score alone, We find no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent Comelec in cancelling his (Labo's) certificate of candidacy and declaring that he is NOT a Filipino citizen pursuant to our ruling in the 1989 case of Labo v. Comelec (supra). Petitioner Labo claims, however, that Sec. 72 2 of the Omnibus Election Code "operates as a legislatively mandated special repatriation proceeding" and that it allows his proclamation as the winning candidate since the resolution disqualifying him was not yet final at the time the election was held. The Court finds petitioner Labo's strained argument quixotic and untenable. In the first place, Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code has already been repealed by Sec. 6 of RA No. 6646, to wit: Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified 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 the 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. (emphasis supplied) A perusal of the above provision would readily disclose that the Comelec can legally suspend the proclamation of petitioner Labo, his reception of the winning number of votes notwithstanding,

especially so where, as in this case. Labo failed to present any evidence before the Comelec to support his claim of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Furthermore, we need only to reiterate what we have stated in Labo v. Comelec (supra), viz.,: Under CA No. 63, as amended by P.D. No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to any judicial decree of naturalization or to any statute directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him. . . . Petitioner Labo's status has not changed in the case at bar. To reiterate, he (Labo) was disqualified as a candidate for being an alien. His election does not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship, the possession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding public office (Sec. 39, Local Government Code). Still, petitioner takes pains in raising a new argument not litigated before the respondent Comelec. Petitioner claims that he has reacquired his Filipino citizenship by citing his application for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship filed before the Office of the Solicitor General pursuant to PD 725 and Letter of Instruction No. 270 3(Rollo, pp. 116-119; G.R. No. 105111). To date, however, and despite favorable recommendation by the Solicitor General, the Special Committee on Naturalization had yet acted upon said application for repatriation. Indeed, such fact is even admitted petitioner. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities, a mere application for repratriation, does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of the applicant's Philippine citizenship. II. GR No. 105384 Petitioner Ortega submits that since this Court did not issue a temporary restraining order as regards the May 9, 1992 resolution of respondent Comelec cancelling Labo's certificate of candidacy, said resolution has already become final and executory. Ortega further posits the view that as a result of such finality, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes should be declared Mayor of Baguio City. We agree with Ortega's first proposition. At the time petitioner Labo filed his petition (GR No. 105111) on May 15, 1992, the May 9, 1992 resolution of respondent Comelec cancelling his (Labo's) certificate of candidacy had already become final and executory a day earlier, or on May 14, 1992, said resolution having been received by petitioner Labo on the same day it was promulgated, i.e., May 9, 1992 and in the interim no restraining order was issued by this Court. Thus, Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides: Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy xxx xxx xxx (e) The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission shall, after five (5) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the Supreme Court. (emphasis supplied) A similar provision is also found in Sec. 3, Rule 39 of the Comelec Rules of procedure, to wit: Sec. 3. Decisions final after five days. Decisions in pre-proclamation cases and petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, to declare a candidate as nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and to postpone or suspend elections shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. (emphasis supplied)

The resolution cancelling Labo's certificate of candidacy on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen having acquired finality on May 14, 1992 constrains Us to rule against his proclamation as Mayor of Baguio City. To begin with, one of the qualifications of an elective official is that he must be a citizen of the Philippines. Thus, the Local Government Code provides: Sec. 39. Qualifications. (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. (emphasis supplied) Undoubtedly, petitioner Labo, not being a Filipino citizen, lacks the fundamental qualification for the contested office. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective office. As mandated by law: "An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines." The issue here is citizenship and/or Labo's alienage the very essence which strikes at the very core of petitioner Labo's qualification to assume the contested office, he being an alien and not a Filipino citizen. The fact that he was elected by the majority of the electorate is of no moment. As we have held in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections (174 SCRA 245 [1989]): . . . 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. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. This brings us to the second issue raised by petitioner Ortega, i.e., whether the disqualification of petitioner Labo entitles the candidate (Ortega) receiving the next highest number of votes to be proclaimed as the winning candidate for mayor of Baguio City. We hold in the negative. The disqualification of petitioner Labo does not necessarily entitle petitioner Ortega as the candidate with the next highest number of votes to proclamation as the Mayor of Baguio City. We make mention of petitioner Ortega because in his petition, he alleges that: . . . the May 11, 1992 elections were held with both herein petitioner (Roberto Ortega) and respondent LABO having been voted for the position of Mayor and unofficial results indicate that if the name of respondent LABO were deleted from the list of candidates, herein petitioner (Ortega) will be entitled to be proclaimed as Mayor-elect of Baguio City. (Rollo, p. 7, GR No. 105384; emphasis supplied) and further prays this Court "to proclaim as the Mayor-elect of Baguio City the candidate who may have garnered the most number of votes after the exclusion of the name of respondent candidate LABO." (Rollo, p. 15, Ibid.) Implicit, therefore, is petitioner Ortega's desire to be proclaimed Mayor-elect of Baguio City. As discussed hereunder, however, the Court finds Ortega's prayer devoid of merit. While Ortega may have garnered the second highest number of votes for the office of city mayor, the fact remains that he was not the choice of the sovereign will. Petitioner Labo was overwhelmingly voted by the electorate for the office of mayor in the belief that he was then qualified to serve the people of Baguio City and his subsequent disqualification does not make respondent Ortega the mayor-elect. This is the import of the recent case of Abella v. Comelec (201 SCRA 253 [1991]), wherein we held that:

While it is true that SPC No. 88-546 was originally a petition to deny due course to the certificate of candidacy of Larrazabal and was filed before Larrazabal could be proclaimed, the fact remains that the local elections of Feb. 1, 1988 in the province of Leyte proceeded with Larrazabal considered as a bona fide candidate. The voters of the province voted for her in the sincere belief that she was a qualified candidate for the position of governor. Her votes was counted and she obtained the highest number of votes. The net effect is that petitioner lost in the election. He was repudiated by the electorate. . . . What matters is that in the event a candidate for an elected position who is voted for and who obtains the highest number of votes is disqualified for not possessing the eligibility requirements at the time of the election as provided by law, the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes for the same position cannot assume the vacated position. (emphasis supplied) Our ruling in Abella applies squarely to the case at bar and we see no compelling reason to depart therefrom. Like Abella, petitioner Ortega lost in the election. He was repudiated by the electorate. He was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City. Thus, while respondent Ortega (GR No. 105111) originally filed a disqualification case with the Comelec (docketed as SPA-92-029) seeking to deny due course to petitioner's (Labo's) candidacy, the same did not deter the people of Baguio City from voting for petitioner Labo, who, by then, was allowed by the respondent Comelec to be voted upon, the resolution for his disqualification having yet to attain the degree of finality (Sec. 78. Omnibus Election Code). And in the earlier case of Labo v. Comelec (supra), We held: Finally, there is the question of whether or not the private respondent, who filed the quo warrantopetition, can replace the petitioner as mayor. He cannot. The simple reason is that as he obtained only the second highest number of votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City. The latest ruling of the Court in this issue is Santos v. Commission on Election, (137 SCRA 740) decided in 1985. In that case, the candidate who placed second was proclaimed elected after the votes for his winning rival, who was disqualified as a turncoat and considered a non-candidate, were all disregarded as stray. In effect, the second placer won by default. That decision was supported by eight members of the Court then (Cuevas, J., ponente, with Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Alampay, and Aquino JJ., concurring) with three dissenting (Teehankee, acting C.J., Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera) and another two reserving their votes (Plana and Gutierrez, Jr.). One was on official leave (Fernando, C.J.) Re-examining that decision, the Court finds, and so holds, that it should be reversed in favor of the earlier case of Geronimo v. Santos (136 SCRA 435), which represents the more logical and democratic rule. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1912 in Topacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238) was supported by ten members of the Court (Gutierrez, Jr., J., ponente,with Teehankee, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concurring), without any dissent, . . . . There the Court held: . . . it would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they did not choose him. Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. (20 Corpus Juris 2nd, S 243, p. 676) The fact that a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was

elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or non-eligible person may be valid to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. However, in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that that candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless. The rule, therefore, is: the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. Indeed, this has been the rule in the United States since 1849 (State ex rel. Dunning v. Giles, 52 Am. Dec. 149). It is therefore incorrect to argue that since a candidate has been disqualified, the votes intended for the disqualified candidate should, in effect, be considered null and void. This would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. At the risk of being repetitious, the people of Baguio City opted to elect petitioner Labo bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise, and in the honest belief that Labo was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of the government. Unfortunately, petitioner Labo turned out to be disqualified and cannot assume the office. Whether or not the candidate whom the majority voted for can or cannot be installed, under no circumstances can a minority or defeated candidate be deemed elected to the office. Surely, the 12,602 votes cast for petitioner Ortega is not a larger number than the 27,471 votes cast for petitioner Labo (as certified by the Election Registrar of Baguio City; rollo, p. 109; GR No. 105111). The rule would have been different if the electorate fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate's disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety, would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate may be said to have waived the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected. But this is not the situation obtaining in the instant dispute. It has not been shown, and none was alleged, that petitioner Labo was notoriously known as an ineligible candidate, much less the electorate as having known of such fact. On the contrary, petitioner Labo was even allowed by no less than the Comelec itself in its resolution dated May 10, 1992 to be voted for the office of the city mayor as its resolution dated May 9, 1992 denying due course to petitioner Labo's certificate of candidacy had not yet become final and subject to the final outcome of this case. As aforesaid, the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. Ortega failed to satisfy the necessary requisite of winning the election either by a majority or mere plurality of votes sufficient to elevate him in public office as mayor of Baguio City. Having lost in the election for mayor, petitioner Ortega was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City. As a consequence of petitioners' ineligibility, a permanent vacancy in the contested office has occurred. This should now be filled by the vice-mayor, in accordance with Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code, to wit: Chapter 2. Vacancies and Succession Sec. 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor and Vice-Mayor. (a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or the vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. . . . (emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioners both being ineligible for the Office of the City Mayor of Baguio City and in view of the vacancy created in said office, the vice-mayor

elect of said city in the May 11, 1992 elections is hereby declared Mayor of Baguio City after proclamation by the City Board of Canvassers. No costs. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-59068 January 27, 1983 JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA and ROMEO B. IGOT, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

DE CASTRO, J.: This is a petition for mandamus filed by Jose Mari Eulalio C. Lozada and Romeo B. Igot as a representative suit for and in behalf of those who wish to participate in the election irrespective of party affiliation, to compel the respondent COMELEC to call a special election to fill up existing vacancies numbering twelve (12) in the Interim Batasan Pambansa. The petition is based on Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution which reads: (2) In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Election shall call a special election to be held within sixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term. Petitioner Lozada claims that he is a taxpayer and a bona fide elector of Cebu City and a transient voter of Quezon City, Metro Manila, who desires to run for the position in the Batasang Pambansa; while petitioner Romeo B. Igot alleges that, as a taxpayer, he has standing to petition by mandamus the calling of a special election as mandated by the 1973 Constitution. As reason for their petition, petitioners allege that they are "... deeply concerned about their duties as citizens and desirous to uphold the constitutional mandate and rule of law ...; that they have filed the instant petition on their own and in behalf of all other Filipinos since the subject matters are of profound and general interest. " The respondent COMELEC, represented by counsel, opposes the petition alleging, substantially, that 1) petitioners lack standing to file the instant petition for they are not the proper parties to institute the action; 2) this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition; and 3) Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution does not apply to the Interim Batasan Pambansa. The petition must be dismissed. I As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election, as is allegedly its ministerial duty under the constitutional provision above cited, and therefore, involves no expenditure of public funds. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed. 1 What the case at bar seeks is one that entails expenditure of public funds which may be illegal because it would be spent for a purpose that of calling a special election which, as will be shown, has no authority either in the Constitution or a statute. As voters, neither have petitioners the requisite interest or personality to qualify them to maintain and prosecute the present petition. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. 2 In the case before Us, the alleged inaction of the COMELEC to call a special election to fill-up the existing vacancies in the Batasan Pambansa, standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens. Petitioners' standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here, which is held in common by all members of the public because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury supposedly shared by all citizens. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. 3 When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. 4 As adverted to earlier, petitioners have not demonstrated any permissible personal stake, for petitioner Lozada's interest as an alleged candidate and as a voter is not sufficient to confer standing. Petitioner Lozada does not only fail to inform the Court of the region he wants to be a candidate but makes indiscriminate demand that special election be called throughout the

country. Even his plea as a voter is predicated on an interest held in common by all members of the public and does not demonstrate any injury specially directed to him in particular. II The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the COMELEC is only to review by certiorari the latter's decision, orders or rulings. This is as clearly provided in Article XI IC Section 11 of the New Constitution which reads: Any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof. There is in this case no decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC which is sought to be reviewed by this Court under its certiorari jurisdiction as provided for in the aforequoted provision which is the only known provision conferring jurisdiction or authority on the Supreme Court over the COMELEC. It is not alleged that the COMELEC was asked by petitioners to perform its alleged duty under the Constitution to call a special election, and that COMELEC has issued an order or resolution denying such petition. Even from the standpoint of an action for mandamus, with the total absence of a showing that COMELEC has unlawfully neglected the performance of a ministerial duty, or has refused on being demanded, to discharge such a duty; and as demonstrated above, it is not shown, nor can it ever be shown, that petitioners have a clear right to the holding of a special election. which is equally the clear and ministerial duty of COMELEC to respect, mandamus will not lie. 5 The writ will not issue in doubtful cases. 6 It is obvious that the holding of special elections in several regional districts where vacancies exist, would entail huge expenditure of money. Only the Batasan Pambansa can make the necessary appropriation for the purpose, and this power of the Batasan Pambansa may neither be subject to mandamus by the courts much less may COMELEC compel the Batasan to exercise its power of appropriation. From the role Batasan Pambansa has to play in the holding of special elections, which is to appropriate the funds for the expenses thereof, it would seem that the initiative on the matter must come from said body, not the COMELEC, even when the vacancies would occur in the regular not interim Batasan Pambansa. The power to appropriate is the sole and exclusive prerogative of the legislative body, the exercise of which may not be compelled through a petition for mandamus. What is more, the provision of Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution was intended to apply to vacancies in the regular National Assembly, now Batasan Pambansa, not to the Interim Batasan Pambansa, as will presently be shown. III Perhaps the strongest reason why the aforecited provision of the Constitution is not intended to apply to the Interim National Assembly as originally envisioned by the 1973 Constitution is the fact that as passed by the Constitutional Convention, the Interim National Assembly was to be composed by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the then incumbent President and Vice-President, and the members of the Senate and House of Representatives of Congress under the 1935 Constitution. With such number of representatives representing each congressional district, or a province, not to mention the Senators, there was felt absolutely no need for filing vacancies occurring in the Interim National Assembly, considering the uncertainty of the duration of its existence. What was in the mind of the Constitutional Convention in providing for special elections to fill up vacancies is the regular National Assembly, because a province or representative district would have only one representative in the said National Assembly. Even as presently constituted where the representation in the Interim Batasan Pambansa is regional and sectoral, the need to fill up vacancies in the Body is neither imperative nor urgent. No district or province would ever be left without representation at all, as to necessitate the filling up of vacancies in the Interim Batasan Pambansa. There would always be adequate representation for every province which only forms part of a certain region, specially considering that the Body is only transitory in character. The unmistakable intent of the Constitutional Convention as adverted to is even more positively revealed by the fact that the provision of Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the New Constitution is in the main body of the said Constitution, not in the transitory provisions in which all matters relating to the Interim Batasan Pambansa are found. No provision outside of Article VIII on the "Transitory Provisions" has reference or relevance to the Interim Batasan Pambansa. Also under the original provision of the Constitution (Section 1, Article XVII-Transitory Provisions), the Interim National Assembly had only one single occasion on which to call for an election, and that is for the

election of members of the regular National Assembly. The Constitution could not have at that time contemplated to fill up vacancies in the Interim National Assembly the composition of which, as already demonstrated, would not raise any imperious necessity of having to call special elections for that purpose, because the duration of its existence was neither known or pre-determined. It could be for a period so brief that the time prescriptions mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution cannot be applicable. The foregoing observations make it indubitably clear that the aforementioned provision for calling special elections to fill up vacancies apply only to the regular Batasan Pambansa. This is evident from the language thereof which speaks of a vacancy in the Batasan Pambansa, " which means the regular Batasan Pambansa as the same words "Batasan Pambansa" found in all the many other sections of Article VIII, undoubtedly refer to the regular Batasan, not the interim one. A word or phrase used in one part of a Constitution is to receive the same interpretation when used in every other part, unless it clearly appears, from the context or otherwise, that a different meaning should be applied. 7 WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 180048

June 19, 2009

ROSELLER DE GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANGELINA DG. DELA CRUZ, Respondents. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This petition1 for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order assails the June 15, 2007 Resolution2 of the First Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPA No. 07-211, disqualifying petitioner Roseller De Guzman from running as vice-mayor in the May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Also assailed is the October 9, 2007 Resolution3 of the COMELEC En Banc denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioner De Guzman and private respondent Angelina DG. Dela Cruz were candidates for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections. On April 3, 2007, private respondent filed against petitioner a petition4 for disqualification docketed as SPA No. 07-211, alleging that petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines, but an immigrant and resident of the United States of America. In his answer, petitioner admitted that he was a naturalized American. However, on January 25, 2006, he applied for dual citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (R.A. No. 9225), otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.5 Upon approval of his application, he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006. He argued that, having re-acquired Philippine citizenship, he is entitled to exercise full civil and political rights. As such, he is qualified to run as vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. During the May 14, 2007 elections, private respondent won as vice-mayor. Petitioner filed an election protest on grounds of irregularities and massive cheating. The case was filed before Branch 31 of the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija and was docketed as Election Protest No. 07-01. Meanwhile, in SPA No. 07-211, the COMELEC First Division rendered its June 15, 2007 Resolution disqualifying petitioner, which reads as follows: Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225 states: "Retention of Philippine Citizenship. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: x x x" Hence, under the provisions of the aforementioned law, respondent has validly reacquired Filipino citizenship. By taking this Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on September 6, 2006 before Mary Jo Bernardo Aragon, Deputy Consul General at the Philippine Consulate General, Los Angeles, California respondent was deemed a dual citizen, possessing both Filipino and American citizenship. However, subparagraph (2), Section 5 of the aforementioned Act also provides: Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities -- Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: xxxx (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. As can be gleaned from the above cited provision, respondent [herein petitioner] should have renounced his American citizenship before he can run for any public elective position. This respondent did not do. The

Oath of Allegiance taken by respondent was for the purpose of re-acquiring Philippine citizenship. It did not, at the same time, mean that respondent has renounced his American citizenship. Thus, at the time respondent filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija he was, and still is, a dual citizen, possessing both Philippine and American citizenship. For this reason alone, respondent is disqualified to run for the abovementioned elective position. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to GRANT the instant petition finding it IMBUED WITH MERIT. Hence, respondent (petitioner herein) Roseller T. De Guzman is disqualified to run as Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections.6 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was dismissed on October 9, 2007 by the COMELEC En Banc for having been rendered moot in view of private respondents victory. Thereafter, the trial court in Election Protest No. 07-01 rendered a Decision,7 dated November 26, 2007, declaring petitioner as the winner for the Vice-Mayoralty position. It held: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring protestant ROSELLER T. DE GUZMAN, as the winner for the Vice-Mayoralty position with a plurality of 776 votes over the protestee, ANGELINA D.G. DELA CRUZ, in the May 14, 2007 Local Elections in Guimba, Nueva Ecija. With costs against the protestee. There being no evidence presented as to the damages by both parties, the same are hereby denied. SO ORDERED.8 Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, alleging that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying him from running as Vice-Mayor because of his failure to renounce his American citizenship, and in dismissing the motion for reconsideration for being moot. Petitioner invokes the rulings in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections 9 and Mercado v. Manzano,10 that the filing by a person with dual citizenship of a certificate of candidacy, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted as a renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Moreover, he claims that the COMELEC En Banc prematurely dismissed the motion for reconsideration because at that time, there was a pending election protest which was later decided in his favor. Meanwhile, private respondent claims that the passage of R.A. No. 9225 effectively abandoned the Courts rulings in Frivaldo and Mercado; that the current law requires a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship; and that petitioner, having failed to renounce his American citizenship, remains a dual citizen and is therefore disqualified from running for an elective public position under Section 4011 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). The issues for resolution are: 1) whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners motion for reconsideration for being moot; and 2) whether petitioner is disqualified from running for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections for having failed to renounce his American citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225. An issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justifiable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value.12 In this case, the pendency of petitioners election protest assailing the results of the election did not render moot the motion for reconsideration which he filed assailing his disqualification. Stated otherwise, the issue of petitioners citizenship did not become moot; the resolution of the issue remained relevant because it could significantly affect the outcome of the election protest. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective office. As mandated by law: "An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines."13 It bears stressing that the Regional Trial Court later ruled in favor of petitioner in the election protest and declared him the winner. In view thereof, a definitive ruling on the issue of petitioners citizenship was clearly necessary. Hence, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners motion for reconsideration solely on the ground that the same was rendered moot because he lost to private respondent. Anent the second issue, we find that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office in view of his failure to renounce his American citizenship.

R.A. No. 9225 was enacted to allow re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship for: 1) natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country; and 2) natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the law, become citizens of a foreign country. The law provides that they are deemed to have re-acquired or retained their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. 14 Petitioner falls under the first category, being a natural-born citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship upon his naturalization as an American citizen. In the instant case, there is no question that petitioner re-acquired his Philippine citizenship after taking the oath of allegiance on September 6, 2006. However, it must be emphasized that R.A. No. 9225 imposes an additional requirement on those who wish to seek elective public office, as follows: Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: xxxx (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. Contrary to petitioners claims, the filing of a certificate of candidacy does not ipso facto amount to a renunciation of his foreign citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. Our rulings in the cases of Frivaldo and Mercado are not applicable to the instant case because R.A. No. 9225 provides for more requirements. Thus, in Japzon v. COMELEC,15 the Court held that Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 requires the twin requirements of swearing to an Oath of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship, viz: Breaking down the afore-quoted provision, for a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, to run for public office, he must: (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.1awphi1 Further, in Jacot v. Dal and COMELEC,16 the Court ruled that a candidates oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Thus: The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. Clearly Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 (on the making of a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship) requires of the Filipinos availing themselves of the benefits under the said Act to accomplish an undertaking other than that which they have presumably complied with under Section 3 thereof (oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines). This is made clear in the discussion of the Bicameral Conference Committee on Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill No. 4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on 18 August 2003 (precursors of Republic Act No. 9225), where the Hon. Chairman Franklin Drilon and Hon. Representative Arthur Defensor explained to Hon. Representative Exequiel Javier that the oath of allegiance is different from the renunciation of foreign citizenship:

CHAIRMAN DRILON. Okay. So, No. 2. "Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath." I think its very good, ha? No problem? REP. JAVIER. I think its already covered by the oath. CHAIRMAN DRILON. Renouncing foreign citizenship. REP. JAVIER. Ah but he has taken his oath already. CHAIRMAN DRILON. Nono, renouncing foreign citizenship. xxxx CHAIRMAN DRILON. Can I go back to No. 2. Whats your problem, Boy? Those seeking elective office in the Philippines. REP. JAVIER. They are trying to make him renounce his citizenship thinking that ano CHAIRMAN DRILON. His American citizenship. REP. JAVIER. To discourage him from running? CHAIRMAN DRILON. No. REP. A.D. DEFENSOR. No. When he runs he will only have one citizenship. When he runs for office, he will have only one. (Emphasis ours.) There is little doubt, therefore, that the intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship. By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of Candidacy, which is substantially similar to the one contained in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, does not constitute the personal and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225. It bears to emphasize that the said oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having more than one citizenship. In the instant case, petitioners Oath of Allegiance and Certificate of Candidacy did not comply with Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 which further requires those seeking elective public office in the Philippines to make a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Petitioner failed to renounce his American citizenship; as such, he is disqualified from running for vice-mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner is declared DISQUALIFIED from running for Vice-Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2007 elections because of his failure to renounce his foreign citizenship pursuant to Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 123755. June 28, 1996]

Frivaldo v Comelec DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: The ultimate question posed before this Court in these twin cases is: Who should be declared the rightful governor of Sorsogon (i) Juan G. Frivaldo, who unquestionably obtained the highest number of votes in three successive elections but who was twice declared by this Court 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; (ii) Raul R. Lee, who was the second placer in the canvass, but who claims that the votes cast in favor of Frivaldo should be considered void; that the electorate should be deemed to have intentionally thrown away their ballots; and that legally, he secured the most number of valid votes; or (iii) The incumbent Vice-Governor, Oscar G. Deri, who obviously was not voted directly to the position of governor, but who according to prevailing jurisprudence should take over the said post inasmuch as, by the ineligibility of Frivaldo, a "permanent vacancy in the contested office has occurred"? In ruling for Frivaldo, the Court lays down new doctrines on repatriation, clarifies/reiterates/amplifies existing jurisprudence on citizenship and elections, and upholds the superiority of substantial justice over pure legalisms. G.R. No. 123755. This is a special civil action under Rules 65 and 58 of the Rules of Court for certiorari and preliminary injunction to review and annul a Resolution of the respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec), First Division,1 promulgated on December 19,19952 and another Resolution of the Comelec en banepromulgated February 23, 19963 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Facts On March 20, 1995, private respondent Juan G. Frivaldo filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the office of Governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995elections. On March 23, 1995, petitioner Raul R. Lee, another candidate, filed a petition4 with the Comelec docketed as SPA No. 95-028 praying that Frivaldo "be disqualified from seeking or holding any public office or position by reason of not yet being a citizen of the Philippines," and that his Certificate of Candidacy be cancelled. On May 1, 1995, the Second Division of the Comelec promulgated a Resolution5 granting the petition with the following disposition:6 "WHEREFORE, this Division resolves to GRANT the petition and declares that respondent is DISQUALIFIED to run for the Office of Governor of Sorsogon on the ground that he is NOT a citizen of the Philippines. Accordingly, respondent's certificate of candidacy is cancelled." The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo remained unacted upon until after the May 8, 1995 elections. So, his candidacy continued and he was voted for during the elections held on said date. On May 11, 1995, the Comelec en banc7 affirmed the aforementioned Resolution of the Second Division. The Provincial Board of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election returns and a Certificate of Votes8.dated May 27, 1995 was issued showing the following votes obtained by the candidates for the position of Governor of Sorsogon: Antonio H. Escudero, Jr. Juan G. Frivaldo 51,060 73,440

RaulR.Lee Isagani P. Ocampo

53,304 1,925

On June 9, 1995, Lee filed in said SPA No. 95-028, a (supplemental) petition9 praying for his proclamation as the duly-elected Governor of Sorsogon. In an order10 dated June 21, 1995, but promulgated according to the petition "only on June 29, 1995," the Comelec en bane directed "the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming candidate Raul Lee as the winning gubernatorial candidate in the province of Sorsogon on June 29,1995 x x x." Accordingly, at 8:30 in the evening of June 30,1995, Lee was proclaimed governor of Sorsogon. On July 6, 1995, Frivaldo filed with the Comelec a new petition,11 docketed as SPC No. 95-317, praying for the annulment of the June 30, 1995proclamation 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) 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 x x x." 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. On December 19, 1995, the Comelec First Division promulgated the herein assailed Resolution13 holding that Lee, "not having garnered the highest number of votes," was not legally entitled to be proclaimed as duly-elected governor; and that Frivaldo, "having garnered the highest number of votes, and xxx having reacquired his Filipino citizenship by repatriation on June 30, 1995 under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 725 xxx (is) qualified to hold the office of governor of Sorsogon"; thus: "PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission (First Division), therefore RESOLVES to GRANT the Petition. Consistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court, the proclamation of Raul R. Lee as Governor of Sorsogon is hereby ordered annulled, being contrary to law, he not having garnered the highest number of votes to warrant his proclamation. Upon the finality of the annulment of the proclamation of Raul R. Lee, the Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed to immediately reconvene and, on the basis of the completed canvass, proclaim petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo as the duly elected Governor of Sorsogon having garnered the highest number of votes, and he having reacquired his Filipino citizenship by repatriation on June 30,1995 under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 725 and, thus, qualified to hold the office of Governor of Sorsogon. Conformably with Section 260 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), the Clerk of the Commission is directed to notify His Excellency the President of the Philippines, and the Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Sorsogon of this resolution immediately upon the due implementation thereof." On December 26,1995, Lee filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Comelec en banc in its Resolution14 promulgated on February 23, 1996. On February 26, 1996, the present petition was filed. Acting on the prayer for a temporary restraining order, this Court issued on February 27, 1996 a Resolution which inter alia directed the parties "to maintain the status quo prevailing prior to the filing of this petition." The Issues in G.R. No. 123755 Petitioner Lee's "position on the matter at hand briefly be capsulized in the following propositions": 15 "First - The initiatory petition below was so far insufficient in form and substance to warrant the exercise by the COMELEC of its jurisdiction with the result that, in effect, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and deciding said petition;

Second- The judicially declared disqualification of respondent was a continuing condition and rendered him ineligible to run for, to be elected to and to hold the Office of Governor; Third - The alleged repatriation of respondent was neither valid nor is the effect thereof retroactive as to cure his ineligibility and qualify him to hold the Office of Governor; and Fourth - Correctly read and applied, the Labo Doctrine fully supports the validity of petitioner's proclamation as duly elected Governor of Sorsogon." G.R. No. 120295 This is a petition to annul three Resolutions of the respondent Comelec, the first two of which are also at issue in G.R. No. 123755, as follows: 1. Resolution16 of the Second Division, promulgated on May 1, 1995, disqualifying Frivaldo from running for governor of Sorsogon in the May 8, 1995 elections "on the ground that he is not a citizen of the Philippines"; 2. Resolution17 of the Comelec en banc, promulgated on May 11, 1995; and 3. Resolution18 of the Comelec en banc, promulgated also on May 11, 1995 suspending the proclamation of, among others, Frivaldo. The Facts and the Issue The facts of this case are essentially the same as those in G.R. No. 123755. However, Frivaldo assails the above-mentioned resolutions on a different ground: that under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which is reproduced hereinunder: "Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election." (Italics supplied.) the Comelec had no jurisdiction to issue said Resolutions because they were not rendered "within the period allowed by law," i.e., "not later than fifteen days before the election." Otherwise stated, Frivaldo contends that the failure of the Comelec to act on the petition for disqualification within the period of fifteen days prior to the election as provided by law is a jurisdictional defect which renders the said Resolutions null and void. By Resolution on March 12, 1996, the Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 120295 and 123755 since they are intimately related in their factual environment and are identical in the ultimate question raised, viz., who should occupy the position of governor of the province of Sorsogon. On March 19, 1995, the Court heard oral argument from the parties and required them thereafter to file simultaneously their respective memoranda. The Consolidated Issues From the foregoing submissions, the consolidated issues may be restated as follows: 1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal? If so, did it seasonably cure his lack of citizenship as to qualify him to be proclaimed and to hold the Office of Governor? If not, may it be given retroactive effect? If so, from when?

2. Is Frivaldo's "judicially declared" disqualification for lack of Filipino citizenship a continuing bar to his eligibility to run for, be elected to or hold the governorship of Sorsogon? 3. Did the respondent Comelec have jurisdiction over the initiatory petition in SPC No. 95-317 considering that : said petition is not "a pre-proclamation case, an election protest or a quo warranto case"? 4. Was the proclamation of Lee, a runner-up in the election, valid and legal in light of existing jurisprudence? 5. Did the respondent Commission on Elections exceed its jurisdiction in promulgating the assailed Resolutions, all of which prevented Frivaldo from assuming the governorship of Sorsogon, considering that they were not rendered within ( the period referred to in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, viz., "not later than fifteen days before the elections"? The First Issue: Frivaldo's Repatriation The validity and effectivity of Frivaldo's repatriation is the lis mota, the threshold legal issue in this case. All the other matters raised are secondary to this. The Local Government Code of 199119 expressly requires Philippine citizenship as a qualification for elective local officials, including that of provincial governor, thus: "Sec. 39. Qualifications. (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. (b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice governor or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, or mayor, vice mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day. xxx xxx xxx

Inasmuch as Frivaldo had been declared by this Court20 as a non-citizen, it is therefore incumbent upon him to show that he has reacquired citizenship; in fine, that he possesses the qualifications prescribed under the said statute (R. A. 7160). Under Philippine law,21 citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation. Frivaldo told this Court in G.R. No. 10465422 and during the oral argument in this case 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 henot Leeshould 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. En contrario, Lee argues that Frivaldo's repatriation is tainted; with serious defects, which we shall now discuss in seriatim.

First, Lee tells us that P.D. No. 725 had "been effectively repealed," asserting that "then President Corazon Aquino exercising legislative powers under the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, forbade the grant of citizenship by Presidential Decree or Executive Issuances as the same poses a serious and contentious issue of policy which the present government, in the exercise of prudence and sound discretion, should best leave to the judgment of the first Congress under the 1987 Constitution," adding that in her memorandum dated March 27,1987 to the members of the Special Committee on Naturalization constituted for purposes of Presidential Decree No. 725, President Aquino directed them "to cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings within your functional area of responsibility as defined under Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 270 dated April 11, 1975, as amended."23 This memorandum dated March 27, 198724 cannot by any stretch of legal hermeneutics be construed as a law sanctioning or authorizing a repeal of P.D. No. 725. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones25 and a repeal may be express or implied. It is obvious that no express repeal was made because then President Aquino in her memorandum based on the copy furnished us by Lee did not categorically and/or impliedly state that P.D. 725 was being repealed or was being rendered without any legal effect. In fact, she did not even mention it specifically by its number or text. On the other hand, it is a basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed "unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist."26 The memorandum of then President Aquino cannot even be regarded as a legislative enactment, for not every pronouncement of the Chief Executive even under the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution can nor should be regarded as an exercise of her law-making powers. At best, it could be treated as an executive policy addressed to the Special Committee to halt the acceptance and processing of applications for repatriation pending whatever "judgment the first Congress under the 1987 Constitution" might make. In other words, the former President did not repeal P.D. 725 but left it to the first Congress once createdto deal with the matter. If she had intended to repeal such law, she should have unequivocally said so instead of referring the matter to Congress. The fact is she carefully couched her presidential issuance in terms that clearly indicated the intention of "the present government, in the exercise of prudence and sound discretion" to leave the matter of repeal to the new Congress. Any other interpretation of the said Presidential Memorandum, such as is now being proffered to the Court by Lee, would visit unmitigated violence not only upon statutory construction but on common sense as well. Second. Lee also argues that "serious congenital irregularities flawed the repatriation proceedings," asserting that Frivaldo's application therefor was "filed on June 29, 1995 x x x (and) was approved in just one day or on June 30, 1995 x x x," which "prevented a judicious review and evaluation of the merits thereof." Frivaldo counters that he filed his application for repatriation with the Office of the President in Malacanang Palace on August 17, 1994. This is confirmed by the Solicitor General. However, the Special Committee was reactivated only on June 8, 1995, when presumably the said Committee started processing his application. On June 29, 1995, he filled up and re-submitted the FORM that the Committee required. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there was "indecent haste" in the processing of his application. Anent Lee's charge that the "sudden reconstitution of the Special Committee on Naturalization was intended solely for the personal interest of respondent,"27 the Solicitor General explained during the oral argument on March 19, 1996 that such allegation is simply baseless as there were many others who applied and were considered for repatriation, a list of whom was submitted by him to this Court, through a Manifestation28 filed on April 3, 1996. On the basis of the parties' submissions, we are convinced that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the presumption of legality in the repatriation of Frivaldo have not been successfully rebutted by Lee. The mere fact that the proceedings were speeded up is by itself not a ground to conclude that such proceedings were necessarily tainted. After all, the requirements of repatriation under P.D. No. 725 are not difficult to comply with, nor are they tedious and cumbersome. In fact, P.D. 72529 itself requires very little of an applicant, and even the rules and regulations to implement the said decree were left to the Special Committee to promulgate. This is not unusual since, unlike in naturalization where an alien covets a first-time entry into Philippine political life, in repatriation the applicant is a former natural-born Filipino who is merely seeking to reacquire his previous citizenship. In the case of Frivaldo, he was undoubtedly a natural-born citizen who openly and faithfully served his country and his province prior to his naturalization in the United States a naturalization he insists was made necessary only to escape the iron clutches of a dictatorship he abhorred and could not in conscience embrace and who, after the fall of the dictator and the re-establishment of democratic space, wasted no time in returning to his country of birth to offer once more his talent and services to his people. So too, the fact that ten other persons, as certified to by the Solicitor General, were granted repatriation argues convincingly and conclusively against the existence of favoritism vehemently posited by

Raul Lee. At any rate, any contest on the legality of Frivaldo's repatriation should have been pursued before the Committee itself, and, failing there, in the Office of the President, pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Third. Lee further contends that assuming the assailed repatriation to be valid, nevertheless it could only be effective as at 2:00 p.m. of June 30, 1995 whereas the citizenship qualification prescribed by the Local Government Code "must exist on the date of his election, if not when the certificate of candidacy is filed," citing our decision in G.R. 10465430 which held that "both the Local Government Code and the Constitution require that only Philippine citizens can run and be elected to Public office" Obviously, however, this was a mere obiter as the only issue in said case was whether Frivaldo's naturalization was valid or not and NOT the effective date thereof. Since the Court held his naturalization to be invalid, then the issue of when an aspirant for public office should be a citizen was NOT resolved at all by the Court. Which question we shall now directly rule on. Under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code, "(a)n elective local official must be: * a citizen of the Philippines; * a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province x x x where he intends to be elected; * a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; * able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect." * In addition, "candidates for the position of governor x x x must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day." From the above, it will be noted that the law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship, unlike that for residence (which must consist of at least one year's residency immediately preceding the day of election) and age (at least twenty three years of age on election day). Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective public office, 31 and the purpose of the citizenship qualification is none other than to ensure that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof. Now, an official begins to govern or to discharge his functions only upon his proclamation and on the day the law mandates his term of office to begin. Since Frivaldo re-assumed his citizenship on June 30, 1995the very day32 the term of office of governor (and other elective officials) beganhe was therefore already qualified to be proclaimed, to hold such office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities thereof as of said date. In short, at that time, he was already qualified to govern his native Sorsogon. This is the liberal interpretation that should give spirit, life and meaning to our law on qualifications consistent with the purpose for which such law was enacted. So too, even from a literal (as distinguished from liberal) construction, it should be noted that Section 39 of the Local Government Code speaks of "Qualifications" of "ELECTIVE OFFICIALS," not of candidates. Why then should such qualification be required at the time of election or at the time of the filing of the certificates of candidacies, as Lee insists? Literally, such qualifications unless otherwise expressly conditioned, as in the case of age and residence should thus be possessed when the "elective [or elected] official" begins to govern, i.e., at the time he is proclaimed and at the start of his term in this case, on June 30, 1995. Paraphrasing this Court's ruling in Vasquez vs. Giapand Li Seng Giap & Sons,33 if the purpose of the citizenship requirement is to ensure that our people and country do not end up being governed by aliens, i.e., persons owing allegiance to another nation, that aim or purpose would not be thwarted but instead achieved by construing the citizenship qualification as applying to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term. But perhaps the more difficult objection was the one raised during the oral argument34 to the effect that the citizenship qualification should be possessed at the time the candidate (or for that matter the elected official) registered as a voter. After all, Section 39, apart from requiring the official to be a citizen, also specifies as another item of qualification, that he be a "registered voter." And, under the law 35 a "voter" must be a citizen of the Philippines. So therefore, Frivaldo could not have been a voter-much less a validly registered one if he was not a citizen at the time of such registration. The answer to this problem again lies in discerning the purpose of the requirement. If the law intended the citizenship qualification to be possessed prior to election consistent with the requirement of being a registered voter, then it would not have made citizenship a SEPARATE qualification. The law abhors a redundancy. It therefore stands to reason that the law intended CITIZENSHIP to be a qualification distinct from being a VOTER, even if being a voter presumes being a citizen first. It also stands to reason that the voter requirement was included as another qualification (aside from "citizenship"), not to reiterate

the need for nationality but to require that the official be registered as a voter IN THE AREA OR TERRITORY he seeks to govern, i.e., the law states: "a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province x x x where he intends to be elected." It should be emphasized that the Local Government Code requires an elective official to be a registered voter. It does not require him to vote actually. Hence, registrationnot the actual votingis the core of this "qualification." In other words, the law's purpose in this second requirement is to ensure that the prospective official is actually registered in the area he seeks to govern and not anywhere else. Before this Court, Frivaldo has repeatedly emphasizedand Lee has not disputed that he "was and is a registered voter of Sorsogon, and his registration as a voter has been sustained as valid by judicial declaration x x x In fact, he cast his vote in his precinct on May 8, 1995."36 So too, during the oral argument, his counsel stead-fastly maintained that "Mr. Frivaldo has always been a registered voter of Sorsogon. He has voted in 1987,1988,1992, then he voted again in 1995. In fact, his eligibility as a voter was questioned, but the court dismissed (sic) his eligibility as a voter and he was allowed to vote as in fact, he voted in all the previous elections including on May 8,1995.37 It is thus clear that Frivaldo is a registered voter in the province where he intended to be elected. There is yet another reason why the prime issue of citizenship should be reckoned from the date of proclamation, not necessarily the date of election or date of filing of the certificate of candidacy. Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code38 gives any voter, presumably including the defeated candidate, the opportunity to question the ELIGIBILITY (or the disloyalty) of a candidate. This is the only provision of the Code that authorizes a remedy on how to contest before the Comelec an incumbent's ineligibility arising from failure to meet the qualifications enumerated under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code. Such remedy of Quo Warranto can be availed of "within ten days after proclamation" of the winning candidate. Hence, it is only at such time that the issue of ineligibility may be taken cognizance of by the Commission. And since, at the very moment of Lee's proclamation (8:30 p.m., June 30, 1995), Juan G. Frivaldo was already and indubitably a citizen, having taken his oath of allegiance earlier in the afternoon of the same day, then he should have been the candidate proclaimed as he unquestionably garnered the highest number of votes in the immediately preceding elections and such oath had already cured his previous "judicially-declared" alienage. Hence, at such time, he was no longer ineligible. But to remove all doubts on this important issue, we also hold that the repatriation of Frivaldo RETRO ACTED to the date of the filing of his application on August 17,1994. It is true that under the Civil Code of the Philippines,39 "(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." But there are settled exceptions40 to this general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL in nature or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS. According to Tolentino,41 curative statutes are those which undertake to cure errors and irregularities, thereby validating judicial or administrative proceedings, acts of public officers, or private deeds and contracts which otherwise would not produce their intended consequences by reason of some statutory disability or failure to comply with some technical requirement. They operate on conditions already existing, and are necessarily retroactive in operation. Agpalo,42 on the other hand, says that curative statutes are "healing acts x x x curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing existing obligations x x x (and) are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities in existing laws, and curb certain evils x x x By their very nature, curative statutes are retroactive xxx (and) reach back to past events to correct errors or irregularities and to render valid and effective attempted acts which would be otherwise ineffective for the purpose the parties intended." On the other hand, remedial or procedural laws, i.e., those statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of such rights, ordinarily do not come within the legal meaning of a retrospective law, nor within the general rule against the retrospective operation of statutes. 43 A reading of P.D. 725 immediately shows that it creates a new right, and also provides for a new remedy, thereby filling certain voids in our laws. Thus, in its preamble, P.D. 725 expressly recognizes the plight of "many Filipino women (who) had lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens" and who could not, under the existing law (C. A. No. 63, as amended) avail of repatriation until "after the death of their husbands or the termination of their marital status" and who could neither be benefitted by the 1973 Constitution's new provision allowing "a Filipino woman who marries an alien to retain her Philippine citizenship xxx" because "such provision of the new Constitution does not apply to Filipino women who had married aliens before said constitution took effect." Thus, P.D. 725 granted a new right to these womenthe right to re-acquire Filipino citizenship even during their marital coverture, which right did not exist prior to P.D. 725. On the other hand, said statute also provided a new remedy and a new right in favor of other "natural born Filipinos who (had) lost their Philippine citizenship but now desire to

re-acquire Philippine citizenship," because prior to the promulgation of P.D. 725 such former Filipinos would have had to undergo the tedious and cumbersome process of naturalization, but with the advent of P.D. 725 they could now re-acquire their Philippine citizenship under the simplified procedure of repatriation. The Solicitor General44 argues: "By their very nature, curative statutes are retroactive, (DBP vs. CA, 96 SCRA 342), since they are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities in existing laws (Del Castillo vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, 96 Phil. 119) and curb certain evils (Santos vs. Duata, 14 SCRA 1041). In this case, P.D. No. 725 was enacted to cure the defect in the existing naturalization law, specifically C. A. No. 63 wherein married Filipino women are allowed to repatriate only upon the death of their husbands, and natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship by naturalization and other causes faced the difficulty of undergoing the rigid procedures of C.A. 63 for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship by naturalization. Presidential Decree No. 725 provided a remedy for the aforementioned legal aberrations and thus its provisions are considered essentially remedial and curative." In light of the foregoing, and prescinding from the wording of the preamble, it is unarguable that the legislative intent was precisely to give the statute retroactive operation. "(A) retrospective operation is given to a statute or amendment where the intent that it should so operate clearly appears from a consideration of the act as a whole, or from the terms thereof." 45 It is obvious to the Court that the statute was meant to "reach back" to those persons, events and transactions not otherwise covered by prevailing law and jurisprudence. And inasmuch as it has been held that citizenship is a political and civil right equally as important as the freedom of speech, liberty of abode, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and other guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights, therefore the legislative intent to give retrospective operation to P.D. 725 must be given the fullest effect possible. "(I)t has been said that a remedial statute must be so construed as to make it effect the evident purpose for -which it was enacted, so that if the reason of the statute extends to past transactions, as well as to those in the future, then it will be so applied although the statute does not in terms so direct, unless to do so would impair some vested right or violate some constitutional guaranty."46 This is all the more true of P.D. 725, which did not specify any restrictions on or delimit or qualify the right of repatriation granted therein. At this point, a valid question may be raised: How can the retroactivity of P.D. 725 benefit Frivaldo considering that said law was enacted on June 5,1975, while Frivaldo lost his Filipino citizenship much later, on January 20, 1983, and applied for repatriation even later, on August 17, 1994? 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. Another argument for retroactivity to the date of filing is that it would prevent prejudice to applicants. If P.D. 725 were not to be given retroactive effect, and the Special Committee decides not to act, i.e., to delay the processing of applications for any substantial length of time, then the former Filipinos who may be stateless, as Frivaldohaving already renounced his American citizenship was, may be prejudiced for

causes outside their control. This should not be. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is to be presumed that the law-making body intended right and justice to prevail.47 And as experience will show, the Special Committee was able to process, act upon and grant applications for repatriation within relatively short spans of time after the same were filed. 48 The fact that such interregna were relatively insignificant minimizes the likelihood of prejudice to the government as a result of giving retroactivity to repatriation. Besides, to the mind of the Court, direct prejudice to the government is possible only where a person's repatriation has the effect of wiping out a liability of his to the government arising in connection with or as a result of his being an alien, and accruing only during the interregnum between application and approval, a situation that is not present in the instant case. And it is but right and just that the mandate of the people, already twice frustrated, should now prevail. Under the circumstances, there is nothing unjust or iniquitous in treating Frivaldo's repatriation as having become effective as of the date of his application, i.e., on August 17, 1994. This being so, all questions about his possession of the nationality qualification whether at the date of proclamation (June 30, 1995) or the date of election (May 8, 1995) or date of filing his certificate of candidacy (March 20, 1995) would become moot. Based on the foregoing, any question regarding Frivaldo's status as a registered voter would also be deemed settled. Inasmuch as he is considered as having been repatriatedi.e., his Filipino citizenship restored as of August 17, 1994, his previous registration as a voter is likewise deemed validated as of said date. It is not disputed that on January 20, 1983 Frivaldo became an American. Would the retroactivity of his repatriation not effectively give him dual citizenship, which under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code would disqualify him "from running for any elective local position?"49 We answer this question in the negative, as there is cogent reason to hold that Frivaldo was really STATELESS at the time he took said oath of allegiance and even before that, when he ran for governor in 1988. In his Comment, Frivaldo wrote that he "had long renounced and had long abandoned his American citizenshiplong before May 8, 1995. At best, Frivaldo was stateless in the interim when he abandoned and renounced his US citizenship but before he was repatriated to his Filipino citizenship."50 On this point, we quote from the assailed Resolution dated December 19, 1995:51 "By the laws of the United States, petitioner Frivaldo lost his American citizenship when he took his oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government when he ran for Governor in 1988, in 1992, and in 1995. Every certificate of candidacy contains an oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government." These factual findings that Frivaldo has lost his foreign nationality long before the elections of 1995 have not been effectively rebutted by Lee. Furthermore, it is basic that such findings of the Commission are conclusive upon this Court, absent any showing of capriciousness or arbitrariness or abuse. 52 The Second Issue: Is Lack of Citizenship a Continuing Disqualification? Lee contends that the May 1,1995 Resolution53 of the Comelec Second Division in SPA No. 95-028 as affirmed in toto by Comelec En Banc in its Resolution of May 11, 1995 "became final and executory after five (5) days or on May 17,1995, no restraining order having been issued by this Honorable Court." 54 Hence, before Lee "was proclaimed as the elected governor on June 30, 1995, there was already a final and executory judgment disqualifying" Frivaldo. Lee adds that this Court's two rulings (which Frivaldo now concedes were legally "correct") declaring Frivaldo an alien have also become final and executory way before the 1995 elections, and these "judicial pronouncements of his political status as an American citizen absolutely and for all time disqualified (him) from running for, and holding any public office in the Philippines." We do not agree. It should be noted that our first ruling in G.R. No. 87193 disqualifying Frivaldo was rendered in connection with the 1988 elections while that in G.R. No. 104654 was in connection with the 1992 elections. That he was disqualified for such elections is final and can no longer be changed. In the words of the respondent Commission (Second Division) in its assailed Resolution: 55

"The records show that the Honorable Supreme Court had decided that Frivaldo was not a Filipino citizen and thus disqualified for the purpose of the 1988 and 1992 elections. However, there is no record of any 'final judgment' of the disqualification of Frivaldo as a candidate for the May 8, 1995 elections. What the Commission said in its Order of June 21, 1995 (implemented on June 30, 1995), directing the proclamation of Raul R. Lee, was that Frivaldo was not a Filipino citizen 'having been declared by the Supreme Court in its Order dated March 25, 1995, not a citizen of the Philippines.' This declaration of the Supreme Court, however, was in connection with the 1992 elections." Indeed, decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter lose, his citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose. Hence, in Lee vs. Commissioner of Immigration,56 we held: "Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered res judicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again, as the occasion demands." The Third Issue: Comelec's Jurisdiction Over The Petition in SPC No. 95-317 Lee also avers that respondent Comelec had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in SPC No. 95-317 because the only "possible types of proceedings that may be entertained by the Comelec are a pre-proclamation case, an election protest or a quo warranto case." Again, Lee reminds us that he was proclaimed on June 30, 1995 but that Frivaldo filed SPC No. 95-317 questioning his (Lee's) proclamation only on July 6, 1995 "beyond the 5-day reglementary period." Hence, according to him, Frivaldo's "recourse was to file either an election protest or a quo warranto action." This argument is not meritorious. The Constitution 57 has given the Comelec ample power to "exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective x x x provincial x x x officials." Instead of dwelling at length on the various petitions that Comelec, in the exercise of its constitutional prerogatives, may entertain, suffice it to say that this Court has invariably recognized the Commission's authority to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations of which SPC No. 95-317 obviously is one.58 Thus, in Mentang vs. COMELEC,59 we ruled: "The petitioner argues that after proclamation and assumption of office, a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable. Indeed, we are aware of cases holding that pre-proclamation controversies may no longer be entertained by the COMELEC after the winning candidate has been proclaimed, (citing Gallardo vs. Rimando, 187 SCRA 463; Salvacion vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 513; Casimiro vs. COMELEC, 171 SCRA 468.) This rule, however, is premised on an assumption that the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to make such declaration of nullity. (citing Aguam vs.COMELEC, 23 SCRA 883; Agbayani vs. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 484.)" The Court however cautioned that such power to annul a proclamation must "be done within ten (10) days following the proclamation." Inasmuch as Frivaldo's petition was filed only six (6) days after Lee's proclamation, there is no question that the Comelec correctly acquired jurisdiction over the same. The Fourth Issue: Was Lee's Proclamation Valid Frivaldo assails the validity of the Lee proclamation. We uphold him for the following reasons: First. To paraphrase this Court in Labo vs. COMELEC,60 "the fact remains that he (Lee) was not the choice of the sovereign will," and in Aquino vs. COMELEC,61 Lee is "a second placer, xxx just that, a second placer." In spite of this, Lee anchors his claim to the governorship on the pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid Labo62 case, as follows:

"The rule would have been different if the electorate fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate's disqualification so as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety, would nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. In such case, the electorate may be said to have waived the validity and efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case, the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected." But such holding is qualified by the next paragraph, thus: "But this is not the situation obtaining in the instant dispute. It has not been shown, and none was alleged, that petitioner Labo was notoriously known as an ineligible candidate, much less the electorate as having known of such fact. On the contrary, petitioner Labo was even allowed by no less than the Comelec itself in its resolution dated May 10, 1992 to be voted for the office of the city mayor as its resolution dated May 9,1992 denying due course to petitioner Labo's certificate of candidacy had not yet become final and subject to the final outcome of this case." The last-quoted paragraph in Labo, unfortunately for Lee, is the ruling appropriate in this case because Frivaldo was in 1995 in an identical situation as Labo was in 1992 when the Comelec's cancellation of his certificate of candidacy was not yet final on election day as there was in both cases a pending motion for reconsideration, for which reason Comelec issued an (omnibus) resolution declaring that Frivaldo (like Labo in 1992) and several others can still be voted for in the May 8, 1995 election, as in fact, he was. Furthermore, there has been no sufficient evidence presented to show that the electorate of Sorsogon was "fully aware in fact and in law" of Frivaldo's alleged disqualification as to "bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety", in other words, that the voters intentionally wasted their ballots knowing that, in spite of their voting for him, he was ineligible. If Labo has any relevance at all, it is that the vice-governor and not Leeshould be proclaimed, since in losing the election, Lee was, to paraphrase Labo again, "obviously not the choice of the people" of Sorsogon. This is the emphatic teaching of Labo: "The rule, therefore, is: the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office." Second. As we have earlier declared Frivaldo to have seasonably re-acquired his citizenship and inasmuch as he obtained the highest number of votes in the 1995 elections, henot Lee should be proclaimed. Hence, Lee's proclamation was patently erroneous and should now be corrected. The Fifth Issue: Is Section 78 of the Election Code Mandatory? In G.R. No. 120295, Frivaldo claims that the assailed Resolution of the Comelec (Second Division) dated May 1, 1995 and the confirmatory en bancResolution of May 11, 1995 disqualifying him for want of citizenship should be annulled because they were rendered beyond the fifteen (15) day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code which reads as follows: "Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election" (italics supplied.) This claim is now moot and academic inasmuch as these resolutions are deemed superseded by the subsequent ones issued by the Commission (First Division) on December 19, 1995, affirmed en banc63 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 disqualified 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." (Italics supplied) Refutation of Mr. Justice Davide's Dissent In his dissenting opinion, the esteemed Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. argues that President Aquino's memorandum dated March 27, 1987 should be viewed as a suspension (not a repeal, as urged by Lee) of P.D. 725. But whether it decrees a suspension or a repeal is a purely academic distinction because the said issuance is not a statute that can amend or abrogate an existing law. The existence and subsistence of P.D. 725 were recognized in the first Frivaldo case;64 viz, "(u)nder CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and P.D. No. 725, Philippine citizenship maybe reacquired by xxx repatriation" He also contends that by allowing Frivaldo to register and to remain as a registered voter, the Comelec and in effect this Court abetted a "mockery" of our two previous judgments declaring him a non-citizen. We do not see such abetting or mockery. The retroactivity of his repatriation, as discussed earlier, legally cured whatever defects there may have been in his registration as a voter for the purpose of the 1995 elections. Such retroactivity did not change his disqualifications in 1988 and 1992, which were the subjects of such previous rulings. Mr. Justice Davide also believes that Quo Warranto is not the sole remedy to question the ineligibility of a candidate, citing the Comelec's authority under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code allowing the denial of a certificate of candidacy on the ground of a false material representation therein as required by Section 74. Citing Loong, he then states his disagreement with our holding that Section 78 is merely directory. We really have no quarrel. Our point is that Frivaldo was in error in his claim in G.R. No. 120295 that the Comelec Resolutions promulgated on May 1, 1995 and May 11, 1995 were invalid because they were issued "not later than fifteen days before the election" as prescribed by Section 78. In dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 120295, we hold that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion because "Section 6 of R. A. 6646 authorizes the Comelec to try and decide disqualifications even after the elections." In spite of his disagreement with us on this point, i.e., that Section 78 "is merely directory," we note that just like us, Mr. Justice Davide nonetheless votes to "DISMISS G.R. No. 120295." One other point. Loong, as quoted in the dissent, teaches that a petition to deny due course under Section 78 must be filed within the 25-day period prescribed therein. The present case however deals with the period during which the Comelec may decide such petition. And we hold that it may be decided even after the fifteen day period mentioned in Section 78. Here, we rule that a decision promulgated by the Comelec even after the elections is valid but Loong held that a petition filed beyond the 25-day period is out of time. There is no inconsistency nor conflict. Mr. Justice Davide also disagrees with the Court's holding that, given the unique factual circumstances of Frivaldo, repatriation may be given retroactive effect. He argues that such retroactivity "dilutes" our holding in the first Frivaldo case. But the first (and even the second Frivaldo) decision did not directly involve repatriation as a mode of acquiring citizenship. If we may repeat, there is no question that Frivaldo was not a Filipino for purposes of determining his qualifications in the 1988 and 1992 elections. That is settled. But his supervening repatriation has changed his political status not in 1988 or 1992, but only in the 1995 elections. Our learned colleague also disputes our holding that Frivaldo was stateless prior to his repatriation, saying that "informal renunciation or abandonment is not a ground to lose American citizenship." Since our courts are charged only with the duty of the determining who are Philippine nationals, we cannot rule on the legal question of who are or who are not Americans. It is basic in international law that a State determines ONLY those who are its own citizens not who are the citizens of other countries.65 The issue here is: the Comelec made a finding of fact that Frivaldo was stateless and such finding has not been shown by Lee to be arbitrary or whimsical. Thus, following settled case law, such finding is binding and final. The dissenting opinion also submits that Lee who lost by chasmic margins to Frivaldo in all three previous elections, should be declared winner because "Frivaldo's ineligibility for being an American was publicly known." First, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for such "public" knowledge. Second, even if there is, such knowledge can be true post facto only of the last two previous elections. Third, even the Comelec and now this Court were/are still deliberating on his nationality before, during and after the 1995 elections. How then can there be such "public" knowledge? Mr. Justice Davide submits that Section 39 of the Local Government Code refers to the qualifications of elective local officials, i.e., candidates, and not elected officials, and that the citizenship qualification [under par. (a) of that section] must be possessed by candidates, not merely at the commencement of the term, but by election day at the latest. We see it differently. Section 39, par. (a) thereof speaks of "elective

local official" while par. (b) to (f) refer to "candidates." If the qualifications under par. (a) were intended to apply to "candidates" and not elected officials, the legislature would have said so, instead of differentiating par. (a) from the rest of the paragraphs. Secondly, if Congress had meant that the citizenship qualification should be possessed at election day or prior thereto, it would have specifically stated such detail, the same way it did in pars. (b) to (f) for other qualifications of candidates for governor, mayor, etc. Mr. Justice Davide also questions the giving of retroactive effect to Frivaldo's repatriation on the ground, among others, that the law specifically provides that it is only after taking the oath of allegiance that applicants shall be deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. We do not question what the provision states. We hold however that the provision should be understood thus: that after taking the oath of allegiance the applicant is deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship, which reacquisition (or repatriation) is deemed for all purposes and intents to have retroacted to the date of his application therefor. In any event, our "so too" argument regarding the literal meaning of the word "elective" in reference to Section 39 of the Local Government Code, as well as regarding Mr. Justice Davide's thesis that the very wordings of P.D. 725 suggest non-retroactivity, were already taken up rather extensively earlier in this Decision. Mr. Justice Davide caps his paper with a clarion call: "This Court must be the first to uphold the Rule of Law." We agree we must all follow the rule of law. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is how should the law be interpreted and applied in this case so it can be followed, so it can rule! At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and apply laws relating to elections: literal or liberal; the letter or the spirit; the naked provision or its ultimate purpose; legal syllogism or substantial justice; in isolation or in the context of social conditions; harshly against or gently in favor of the voters' obvious choice. In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. Indeed, to inflict a thrice rejected candidate upon the electorate of Sorsogon would constitute unmitigated judicial tyranny and an unacceptable assault upon this Court's conscience. EPILOGUE In sum, we rule that the citizenship requirement in the Local Government Code is to be possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to which he has been elected. 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,66for 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: "x x x (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. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing: (1) The petition in G.R. No. 123755 is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions of the respondent Commission are AFFIRMED. (2) The petition in G.R. No. 120295 is also DISMISSED for being moot and academic. In any event, it has no merit. No costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990 MATEO CAASI, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MERITO C. MIGUEL, respondents. G.R. No. 84508 November 13, 1990 ANECITO CASCANTE petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MERITO C. MIGUEL, respondents. Ireneo B. Orlino for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 88831 & 84508. Montemayor & Montemayor Law Office for private respondent.

GRIO-AQUINO, J.: These two cases were consolidated because they have the same objective; the disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the private respondent, Merito Miguel for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he was elected in the local elections of January 18, 1988, on the ground that he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the United States of America, not of Bolinao. G.R. No. 84508 is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated January 13, 1988 of the COMELEC First Division, dismissing the three (3) petitions of Anecito Cascante (SPC No. 87-551), Cederico Catabay (SPC No. 87-595) and Josefino C. Celeste (SPC No. 87-604), for the disqualification of Merito C. Miguel filed prior to the local elections on January 18, 1988. G.R. No. 88831, Mateo Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, et al., is a petition for review of the decision dated June 21, 1989, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14531 dismissing the petition for quo warranto filed by Mateo Caasi, a rival candidate for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, also to disqualify Merito Miguel on account of his being a green card holder. In his answer to both petitions, Miguel admitted that he holds a green card issued to him by the US Immigration Service, but he denied that he is a permanent resident of the United States. He allegedly obtained the green card for convenience in order that he may freely enter the United States for his periodic medical examination and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of Bolinao, Pangasinan, that he voted in all previous elections, including the plebiscite on February 2,1987 for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, and the congressional elections on May 18,1987. After hearing the consolidated petitions before it, the COMELEC with the exception of Commissioner Anacleto Badoy, Jr., dismissed the petitions on the ground that: The possession of a green card by the respondent (Miguel) does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his residence in the Philippines. On the contrary, inspite (sic) of his green card, Respondent has sufficiently indicated his intention to continuously reside in Bolinao as shown by his having voted in successive elections in said municipality. As the respondent meets the basic requirements of citizenship and residence for candidates to elective local officials (sic) as provided for in Section 42 of the Local Government Code, there is no legal obstacle to his candidacy for mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan. (p. 12, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508). In his dissenting opinion, Commissioner Badoy, Jr. opined that: A green card holder being a permanent resident of or an immigrant of a foreign country and respondent having admitted that he is a green card holder, it is incumbent upon him, under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, to prove that he "has waived his status as

a permanent resident or immigrant" to be qualified to run for elected office. This respondent has not done. (p. 13, Rollo, G.R. No. 84508.) In G.R. No. 88831, "Mateo Caasi, petitioner vs. Court of Appeals and Merito Miguel, respondents," the petitioner prays for a review of the decision dated June 21, 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14531 "Merito C. Miguel, petitioner vs. Hon. Artemio R. Corpus, etc., respondents," reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court which denied Miguel's motion to dismiss the petition for quo warranto filed by Caasi. The Court of Appeals ordered the regional trial court to dismiss and desist from further proceeding in the quo warranto case. The Court of Appeals held: ... it is pointless for the Regional Trial Court to hear the case questioning the qualification of the petitioner as resident of the Philippines, after the COMELEC has ruled that the petitioner meets the very basic requirements of citizenship and residence for candidates to elective local officials (sic) and that there is no legal obstacles (sic) for the candidacy of the petitioner, considering that decisions of the Regional Trial Courts on quo warranto cases under the Election Code are appealable to the COMELEC. (p. 22, Rollo, G.R. No. 88831.) These two cases pose the twin issues of: (1) whether or not a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United States, and (2) whether respondent Miguel had waived his status as a permanent resident of or immigrant to the U.S.A. prior to the local elections on January 18, 1988. Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides: Sec. 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times, and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law. In the same vein, but not quite, Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (B.P. Blg. 881) provides: SEC. 68. Disqualifications ... Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Sec. 25, 1971, EC). In view of current rumor that a good number of elective and appointive public officials in the present administration of President Corazon C. Aquino are holders of green cards in foreign countries, their effect on the holders' right to hold elective public office in the Philippines is a question that excites much interest in the outcome of this case. (lol) In the case of Merito Miguel, the Court deems it significant that in the "Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration" (Optional Form No. 230, Department of State) which Miguel filled up in his own handwriting and submitted to the US Embassy in Manila before his departure for the United States in 1984, Miguel's answer to Question No. 21 therein regarding his "Length of intended stay (if permanently, so state)," Miguel's answer was, "Permanently." On its face, the green card that was subsequently issued by the United States Department of Justice and Immigration and Registration Service to the respondent Merito C. Miguel identifies him in clear bold letters as a RESIDENT ALIEN. On the back of the card, the upper portion, the following information is printed: Alien Registration Receipt Card. Person identified by this card is entitled to reside permanently and work in the United States." (Annex A pp. 189-190, Rollo of G.R. No. 84508.) Despite his vigorous disclaimer, Miguel's immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he did not go to the United States merely to visit his children or his doctor there; he entered the limited States with the intention to have there permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant's (not a visitor's or tourist's) visa.

Based on that application of his, he was issued by the U.S. Government the requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently. Immigration is the removing into one place from another; the act of immigrating the entering into a country with the intention of residing in it. An immigrant is a person who removes into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. As shown infra 84, however, statutes sometimes give a broader meaning to the term "immigrant." (3 CJS 674.) As a resident alien in the U.S., Miguel owes temporary and local allegiance to the U.S., the country in which he resides (3 CJS 527). This is in return for the protection given to him during the period of his residence therein. Aliens reading in the limited States, while they are permitted to remain, are in general entitled to the protection of the laws with regard to their rights of person and property and to their civil and criminal responsibility. In general, aliens residing in the United States, while they are permitted to remain are entitled to the safeguards of the constitution with regard to their rights of person and property and to their civil and criminal responsibility. Thus resident alien friends are entitled to the benefit of the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution that no state shall deprive "any person" of life liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person the equal protection of the law, and the protection of this amendment extends to the right to earn a livelihood by following the ordinary occupations of life. So an alien is entitled to the protection of the provision of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (3 CJS 529-530.) Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that "any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law" is not applicable to Merito Miguel for he acquired the status of an immigrant of the United States before he was elected to public office, not "during his tenure" as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan. The law applicable to him is Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), which provides: xxx xxx xxx Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless such person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.' Did Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November 1987 and presenting himself as a candidate for mayor of Bolinao in the January 18,1988 local elections, waive his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States? To be "qualified to run for elective office" in the Philippines, the law requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have "waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country." Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior waiver, he was "disqualified to run for any elective office" (Sec. 68, Omnibus Election Code). Respondent Merito Miguel admits that he holds a green card, which proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant it of the United States, but the records of this case are starkly bare of proof that he had waived his status as such before he ran for election as municipal mayor of Bolinao on January 18, 1988. We, therefore, hold that he was disqualified to become a candidate for that office.

The reason for Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code is not hard to find. Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for elective office for at least one (1) year at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy, is one of the qualifications that a candidate for elective public office must possess (Sec. 42, Chap. 1, Title 2, Local Government Code). Miguel did not possess that qualification because he was a permanent resident of the United States and he resided in Bolinao for a period of only three (3) months (not one year) after his return to the Philippines in November 1987 and before he ran for mayor of that municipality on January 18, 1988. In banning from elective public office Philippine citizens who are permanent residents or immigrants of a foreign country, the Omnibus Election Code has laid down a clear policy of excluding from the right to hold elective public office those Philippine citizens who possess dual loyalties and allegiance. The law has reserved that privilege for its citizens who have cast their lot with our country "without mental reservations or purpose of evasion." The assumption is that those who are resident aliens of a foreign country are incapable of such entire devotion to the interest and welfare of their homeland for with one eye on their public duties here, they must keep another eye on their duties under the laws of the foreign country of their choice in order to preserve their status as permanent residents thereof. Miguel insists that even though he applied for immigration and permanent residence in the United States, he never really intended to live there permanently, for all that he wanted was a green card to enable him to come and go to the U.S. with ease. In other words, he would have this Court believe that he applied for immigration to the U.S. under false pretenses; that all this time he only had one foot in the United States but kept his other foot in the Philippines. Even if that were true, this Court will not allow itself to be a party to his duplicity by permitting him to benefit from it, and giving him the best of both worlds so to speak. Miguel's application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on January 18, 1988, our conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office, hence, his election thereto was null and void. WHEREFORE, the appealed orders of the COMELEC and the Court of Appeals in SPC Nos. 87-551, 87-595 and 87-604, and CA-G.R. SP No. 14531 respectively, are hereby set aside. The election of respondent Merito C. Miguel as municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan is hereby annulled. Costs against the said respondent. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 112889 April 18, 1995 BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

VITUG, J.: The Court is called upon, in this petition for certiorari, to resolve the conflicting claims of the parties on the meaning of the term "fugitive from justice as that phrase is so used under the provisions of Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160). That law states: Sec. 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: xxx xxx xxx (e) Fugitive from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad(.) Bienvenido Marquez, a defeated candidate for the elective position for the elective position in the Province of Quezon in the 11th May 1992 elections filed this petition for certiorari praying for the reversal of the resolution of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") which dismissed his petition for quo warranto against the winning candidate, herein private respondent Eduardo Rodriguez, for being allegedly a fugitive from justice. It is averred that at the time private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy, a criminal charge against him for ten (10) counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of personal property was still pending before the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California, U.S.A. A warrant issued by said court for his arrest, it is claimed, has yet to be served on private respondent on account of his alleged "flight" from that country. Before the 11th May 1992 elections, a petition for cancellation (SPA 92-065) of respondent's certificate of candidacy, on the ground of the candidate's disqualification under Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code, was filed by petitioner with the COMELEC. On 08 May 1992, the COMELEC dismissed the petition. Petitioner's subsequent recourse to this Court (in G.R. No. 105310) from the 08th May 1992 resolution of COMELEC was dismissed without prejudice, however, to the filing in due time of a possible post-election quo warranto proceeding against private respondent. The Court, in its resolution of 02 June 1992, held: Evidently, the matter elevated to this Court was a pre-proclamation controversy. Since the private respondent had already been proclaimed as the duly elected Governor of the Province of Quezon, the petition below for disqualification has ceased to be a pre-proclamation controversy. In Casimiro vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 84462-63 and Antonio vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 84678-79, jointly decided on 29 March 1989, 171 SCRA 468, this court held that a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable at this point of time and should be dismissed. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to pursue the disqualification suit in a separate proceeding. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition, without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate proceedings in the proper forum, if so desired, within ten (10) days from notice. 1 Private respondent was proclaimed Governor-elect of Quezon on 29 May 1992. Forthwith, petitioner instituted quo warranto proceedings (EPC 92-28) against private respondent before the COMELEC. In its 02 February 1993 resolution, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the petition. The COMELEC En Banc, on 02 December 1993, denied a reconsideration of the resolution.

Hence, this petition for certiorari, the core issue of which, such as to be expected, focuses on whether private respondent who, at the time of the filing of his certificate of candidacy (and to date), is said to be facing a criminal charge before a foreign court and evading a warrant for his arrest comes within the term "fugitive from justice" contemplated by Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code and, therefore, disqualified from being a candidate for, and thereby ineligible from holding on to, an elective local office. Petitioner's position is perspicuous and to the point. The law, he asseverates, needs no further interpretation and construction. Section 40(e) of Republic Act No. 7160, is rather clear, he submits, and it disqualifies "fugitive from justice" includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who, after being charged flee to avoid prosecution. This definition truly finds support from jurisprudence (Philippine Law Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 399, by F.B. Moreno; Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 671; King vs. Noe, 244 S.C. 344, 137 S.E. 2d 102, 103; Hughes vs. PFlanz, 138 Federal Reporter 980; Tobin vs. Casaus, 275 Pacific Reporter, 2d., p. 792), and it may be so conceded as expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the term. In turn, private respondent would have the Court respect the conclusions of the Oversight Committee which, conformably with Section 533 2 of R.A. 7160, was convened by the President to "formulate and issue the appropriate rules and regulations necessary for the efficient and effective implementation of any and all provisions of the Code to ensure compliance with the principles of Local Autonomy. Here are some excerpts from the committee's deliberations: CHAIRMAN MERCADO. Session is resumed. So, we are in agreement to retain Line 12, Page 36, as is. So next, Page 39. CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO. Kay Benny Marquez. REP. CUENCO: What does he want? CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO. Kung puwede i-retain lang iyan. Bahala na kung kuwestiyunin ang constitutionality nito before the Supreme Court later on. REP. CUENCO. Anong nakalagay diyan? CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO. Iyong disqualification to run for public office. Any person who is a fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad. Mabigat yung abroad. One who is facing criminal charges with the warrant of arrest pending, unserved. . . HONORABLE SAGUISAG. I think that is even a good point, ano what is a fugitive? It is not defined. We have loose understanding. . . CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO. So isingit na rin sa definition of terms iyong fugitive. Si Benny umalis na, with the understanding na okay na sa atin ito. THE CHAIRMAN. Whether we have this rule or not she can run. She is not a fugitive from justice. Mrs. Marcos can run at this point and I have held that for a long time ago. So can. . . MS. DOCTOR. Mr. Chairman. . . THE CHAIRMAN. Yes. MS. DOCTOR. Let's move to. . .

THE CHAIRMAN. Wait, wait, wait. Can we just agree on the wording, this is very important. Manny, can you come up? MR. REYES. Let's use the word conviction by final judgment. THE CHAIRMAN. Fugitive means somebody who is convicted by final judgment. Okay,. Fugitive means somebody who is convicted by final judgment. Insert that on Line 43 after the semi-colon. Is that approved? No objection, approved (TSN, Oversight Committee, 07 May 1991). xxx xxx xxx THE CHAIRMAN. Andy, saan ba naman itong amendment on page 2? Sino ba ang gumawa nito? Okay, on page 2, lines 43 and 44, "fugitive from justice". What "fugitive"? Sino ba ang gumawa nito, ha? MR. SANCHEZ. Yes, I think, well, last time, Mr. Chairman, we agree to clarify the word "fugitive". THE CHAIRMAN. "Fugitive from justice means a person" ba ito, ha? MR. SANCHEZ. Means a person... THE CHAIRMAN. Ha? HON. REYES. A person who has been convicted. THE CHAIRMAN; Yes, fugitive from justice, oo. Fugitive from justice shall mean or means one who has been convicted by final judgment. It means one who has been convicted by final judgment. HON. DE PEDRO. Kulang pa rin ang ibig sabihin niyan. THE CHAIRMAN. Ano? Sige, tingnan natin. HON. DE PEDRO. Kung nasa loob ng presuhan, fugitive pa rin siya? THE CHAIRMAN. O, tama na yan, fugitive from justice. He has been convicted by final judgment, meaning that if he is simply in jail and because he put up, post bail, but the case is still being reviewed, that is not yet conviction by final judgment. 3 The Oversight Committee evidently entertained serious apprehensions on the possible constitutional infirmity of Section 40(e) of Republic Act No. 7160 if the disqualification therein meant were to be so taken as to embrace those who merely were facing criminal charges. A similar concern was expressed by Senator R. A. V. Saguisag who, during the bicameral conference committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives, made this reservation: . . . de ipa-refine lang natin 'yung language especially 'yung, the scope of fugitive. Medyo bothered ako doon, a. 4 The Oversight Committee finally came out with Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. It provided: Art. 73. Disqualifications. The following persons shall be disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) . . .

(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad. Fugitive from justice refers to a person who has been convicted by final judgment. 5 (Emphasis supplied) Private respondent reminds us that the construction placed upon law by the officials in charge of its enforcement deserves great and considerable weight (Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. vs. CA, 182 SCRA 166, 181). The Court certainly agrees; however, when there clearly is no obscurity and ambiguity in an enabling law, it must merely be made to apply as it is so written. An administrative rule or regulation can neither expand nor constrict the law but must remain congruent to it. The Court believes and thus holds, albeit with some personal reservations of the ponente (expressed during the Court's en bancdeliberations), that Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, to the extent that it confines the term "fugitive from justice" to refer only to a person (the fugitive) "who has been convicted by final judgment." is an inordinate and undue circumscription of the law. Unfortunately, the COMELEC did not make any definite finding on whether or not, in fact, private respondent is a "fugitive from justice" as such term must be interpreted and applied in the light of the Court's opinion. The omission is understandable since the COMELEC dismissed outrightly the petition for quo warranto on the basis instead of Rule 73 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Oversight Committee. The Court itself, not being a trier of facts, is thus constrained to remand the case to the COMELEC for a determination of this unresolved factual matter. WHEREFORE, the questioned resolutions of the Commission on Elections are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the case is hereby REMANDED to the Commission which is DIRECTED to proceed and resolve the case with dispatch conformably with the foregoing opinion. No special pronouncement on costs. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 135150. July 28, 1999]

ROMEO LONZANIDA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTION and EUFEMIO MULI, repondents. DECISION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside the resolutions issued by the COMELEC First Division dated May 21, 1998 and by the COMELEC En Banc dated August 11, 1998 in SPA 98-190 entitled, In the matter of the Petition to Disqualify Mayoralty Candidate Romeo Lonzanida of San Antonio, Zambales. Eufemio Muli, petitioner, vs. Romeo Lonzanida, respondent. The assailed resolutions declared herein petitioner Romeo Lonzanida disqualified to run for Mayor in the municipality of San Antonio, Zambales in the May 1998 elections and that all votes cast in his favor shall not be counted and if he has been proclaimed winner the said proclamation is declared null and void. Petitioner Romeo Lonzanida was duly elected and served two consecutive terms as municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and was again proclaimed winner. He assumed office and discharged the duties thereof. His proclamation in 1995 was however contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Zambales, which in a decision dated January 9, 1997 declared a failure of elections. The court ruled:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this court hereby renders judgment declaring the results of the election for the office of the mayor in San Antonio, Zambales last May 8, 1995 as null and void on the ground that there was a failure of election. Accordingly, the office of the mayor of the Municipality of San Antonio, Zambales is hereby declared vacant.
Both parties appealed to the COMELEC. On November 13, 1997 the COMELEC resolved the election protest filed by Alvez and after a revision and re-appreciation of the contested ballots declared Alvez the duly elected mayor of San Antonio, Zambales by plurality of votes cast in his favor totaling 1,720 votes as against 1,488 votes for Lonzanida. On February 27, 1998 the COMELEC issued a writ of execution ordering Lonzanida to vacate the post, which obeyed, and Alvez assumed office for the remainder of the term. In the May 11, 1998 elections Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of San Antonio. On April 21, 1998 his opponent Eufemio Muli timely filed a petition to disqualify Lonzanida from running for mayor of San Antonio in the 1998 elections on the ground that he had served three consecutive terms in the same post. On May 13, 1998, petitioner Lonzanida was proclaimed winner. On May 21, 1998 the First Division of the COMELEC issued the questioned resolution granting the petition for disqualification upon a finding that Lonzanida had served three consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and he is therefore disqualified to run for the same post for the fourth time. The COMELEC found that Lonzanidas

assumption of office by virtue of his proclamation in May 1995, although he was later unseated before the expiration of the term, should be counted as service for one full term in computing the three term limit under the Constitution and the Local Government Code. The finding of the COMELEC First Division was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc in a resolution dated August 11, 1998. Petitioner Lonzanida challenges the validity of the COMELEC resolutions finding him disqualified to run for mayor of San Antonio Zambales in the 1998 elections. He maintains that he was duly elected mayor for only two consecutive terms and that his assumption of office in 1995 cannot be counted as service of a term for the purpose of applying the three term limit for local government officials, because he was not the duly elected mayor of San Antonio in the May 1995 elections as evidenced by the COMELEC decision dated November 13, 1997 in EAC no. 6-97 entitled Juan Alvez, Protestant-Appellee vs. Romeo Lonzanida, Protestee-Appellant, wherein the COMELEC declared Juan Alvez as the duly elected mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. Petitioner also argues that the COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification after he was proclaimed winner in the 1998 mayoral elections; as the proper remedy is a petition for quo warranto with the appropriate regional trial court under Rule 36 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Private respondent Eufemio Muli filed comment to the petition asking this court to sustain the questioned resolutions of the COMELEC and to uphold its jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification. The private respondent states that the petition for disqualification was filed on April 21, 1998 or before the May 1998 mayoral elections. Under section 6, RA 6646 and Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure petitions for disqualification filed with the COMELEC before the elections and/or proclamation of the party sought to be disqualified may still be herd and decided by the COMELEC after the election and proclamation of the said party without distinction as to the alleged ground for disqualification, whether for acts constituting an election offense or for ineligibility. Accordingly, it is argued that the resolutions of the COMELEC on the merits of the petition for disqualification were issued within the commissions jurisdiction. As regards the merits of the case, the private respondent maintains that the petitioners assumption of office in 1995 should be considered as service of one full term because he discharged the duties of mayor for almost three years until March 1, 1998 or barely a few months before the next mayoral elections. The Solicitor-General filed comment to the petition for the respondent COMELEC praying for the dismissal of the petition. The Solicitor-General stressed that section 8, Art. X of the Constitution and section 43 (b), Chapter I of the Local Government Code which bar a local government official from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same position speaks of service of a term and so the rule should be examined in this light. The public respondent contends that petitioner Lonzanida discharged the rights and duties of mayor from 1995 to 1998 which should be counted as service of one full term, albeit he was later unseated, because he served as mayor for the greater part of the term. The issue of whether or not Lonzanida served as a de jure or de facto mayor for the 1995-1998 term is inconsequential in the application of the three term limit because the prohibition speaks of service of a term which was intended by the framers of the Constitution to foil any attempt to monopolize political power. It is likewise argued by the respondent that a petition for quo warranto with the regional trial court is proper when the petition for disqualification is filed after the elections and so the instant petition for disqualification which was filed before the elections may be resolved by the COMELEC thereafter regardless of the imputed basis of disqualification. The petitioner filed Reply to the comment. It is maintained that the petitioner could not have served a valid term from 1995 to 1998 although he assumed office as mayor for that period because he was not lawfully

elected to the said office. Moreover, the petitioner was unseated before the expiration of the term and so his service for the period cannot be considered as one full term. As regards the issue of jurisdiction, the petitioner reiterated in his Reply that the COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction to hear the election protest after the petitioners proclamation. The petition has merit. Section 8, Art. X of the Constitution provides:

Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law shall be three years and no such officials shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
Section 43 of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) restates the same rule:

Sec. 43. Term of Office. (b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.
The issue before us is whether petitioner Lonzanidas assumption of office as mayor of San Antonio Zambales from May 1995 to March 1998 may be considered as service of one full term for the purpose of applying the three-term limit for elective local government officials. The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that the three-term limit which is now embodied in section 8, Art. X of the Constitution was initially proposed to be an absolute bar to any elective local government official from running for the same position after serving three consecutive terms. The said disqualification was primarily intended to forestall the accumulation of massive political power by an elective local government official in a given locality in order to perpetuate his tenure in office. The delegates also considered the need to broaden the choices of the electorate of the candidates who will run for office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena by disqualifying officials from running for the same office after a term of nine years. The mayor was compared by some delegates to the President of the Republic as he is a powerful chief executive of his political territory and is most likely to form a political dynasty.[1] The drafters however, recognized and took note of the fact that some local government officials run for office before they reach forty years of age; thus to perpetually bar them from running for the same office after serving nine consecutive years may deprive the people of qualified candidates to choose from. As finally voted upon, it was agreed that an elective local government official should be barred from running for the same post after three consecutive terms. After a hiatus of at least one term, he may again run for the same office.[2] The scope of the constitutional provision barring elective officials with the exception of barangay officials from serving more than three consecutive terms was discussed at length in the case of Benjamin Borja,

Jr., vs. COMELEC and Jose Capco, Jr.[3] where the issue raised was whether a vice-mayor who succeeds to the office of the mayor by operation of law upon the death of the incumbent mayor and served the remainder of the term should be considered to have served a term in that office for the purpose of computing the three term limit. This court pointed out that from the discussions of the Constitutional Convention it is evident that the delegates proceeded from the premise that the officials assumption of office is by reason of election. This Court stated:[4]

Two ideas emerge from a consideration of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission. The first is the notion of service of term, derived from the concern about the accumulation of power as a result of a prolonged stay in office. The second is the idea of election, derived from the concern that the right of the people to choose those whom they wish to govern them be preserved. It is likewise noteworthy that, in discussing term limits, the drafters of the Constitution did so on the assumption that the officials concerned were serving by reason of election. This is clear from the following exchange in the Constitutional Commission concerning term limits, now embodied in Art. VI sections 4 and 7 of the Constitution, for members of Congress:
MR. GASCON. I would like to ask a question with regard to the issue after the second term. We will allow the Senator to rest for a period of time before he can run again? MR. DAVIDE. That is correct. MR. GASCON. And the question that we left behind before-if the Gentlemen will remember-was: How long will that period of rest be? Will it be one election which is three years or one term which is six years? MR. DAVIDE. If the Gentlemen will remember, Commissioner Rodrigo expressed the view that during the election following the expiration of the first 12 years, whether suchelection will be on the third year or on the sixth year thereafter, his particular member of the Senate can run. So it is not really a period of hibernation for six years. That was the Committees stand.

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Second, not only historical examination but textual analysis as well supports the ruling of the COMELEC that Art X, section 8 contemplates service by local officials for three consecutive terms as a result of election. The first sentence speaks of the term of office of elective local officials and bars such officials from serving for more than three consecutive terms. The second sentence, in explaining when an elective official may be deemed to have served his full term of office, states that voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. The term served must therefore be one for which the official concerned was elected. The purpose of the provision is to prevent a circumvention of the limitation on the number of terms an elective official may serve.

This Court held that two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: 1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and 2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms. It stated:

To recapitulate, the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply.
It is not disputed that the petitioner was previously elected and served two consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio Zambales prior to the May 1995 mayoral elections. In the May 1995 elections he again ran for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and was proclaimed winner. He assumed office and discharged the rights and duties of mayor until March 1998 when he was ordered to vacate the post by reason of the COMELEC decision dated November 13, 1997 on the election protest against the petitioner which declared his opponent Juan Alvez, the duly elected mayor of San Antonio. Alvez served the remaining portion of the 1995-1998 mayoral term. The two requisites for the application of the three term rule are absent. First, the petitioner cannot be considered as having been duly elected to the post in the May 1995 elections, and second, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term by reason of involuntary relinquishment of office. After a re-appreciation and revision of the contested ballots the COMELEC itself declared by final judgment that petitioner Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections and his previous proclamation as winner was declared null and void. His assumption of office as mayor cannot be deemed to have been by reason of a valid election but by reason of a void proclamation. It has been repeatedly held by this court that a proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all[5] and while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the proclamation of the Board of Canvassers he is only a presumptive winner who assumes office subject to the final outcome of the election protest.[6] Petitioner Lonzanida did not serve a term as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales from May 1995 to March 1998 because he was not duly elected to the post; he merely assumed office as presumptive winner, which presumption was later overturned by the COMELEC when it decided with finality that Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections. Second, the petitioner cannot be deemed to have served the May 1995 to 1998 term because he was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term. The respondents contention that the petitioner should be deemed to have served one full term from May 1995-1998 because he served the greater portion of that term has no legal basis to support it; it disregards the second requisite for the application of the disqualification, i.e., that he has fully served three consecutive terms. The second sentence of the constitutional provision under scrutiny states, Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which he was elected. The clear intent of the framers of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent the three-term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time respect the peoples choice and grant their elected official full service of a term is evident in this provision. Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office for

any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. The petitioner vacated his post a few months before the next mayoral elections, not by voluntary renunciation but in compliance with the legal process of writ of execution issued by the COMELEC to that effect. Such involuntary severance from office is an interruption of continuity of service and thus, the petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term. In sum, the petitioner was not the duly elected mayor and that he did not hold office for the full term; hence, his assumption of office from May 1995 to March 1998 cannot be counted as a term for purposes of computing the three term limit. The Resolution of the COMELEC finding him disqualified on this ground to run in the May 1998 mayoral elections should therefore be set aside. The respondents harp on the delay in resolving the election protest between petitioner and his then opponent Alvez which took roughly about three years and resultantly extended the petitioners incumbency in an office to which he was not lawfully elected. We note that such delay cannot be imputed to the petitioner. There is no specific allegation nor proof that the delay was due to any political maneuvering on his part to prolong his stay in office. Moreover, protestant Alvez, was not without legal recourse to move for the early resolution of the election protest while it was pending before the regional trial court or to file a motion for the execution of the regional trial courts decision declaring the position of mayor vacant and ordering the vice-mayor to assume office while the appeal was pending with the COMELEC. Such delay which is not here shown to have been intentionally sought by the petitioner to prolong his stay in office cannot serve as basis to bar his right to be elected and to serve his chosen local government post in the succeeding mayoral election. The petitioners contention that the COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification after he was proclaimed winner is without merit. The instant petition for disqualification was filed on April 21, 1998 or before the May 1998 elections and was resolved on May 21, 1998 or after the petitioners proclamation. It was held in the case of Sunga vs. COMELEC and Trinidad[7] that the proclamation nor the assumption of office of a candidate against whom a petition for disqualification is pending before the COMELEC does not divest the COMELEC of jurisdiction to continue hearing the case and to resolve it on the merits. Section 6 of RA 6646 specifically mandates that:

Sec. 6. Effects of disqualification Case.- any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified 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.
This court held that the clear legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial and hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion i.e., until judgment is rendered. The outright dismissal of the petition for disqualification filed before the election but which remained unresolved after the proclamation of the candidate sought to be disqualified will unduly reward the said candidate

and may encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the petition until after he has been proclaimed. The court stated:

Clearly, the legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial and hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion, i.e., until judgment is rendered thereon. The word shall signified that this requirement of the law is mandatory, operating to impose a positive duty which must be enforced. The implication is that the COMELEC is left with no discretion but to proceed with the disqualification case even after the election. Thus, in providing for the outright dismissal of the disqualification case which remains unresolved after the election, Silvestre vs. Duavit in effect disallows what R. A. No. 6646 imperatively requires. This amounts to a quasi-judicial legislation by the COMELEC which cannot be countenanced and is invalid for having been issued beyond the scope of its authority. Interpretative rulings of quasi-judicial bodies or administrative agencies must always be in perfect harmony with statutes and should be for the sole purpose of carrying their general provisions into effect. By such interpretative or administrative rulings, of course, the scope of the law itself cannot be limited. Indeed, a quasi-judicial body or an administrative agency for that matter cannot amend an act of Congress. Hence, in case of a discrepancy between the basic law and an interpretative or administrative ruling, the basic law prevails. Besides, the deleterious effect of the Silvestre ruling is not difficult to forsee. A candidate guilty of election offenses would be undeservedly rewarded, instead of punished, by the dismissal of the disqualification case against him simply because the investigating body was unable, for any reason caused upon it, to determine before the election if the offenses were indeed committed by the candidate sought to be disqualified. All that the erring aspirant would need to do is to employ delaying tactics so that the disqualification case based on the commission of election offenses would not be decided before the election. This scenario is productive of more fraud which certainly is not the main intent and purpose of the law. The fact that Trinidad was already proclaimed and had assumed the position of mayor did not divest the COMELEC of authority and jurisdiction to continue the hearing and eventually decide the disqualification case. In Aguam v. COMELEC this Court heldTime and again this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made. The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office, we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such power. It of course may not be availed of where there has been a valid proclamation. Since private respondents petition before the COMELEC is precisely directed at the annulment of the canvass and proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into this issue is within the area allocated by the Constitution and law to COMELEC xxx Really, were a victim of a proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene.

It must be emphasized that the purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected. From serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws. Obviously, the fact that a candidate has been proclaimed elected does not signify that his disqualification is deemed condoned and may no longer be the subject of a separate investigation.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted. The assailed resolutions of the COMELEC declaring petitioner Lonzanida disqualified to run for mayor in the 1998 mayoral elections are hereby set aside.