Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989
JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND TE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES,
SORSOGON CAPTER, EREIN REPRESENTED !" ITS PRESIDENT, SALVADOR
NEE ESTU"E, respondents.
J.L. Misa & Associates for petitioner.
Lladoc, Huab & Associates for private respondent.

CRU#, J.:
Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo as proclai!ed "overnor#elect of the province of $orso"on
on Januar% &&, '()), and assu!ed office in due ti!e. *n *ctober &+, '()), the
,ea"ue of Municipalities, $orso"on Chapter -hereafter, ,ea"ue., represented b% its
President, $alvador Estu%e, ho as also suin" in his personal capacit%, filed ith the
Co!!ission on Elections a petition for the annul!ent of Frivaldo/ election and
procla!ation on the "round that he as not a Filipino citi0en, havin" been naturali0ed
in the 1nited $tates on Januar% &2, '()3. 4n his anser dated Ma% &&, '()), Frivaldo
ad!itted that he as naturali0ed in the 1nited $tates as alle"ed but pleaded the
special and affir!ative defenses that he had sou"ht A!erican citi0enship onl% to
protect hi!self a"ainst President Marcos. 5is naturali0ation, he said, as 6!erel%
forced upon hi!self as a !eans of survival a"ainst the unrelentin" persecution b% the
Martial ,a 7ictator8s a"ents abroad.6 5e added that he had returned to the Philippines
after the E7$A revolution to help in the restoration of de!ocrac%. 5e also ar"ued that
the challen"e to his title should be dis!issed, bein" in realit% a quo warranto petition
that should have been filed ithin ten da%s fro! his procla!ation, in accordance ith
$ection &93 of the *!nibus Election Code. :he ,ea"ue, !oreover, as not a proper
part% because it as not a voter and so could not sue under the said section.
Frivaldo !oved for a preli!inar% hearin" on his affir!ative defenses but the respondent
Co!!ission on Elections decided instead b% its *rder of Januar% &2, '()), to set the
case for hearin" on the !erits. 5is !otion for reconsideration as denied in another
*rder dated Februar% &', '()). 5e then ca!e to this Court in a petition for certiorari
and prohibition to as; that the said orders be set aside on the "round that the% had
been rendered ith "rave abuse of discretion. Pendin" resolution of the petition, e
issued a te!porar% order a"ainst the hearin" on the !erits scheduled b% the
C*ME,EC and at the sa!e ti!e re<uired co!!ents fro! the respondents.
4n their Co!!ent, the private respondents reiterated their assertion that Frivaldo as a
naturali0ed A!erican citi0en and had not reac<uired Philippine citi0enship on the da% of
the election on Januar% '), '()). 5e as therefore not <ualified to run for and be
elected "overnor. :he% also ar"ued that their petition in the Co!!ission on Elections
as not reall% for quo warranto under $ection &93 of the *!nibus Election Code. :he
ulti!ate purpose as to prevent Frivaldo fro! continuin" as "overnor, his candidac%
and election bein" null and void ab initio because of his aliena"e. Even if their petition
ere to be considered as one for quo warranto, it could not have been filed ithin ten
da%s fro! Frivaldo8s procla!ation because it as onl% in $epte!ber '()) that the%
received proof of his naturali0ation. And assu!in" that the ,ea"ue itself as not a
proper part%, Estu%e hi!self, ho as suin" not onl% for the ,ea"ue but also in his
personal capacit%, could nevertheless institute the suit b% hi!self alone.
$pea;in" for the public respondent, the $olicitor General supported the contention that
Frivaldo as not a citi0en of the Philippines and had not repatriated hi!self after his
naturali0ation as an A!erican citi0en. As an alien, he as dis<ualified fro! public office
in the Philippines. 5is election did not cure this defect because the electorate of
$orso"on could not a!end the Constitution, the ,ocal Govern!ent Code, and the
*!nibus Election Code. 5e also =oined in the private respondent8s ar"u!ent that
$ection &93 of the *!nibus Election Code as not applicable because hat the
,ea"ue and Estu%e ere see;in" as not onl% the annul!ent of the procla!ation and
election of Frivaldo. 5e a"reed that the% ere also as;in" for the ter!ination of
Frivaldo8s incu!benc% as "overnor of $orso"on on the "round that he as not a
Filipino.
4n his Repl%, Frivaldo insisted that he as a citi0en of the Philippines because his
naturali0ation as an A!erican citi0en as not 6i!pressed ith voluntariness.6 4n
support he cited the Notteboh! Case, >-'(99 4.C.J. ?/ ?( A.J.4.,. 3(@ -'(99.A here a
Ger!an national8s naturali0ation in ,iechtenstein as not reco"ni0ed because it had
been obtained for reasons of convenience onl%. 5e said he could not have repatriated
hi!self before the '()) elections because the $pecial Co!!ittee on Naturali0ation
created for the purpose b% ,*4 No. &+C had not %et been or"ani0ed then. 5is oath in
his certificate of candidac% that he as a natural#born citi0en should be a sufficient act
of repatriation. Additionall%, his active participation in the '()+ con"ressional elections
had divested hi! of A!erican citi0enship under the las of the 1nited $tates, thus
restorin" his Philippine citi0enship. 5e ended b% reiteratin" his pra%er for the re=ection
1
of the !ove to dis<ualif% hi! for bein" ti!e#barred under $ection &93 of the *!nibus
Election Code.
Considerin" the i!portance and ur"enc% of the <uestion herein raised, the Court has
decided to resolve it directl% instead of alloin" the nor!al circuitous route that ill
after all eventuall% end ith this Court, albeit onl% after a, lon" dela%. Be cannot per!it
this dela%. $uch dela% ill be ini!ical to the public interest and the vital principles of
public office to be here applied.
4t is true that the Co!!ission on Elections has the pri!ar% =urisdiction over this
<uestion as the sole =ud"e of all contests relatin" to the election, returns and
<ualifications of the !e!bers of the Con"ress and elective provincial and cit% officials.
5oever, the decision on Frivaldo8s citi0enship has alread% been !ade b% the
C*ME,EC throu"h its counsel, the $olicitor General, ho cate"oricall% clai!s that
Frivaldo is a forei"ner. Be assu!e this stance as ta;en b% hi! after consultation ith
the public respondent and ith its approval. 4t therefore represents the decision of the
C*ME,EC itself that e !a% no revie. ECercisin" our discretion to interpret the
Rules of Court and the Constitution, e shall consider the present petition as havin"
been filed in accordance ith Article 4D#A $ection +, of the Constitution, to challen"e
the afore!entioned *rders of the C*ME,EC.
:he basic <uestion e !ust resolve is hether or not Juan G. Frivaldo as a citi0en of
the Philippines at the ti!e of his election on Januar% '), '()), as provincial "overnor of
$orso"on. All the other issues raised in this petition are !erel% secondar% to this basic
<uestion.
:he reason for this in<uir% is the provision in Article D4, $ection (, of the Constitution
that all public officials and e!plo%ees oe the $tate and the Constitution 6alle"iance at
all ti!es6 and the specific re<uire!ent in $ection ?& of the ,ocal Govern!ent Code
that a candidate for local elective office !ust be inter alia a citi0en of the Philippines
and a <ualified voter of the constituenc% here he is runnin". $ection ''+ of the
*!nibus Election Code provides that a <ualified voter !ust be, a!on" other
<ualifications, a citi0en of the Philippines, this bein" an indispensable re<uire!ent for
suffra"e under Article E, $ection ', of the Constitution.
4n the certificate of candidac% he filed on Nove!ber '(, '()+, Frivaldo described
hi!self as a 6natural#born6 citi0en of the Philippines, o!ittin" !ention of an%
subse<uent loss of such status. :he evidence shos, hoever, that he as naturali0ed
as a citi0en of the 1nited $tates in '()3 per the folloin" certification fro! the 1nited
$tates 7istrict Court, Northern 7istrict of California, as dul% authenticated b% Eice
Consul A!ado P. Corte0 of the Philippine Consulate General in $an Francisco,
California, 1.$.A.
*FF4CE *F :5E C,ERF
1N4:E7 $:A:E$ 74$:R4C: C*1R:
N*R:5ERN 74$:R4C: *F CA,4F*RN4A
$epte!ber &3, '())
:* B5*M 4: MAG C*NCERNH
*ur records sho that J1AN GA,,AN*$A FR4EA,7*, born on *ctober &2, '('9,
as naturali0ed in this Court on Januar% &2, '()3, and issued Certificate of
Naturali0ation No. ''@(2'+).
Petition No. &)2&&9.
Alien Re"istration No. A&3 2+( &+2.
Eer% trul% %ours,

B4,,4AM ,. B54::AFER
Cler;
b%H
-$"d..

ARACE,4 E. BAREN
7eput% Cler;
:his evidence is not denied b% the petitioner. 4n fact, he eCpressl% ad!itted it in his
anser. Nevertheless, as earlier noted, he clai!s it as 6forced6 on hi! as a !easure
of protection fro! the persecution of the Marcos "overn!ent throu"h his a"ents in the
1nited $tates.
2
:he Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner as one of the ene!ies of
the Marcos dictatorship. Even so, it cannot a"ree that as a conse<uence thereof he
as coerced into e!bracin" A!erican citi0enship. 5is feeble su""estion that his
naturali0ation as not the result of his on free and voluntar% choice is totall%
unacceptable and !ust be re=ected outri"ht.
:here ere !an% other Filipinos in the 1nited $tates si!ilarl% situated as Frivaldo,
and so!e of the! sub=ect to "reater ris; than he, ho did not find it necessar% I nor
do the% clai! to have been coerced I to abandon their cherished status as Filipinos.
:he% did not ta;e the oath of alle"iance to the 1nited $tates, unli;e the petitioner ho
sole!nl% declared 6on oath, that 4 absolutel% and entirel% renounce and ab=ure all
alle"iance and fidelit% to an% forei"n prince, potentate, state or soverei"nt% of ho! or
hich 4 have heretofore been a sub=ect or citi0en,6 !eanin" in his case the Republic of
the Philippines. :he !art%red Nino% A<uino heads the i!pressive list of those Filipinos
in eCile ho, unli;e the petitioner, held fast to their Philippine citi0enship despite the
perils of their resistance to the Marcos re"i!e.
:he Notteboh! case cited b% the petitioner invo;ed the international la principle of
effective nationalit% hich is clearl% not applicable to the case at bar. :his principle is
eCpressed in Article 9 of the 5a"ue Convention of '(32 on the Conflict of Nationalit%
,as as follosH
Art. 9. Bithin a third $tate a person havin" !ore than one nationalit% shall be treated
as if he had onl% one. Bithout pre=udice to the application of its la in !atters of
personal status and of an% convention in force, a third $tate shall, of the nationalities
hich an% such person possesses, reco"ni0e eCclusivel% in its territor% either the
nationalit% of the countr% in hich he is habituall% and principall% resident or the
nationalit% of the countr% ith hich in the circu!stances he appears to be in fact
!ost closel% connected.
Notteboh! as a Ger!an b% birth but a resident of Guate!ala for 3? %ears hen he
applied for and ac<uired naturali0ation in ,iechtenstein one !onth before the outbrea;
of Borld Bar 44. Man% !e!bers of his fa!il% and his business interests ere in
Ger!an%. 4n '(?3, Guate!ala, hich had declared ar on Ger!an%, arrested
Notteboh! and confiscated all his properties on the "round that he as a Ger!an
national. ,iechtenstein thereupon filed suit on his behalf, as its citi0en, a"ainst
Guate!ala. :he 4nternational Court of Justice held Notteboh! to be still a national of
Ger!an%, ith hich he as !ore closel% connected than ith ,iechtenstein.
:hat case is not relevant to the petition before us because it dealt ith a conflict
beteen the nationalit% las of to states as decided b% a third state. No third state is
involved in the case at bar/ in fact, even the 1nited $tates is not activel% clai!in"
Frivaldo as its national. :he sole <uestion presented to us is hether or not Frivaldo is
a citi0en of the Philippines under our own laws, re"ardless of other nationalit% las.
Be can decide this <uestion alone as soverei"n of our on territor%, confor!abl% to
$ection ' of the said Convention providin" that 6it is for each $tate to deter!ine under
its law ho are its nationals.6
4t is also orth notin" that Notteboh! as invoking his naturali0ation in ,iechtenstein
hereas in the present case Frivaldo is rejecting his naturali0ation in the 1nited
$tates.
4f he reall% anted to disavo his A!erican citi0enship and reac<uire Philippine
citi0enship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance ith the las of our
countr%. 1nder CA No. @3 as a!ended b% CA No. ?+3 and P7 No. +&9, Philippine
citi0enship !a% be reac<uired b% direct act of Con"ress, b% naturali0ation, or b%
repatriation.
Bhile Frivaldo does not invo;e either of the first to !ethods, he nevertheless clai!s
he has reac<uired Philippine citi0enship b% virtue of a valid repatriation. 5e clai!s that
b% activel% participatin" in the elections in this countr%, he auto!aticall% forfeited
A!erican citi0enship under the las of the 1nited $tates. $uch las do not concern
us here. :he alle"ed forfeiture is beteen hi! and the 1nited $tates as his adopted
countr%. 4t should be obvious that even if he did lose his naturali0ed A!erican
citi0enship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of auto!aticall%
restorin" his citi0enship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. At best, hat
!i"ht have happened as a result of the loss of his naturali0ed citi0enship as that he
beca!e a stateless individual.
Frivaldo8s contention that he could not have repatriated hi!self under ,*4 &+2
because the $pecial Co!!ittee provided for therein had not %et been constituted
see!s to su""est that the lac; of that bod% rendered his repatriation unnecessar%.
:hat is far#fetched if not specious $uch a conclusion ould open the flood"ates, as it
ere. 4t ould allo all Filipinos ho have renounced this countr% to clai! bac; their
abandoned citi0enship ithout for!all% re=ectin" their adoptedstate and reaffir!in"
their alle"iance to the Philippines.
4t does not appear that Frivaldo has ta;en these cate"orical acts. 5e contends that b%
si!pl% filin" his certificate of candidac% he had, ithout !ore, alread% effectivel%
recovered Philippine citi0enship. But that is hardl% the for!al declaration the la
envisions I surel%, Philippine citi0enship previousl% disoned is not that cheapl%
recovered. 4f the $pecial Co!!ittee had not %et been convened, hat that !eant
si!pl% as that the petitioner had to ait until this as done, or see; naturali0ation b%
le"islative or =udicial proceedin"s.
3
:he ar"u!ent that the petition filed ith the Co!!ission on Elections should be
dis!issed for tardiness is not ell#ta;en. :he herein private respondents are see;in"
to prevent Frivaldo fro! continuin" to dischar"e his office of "overnor because he is
dis<ualified fro! doin" so as a forei"ner. Jualifications for public office are continuin"
re<uire!ents and !ust be possessed not onl% at the ti!e of appoint!ent or election
or assu!ption of office but durin" the officer8s entire tenure. *nce an% of the re<uired
<ualifications is lost, his title !a% be seasonabl% challen"ed. 4f, sa%, a fe!ale le"islator
ere to !arr% a forei"ner durin" her ter! and b% her act or o!ission ac<uires his
nationalit%, ould she have a ri"ht to re!ain in office si!pl% because the challen"e to
her title !a% no lon"er be !ade ithin ten da%s fro! her procla!ationK 4t has been
established, and not even denied, that the evidence of Frivaldo8s naturali0ation as
discovered onl% ei"ht !onths after his procla!ation and his title as challen"ed
shortl% thereafter.
:his Court ill not per!it the ano!al% of a person sittin" as provincial "overnor in this
countr% hile oin" eCclusive alle"iance to another countr%. :he fact that he as
elected b% the people of $orso"on does not eCcuse this patent violation of the salutar%
rule li!itin" public office and e!plo%!ent onl% to the citi0ens of this countr%. :he
<ualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased b% the electorate alone.
:he ill of the people as eCpressed throu"h the ballot cannot cure the vice of
ineli"ibilit%, especiall% if the% !ista;enl% believed, as in this case, that the candidate
as <ualified. *bviousl%, this rule re<uires strict application hen the deficienc% is lac;
of citi0enship. 4f a person see;s to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he !ust
oe his total lo%alt% to this countr% onl%, ab=urin" and renouncin" all fealt% and fidelit%
to an% other state.
4t is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the natural#born citi0en is
favored b% the Constitution and our las, hich is all the !ore reason h% it should
be treasured li;e a pearl of "reat price. But once it is surrendered and renounced, the
"ift is "one and cannot be li"htl% restored. :his countr% of ours, for all its difficulties
and li!itations, is li;e a =ealous and possessive !other. *nce re=ected, it is not <uic;
to elco!e bac; ith ea"er ar!s its prodi"al if repentant children. :he returnin"
rene"ade !ust sho, b% an eCpress and une<uivocal act, the reneal of his lo%alt%
and love.
B5EREF*RE, the petition is 74$M4$$E7 and petitioner J1AN G. FR4EA,7* is
hereb% declared not a citi0en of the Philippines and therefore 74$J1A,4F4E7 fro!
servin" as Governor of the Province of $orso"on. Accordin"l%, he is ordered to vacate
his office and surrender the sa!e to the dul% elected Eice#Governor of the said
province once this decision beco!es final and eCecutor%. :he te!porar% restrainin"
order dated March (, '()(, is ,4F:E7.
$* *R7ERE7.
4