Luna vs.

Rodriguez

Facts
It appears from the record that an election for the office of governor of the Province
of Rizal was held on the 6th day of June, 1916. At said election Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio
Rodriguez and Servando de los Angeles were candidates for said office. The election was
closed, the votes cast in the various municipalities were counted, and a return was made by
the inspectors of said municipalities to the provincial board of Canvassers, who, after a
canvass of said returns, proclaimed the following result:
(a) That Eulogio Rodriguez received 4,321 votes; (b) Jose Lino Luna 4,157; (c)
Servando de los Angeles 3,576 votes; and (d) that Eulogio Rodriguez, having received a
plurality of said votes, was duly elected governor of said province.
Against said proclamation Jose Lino Luna presented a protest in the Court of First
Instance. Upon said protest issue was joined, hearing was had and a decision was rendered
which was, on appeal, set aside and a new trial ordered. (Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De
los Angeles, 37 Phil. Rep., 186.) Complying with said order, a new trial was had at which the
Honorable William E. McMahon, judge, presided. Additional evidence was adduced. After a
consideration of all of the facts and the evidence adduced at both trials, Judge McMahon
reached the conclusion that the ballots cast for the various candidates were as indicated in
the returns of the inspectors of the various municipalities except those in the municipality of
Taytay and Binangonan. In the municipality of Taytay, Judge McMahon found from the
evidence that 50 ballots cast for Eulogio Rodriguez should not have been counted for him,
and ordered that number of votes deducted from his total. In the municipality of Binangonan,
Judge McMahon found that the inspectors did not close the polls at 6 o'clock p.m., and that
a large number of persons voted after that time, and directed that the total vote of Eulogio
Rodriguez should be reduced by the number of such votes, without ascertaining how many
had been cast for Rodriguez and how many for Luna. By deducting the said votes in the
municipality of Taytay and those cast after six o'clock p. m. in the municipality of
Binangonan, Judge McMahon concluded that Jose Lino Luna had received a plurality of the
legal votes cast at said election and ordered the provincial board of canvassers to correct its
canvass accordingly. From that conclusion both parties to the contest appealed to this court
and made several assignments of error.
Note: One of the reasons why all of the voters of the municipality had not voted before 6
p.m. was that the board of inspectors failed to have the list of voters properly prepared at 7
a.m., and therefore but few of the voters were able to vote before eleven or eleven-thirty in
the morning. That failure, on the part of the board of inspectors, made it impossible for many
of the voters of the municipality of Binangonan to vote before the regular time for the closing
of the polls.||| (Luna v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 13744, [November 29, 1918], 39 PHIL 208-226)
|| Issue:
Whether or not the ballots cast after the hour fixed for closing were valid.
Ruling:
The ballots are valid. The law provides that "at all elections, the polls shall be open from seven
o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the afternoon." The polls should be open and closed in
strict accord with said provisions. Voters who do not appear and offer to vote within the hours
designated by the law should not be permitted to vote if the time for closing the polls has
arrived. Upon the other hand, if the voter is prevented, during the voting hours, from voting, and
is not permitted to vote by reason of the failure of the inspectors to do their duty, then, certainly,
in the absence of some fraud, neither such votes nor the entire vote of the precinct should be
annulled simply because some votes were cast after the regular hours. The ballot of the
innocent voter should not be annulled and he should not be deprived of his participation in the
affairs of his government when he was guilty of no illegal act or fraud. The election inspectors
should be held to comply strictly with the law. If they violate the law, they should be punished
and not the innocent voter.|||

Doctrine: It has been announced in many decisions that the rules and regulations, for the
conduct of elections, are mandatory before the election, but when it is sought to enforce them
after the elections, they are held to be directory only, if that is possible, especially where, if they
are held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on
their part. The various and numerous provisions of the Election Law were adopted to assist the
voters in their participation in the affairs of the government and not to defeat that object. When
the voters have honestly cast their ballots, the same should not be nullified simply because the
officers appointed under the law to direct the election and guard the purity of the ballot have not
done their duty. The law provides a remedy, by criminal action, against them. They should be
prosecuted criminally, and the will of the honest voter, as expressed through his ballot, should
be protected and upheld.|||

When the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a prescribed form will be fatal
and such departure has been due to an honest mistake or misrepresentation of the Election
Law, and such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices and it is clear
that there has been a free and honest expression of the popular will, the law will be held to be
directory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity

Frivaldo vs. Comelec

Facts
Juan G. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon again and won. Raul R. Lee questioned his
citizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 and was able
to take his oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen.

However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the Court had already ruled based on his
previous attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship, and had proclaimed Lee, who got
the second highest number of votes, as the newly elect Governor of Sorsogon.
Issue:
Whether or not Frivaldos repatriation was valid.

Ruling
The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the curative nature of
Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application
to run for governor.
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."
|||

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 retroactive 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.||| (Frivaldo
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 120295 & 123755, [June 28, 1996], 327 PHIL 521-598