Frivaldo v Comelec 2.pdf - SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 257 VOL 257 727 Frivaldo vs Commission on Elections G.R No 120295 JUAN G FRIVALDO

Frivaldo v Comelec 2.pdf - SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 62 pages.

9/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 257 1/62 VOL. 257, JUNE 28, 1996 727 Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 120295. June 28, 1996. * JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner, vs . COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL R. LEE, respondents. G.R. No. 123755. June 28, 1996. * RAUL R. LEE, petitioner, vs . COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JUAN G. FRIVALDO, respondents. Political Law; Citizenship; Having been declared as a non-citizen, it is incumbent upon Frivaldo to show that he has reacquired citizenship .— Inasmuch as Frivaldo had been declared by this Court 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). __________________ * EN BANC. 728 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections Same; Same; Citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation .—Under Philippine law, citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation. Frivaldo told this Court in G.R. No. 104654 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
Image of page 1
9/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 257 2/62 rivals.” In the same case, his attempt at naturalization was rejected by this Court because of jurisdictional, substantial and procedural defects. Same; Same; Statutory Construction; Memorandum dated March 27, 1987 cannot by any stretch of legal hermeneutics be construed as a law sanctioning or authorizing a repeal of P.D. No. 725 .—This memorandum dated March 27, 1987 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 Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones and a repeal may be express or implied.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. Same; Same; Same; It is a basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored .—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.” Same; Same; The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship unlike that for residence and age .—From the above, it will be noted that the law does not specify any
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture