PALOMA CASE DIGEST-FINALS

FRIVALDO vs. COMELEC

[ G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989 ]

Facts: Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect and assume office in due time. The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for annulment of Frivaldo’s election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States. Frivaldo admitted the allegation but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that his naturalization was merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting prosecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s agent abroad. 

Issue: Whether or not Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election. 

Held: No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution. 

Even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. 

Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officer’s entire tenure. 

Frivaldo declared not a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from serving as a Governor of the Province of Sorsogon.

PARREñO vs. COA

 [ G.R. NO. 162224, June 07, 2007 ]

Facts: Salvador Parreño served in the AFP for 32 years before his retirement, after which he received pension payments. Parreño then migrated to Hawaiian and became a naturalized American Citizen. The AFP subsequently stopped Parreño’s pension, in accordance with Section 27 of PD 1638 which provides that a retiree who loses his Filipino citizenship shall have his retirement benefits terminated.

Parreño requested for reconsideration but the Judge Advocate General of the AFP denied his petition. Thus he filed a claim before the COA for the continuance of his monthly pension.

The COA denied Parreno’s claim for lack of jurisdiction, and advised Parreno to file the case in the proper court

Issue: Whether or not Section 27 of PD 1638 discriminates against AFP retirees who have changed their nationality.

Held: NO. Petitioner’s loss of Filipino citizenship constitutes a substantial distinction that distinguishes him from other retirees who retain Filipino citizenship. A retiree who had lost his Filipino citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the state. Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the state to render compulsory military service when the need arises, which the state may require of not only its private citizens, but also citizens who have retired from service.

The constitutional right to equal protection of the law is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification. To be reasonable, the classification

             (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences;

             (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law;

            (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and

            (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.

CUAKI TAN SI vs. REPUBLIC

[ G. R. No. L-18006, November 05, 2009 ]

Facts: This case is before us on appeal, taken by the Provincial Fiscal of Davao, from a decision of the court of first instance of said province granting the petition of appellee Cuaki Tan Si for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines. The herein petitioner claims to be exempt from the requirement of filing a declaration of intention, under section 6 of the aforementioned Act, upon the ground that he has resided in the Philippines continuously since May 11, 1926, or for over thirty (30) years prior to the filing of his petition herein, on September 2,1958. Yet, one of his character witnesses, namely Gregorio S. Romero, had known petitioner since 1937 only, or for less than thirty (30) years.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s character witnesses are competent to vouch for his fitness to become a member of Philippine citizenry.

Held: No. Petitioner's character witnesses do not know him sufficiently to be in a position to assure that he has every one of the requisite qualifications and none of the aforementioned disqualifications. They are not competent to vouch for his fitness to become a member of our citizenry.

Within the purview of the Naturalization Law, a 'credible' person is, to our mind, not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose 'affidavit' or testimony is not incredible. What must be 'credible' is not the declaration made, but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trust' worthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner.

Romero, one of the witnesses,  admitted, however, that he could not say whether or not petitioner believes in the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assasination for the success and predominance of men's ideas.

Ceniza was not certain about the political principles embraced by petitioner. She did not even know the names of some of petitioner's children, and had no idea whatsoever about his religion.

As held in Lim Ching Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines, (111 Phil., 211) :  "The law requires that a vouching witness should have actually known an applicant for whom he testified for the requisite period prescribed therein to give him the necessary competence to act as such.

The law thus, in effect, requires that the character witnesses be, not mere ordinary acquaintances of the applicant, but possessed of such intimate knowledge of the latter as to be competent to testify, of their personal knowledge, that he has each one of the requisite qualifications and none of the statutory disqualifications.