Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NOS. 178831-32 2009-07-30	JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
The 1998 HRET Rules, as amended, provide for the manner of filing either an election protest or a petition for quo warranto against a Member of the House of Representatives. In our Decision, we ruled that the ten-day prescriptive period under the 1998 HRET Rules does not apply to disqualification based on citizenship, because 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. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.[13] Accordingly, the 1987 Constitution requires that Members of the House of Representatives must be natural-born citizens not only at the time of their election but during their entire tenure. Being a continuing requirement, one who assails a member's citizenship or lack of it may still question the same at any time, the ten-day prescriptive period notwithstanding.
	GR Nos. 178831-32 2009-04-01	JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
In Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections,[67] the Court held that:The argument that the petition filed with the Commission on Elections should be dismissed for tardiness is not well-taken. The herein private respondents are seeking to prevent Frivaldo from continuing to discharge his office as governor because he is disqualified from doing so as a foreigner. 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. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged. If, say, a female legislator were to marry a foreigner during her term and by her act or omission acquires his nationality, would she have the right to remain in office simply because the challenge to her title may not longer be made within ten days from her proclamation? x x x
	GR No. 179848 2008-11-27	NESTOR A. JACOT v. ROGEN T. DAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner also makes much of the fact that he received the highest number of votes for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman during the 2007 local elections. The fact that a candidate, who must comply with the election requirements applicable to dual citizens and failed to do so, received the highest number of votes for an elective position does not dispense with, or amount to a waiver of, such requirement.[37] The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed that the candidate was qualified. The rules on citizenship qualifications of a candidate must be strictly applied. If a person seeks to serve the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state.[38] The application of the constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a matter of popularity.[39]
	GR Nos. 154796-97 2003-10-23	RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Indeed, the electorate cannot amend or waive the qualifications prescribed by law for elective office. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility.[46] The fact that Bautista, a non-registered voter, was elected to the office of Punong Barangay does not erase the fact that he lacks one of the qualifications for Punong Barangay.