Lawyerly

GR No. 210164

2015-08-18

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Again, our ingrained jurisprudence is that technical rules of evidence should not be rigorously applied in administrative proceedings specially where the law calls for the proceeding to be summary in character. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 25 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, petitions for disqualifications are subject to summary hearings. In relation thereto, Section 3, Rule 17 of the said Rules provides that it remains in the sound discretion of the COMELEC whether clarification questions are to be asked the witnesses-affiants, and whether the adverse party is to be granted opportunity to cross-examine said witnesses affiants. Furthermore, when the COMELEC en banc reviews and evaluates a party's petition, or as in the case at bar, a party's answer and the supporting papers attached thereto, the same is tantamount to a fair "hearing" of his case.[42]

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Citing Frivaldo v. COMELEC,[110] the Court held that time and again it has liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. Otherwise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will.

GR No. 209286

2014-09-23

LINA DELA PEÑA JALOVER v. JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA

BRION, J.

We find it apt to reiterate in this regard the principle enunciated in the case of Frivaldo v. Comelec,[84] that "[i]n any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority."[85]

GR No. 191938

2010-07-02

ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA v. COMELEC

BRION, J.

Earlier, Frivaldo v. COMELEC[87] provided the following test: [T]his Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the survival of our democracy. In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority. To successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. [Emphasis supplied.]

GR No. 187478

2009-12-21

REPRESENTATIVE DANILO RAMON S. FERNANDEZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Anent the second issue pertaining to petitioner's compliance with the residency requirement for Members of the House of Representatives, after studying the evidence submitted by the parties, we find for petitioner, taking into account our ruling in Frivaldo v. COMELEC,[35] which reads in part: This Court has time and again liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for in case of doubt, political laws must beinterpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. Otherwise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will. xxx (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 167569

2009-09-04

CARLOS T. GO v. LUIS T. RAMOS

QUISUMBING, J.

Carlos and Jimmy's claim that the cause of action of the Bureau has prescribed is untenable. Cases involving issues on citizenship are sui generis. Once the citizenship of an individual is put into question, it necessarily has to be threshed out and decided upon. In the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections,[48] we said that decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter, lose his citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose.[49] Indeed, if the issue of one's citizenship, after it has been passed upon by the courts, leaves it still open to future adjudication, then there is more reason why the government should not be precluded from questioning one's claim to Philippine citizenship, especially so when the same has never been threshed out by any tribunal.

GR No. 180048

2009-06-19

ROSELLER DE GUZMAN v. COMELEC

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Petitioner invokes the rulings in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections[9] and Mercado v. Manzano,[10] that the filing by a person with dual citizenship of a certificate of candidacy, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted as a renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Moreover, he claims that the COMELEC En Banc prematurely dismissed the motion for reconsideration because at that time, there was a pending election protest which was later decided in his favor.

GR No. 178306

2008-12-18

FRANCISCO R. NUNGA v. FRANCISCO N. NUNGA III

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Even the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 8179 cannot benefit Francisco Jr. It is true that under the Civil Code of the Philippines, laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.[41] But there are settled exceptions to this general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL in nature, or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS.[42] Francisco Jr. and Victor assert that, as an exception to the cardinal rule of prospective application of laws, Republic Act No. 8179 may be retroactively applied, since it creates for the first time a substantive right in favor of natural-born citizens of the Philippines. Francisco Jr. and Victor, however, overlooked the vital exception to the exception. While it is true that a law creating new rights may be given retroactive effect, the same can only be made possible if the new right does not prejudice or impair any vested right.[43]

GR No. 181097

2008-06-25

NORLAINIE MITMUG LIMBONA v. COMELEC

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646) "authorizes the Commission (Comelec) to try and decide petitions for disqualifications even after the elections,"[17] thus:SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis ours)

GR NO. 174153

2006-10-25

RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

To be sure, sovereignty or popular sovereignty, emphasizes the supremacy of the people's will over the state which they themselves have created. The state is created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political power. Rightly, we have ruled that "the sovereignty of our people is not a kabalistic principle whose dimensions are buried in mysticism. Its metes and bounds are familiar to the framers of our Constitutions. They knew that in its broadest sense, sovereignty is meant to be supreme, the jus summi imperu, the absolute right to govern."[81]

	GR No. 210164 2015-08-18	ROMMEL C. ARNADO v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
Again, our ingrained jurisprudence is that technical rules of evidence should not be rigorously applied in administrative proceedings specially where the law calls for the proceeding to be summary in character. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 25 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, petitions for disqualifications are subject to summary hearings. In relation thereto, Section 3, Rule 17 of the said Rules provides that it remains in the sound discretion of the COMELEC whether clarification questions are to be asked the witnesses-affiants, and whether the adverse party is to be granted opportunity to cross-examine said witnesses affiants. Furthermore, when the COMELEC en banc reviews and evaluates a party's petition, or as in the case at bar, a party's answer and the supporting papers attached thereto, the same is tantamount to a fair "hearing" of his case.[42]
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Citing Frivaldo v. COMELEC,[110] the Court held that time and again it has liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. Otherwise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will.
	GR No. 209286 2014-09-23	LINA DELA PEÑA JALOVER v. JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA BRION, J.
We find it apt to reiterate in this regard the principle enunciated in the case of Frivaldo v. Comelec,[84] that "[i]n any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority."[85]
	GR No. 191938 2010-07-02	ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Earlier, Frivaldo v. COMELEC[87] provided the following test: [T]his Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the survival of our democracy. In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority. To successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibility and thereby giving effect to the apparent will of the people would ultimately create greater prejudice to the very democratic institutions and juristic traditions that our Constitution and laws so zealously protect and promote. [Emphasis supplied.]
	GR No. 187478 2009-12-21	REPRESENTATIVE DANILO RAMON S. FERNANDEZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Anent the second issue pertaining to petitioner's compliance with the residency requirement for Members of the House of Representatives, after studying the evidence submitted by the parties, we find for petitioner, taking into account our ruling in Frivaldo v. COMELEC,[35] which reads in part: This Court has time and again liberally and equitably construed the electoral laws of our country to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for in case of doubt, political laws must beinterpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot. Otherwise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 167569 2009-09-04	CARLOS T. GO v. LUIS T. RAMOS QUISUMBING, J.
Carlos and Jimmy's claim that the cause of action of the Bureau has prescribed is untenable. Cases involving issues on citizenship are sui generis. Once the citizenship of an individual is put into question, it necessarily has to be threshed out and decided upon. In the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections,[48] we said that decisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a person's future status with finality. This is because a person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter, lose his citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the purpose.[49] Indeed, if the issue of one's citizenship, after it has been passed upon by the courts, leaves it still open to future adjudication, then there is more reason why the government should not be precluded from questioning one's claim to Philippine citizenship, especially so when the same has never been threshed out by any tribunal.
	GR No. 180048 2009-06-19	ROSELLER DE GUZMAN v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner invokes the rulings in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections[9] and Mercado v. Manzano,[10] that the filing by a person with dual citizenship of a certificate of candidacy, containing an oath of allegiance, constituted as a renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Moreover, he claims that the COMELEC En Banc prematurely dismissed the motion for reconsideration because at that time, there was a pending election protest which was later decided in his favor.
	GR No. 178306 2008-12-18	FRANCISCO R. NUNGA v. FRANCISCO N. NUNGA III CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 8179 cannot benefit Francisco Jr. It is true that under the Civil Code of the Philippines, laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.[41] But there are settled exceptions to this general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL in nature, or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS.[42] Francisco Jr. and Victor assert that, as an exception to the cardinal rule of prospective application of laws, Republic Act No. 8179 may be retroactively applied, since it creates for the first time a substantive right in favor of natural-born citizens of the Philippines. Francisco Jr. and Victor, however, overlooked the vital exception to the exception. While it is true that a law creating new rights may be given retroactive effect, the same can only be made possible if the new right does not prejudice or impair any vested right.[43]
	GR No. 181097 2008-06-25	NORLAINIE MITMUG LIMBONA v. COMELEC YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646) "authorizes the Commission (Comelec) to try and decide petitions for disqualifications even after the elections,"[17] thus:SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. (Emphasis ours)
	GR NO. 174153 2006-10-25	RAUL L. LAMBINO v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
To be sure, sovereignty or popular sovereignty, emphasizes the supremacy of the people's will over the state which they themselves have created. The state is created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political power. Rightly, we have ruled that "the sovereignty of our people is not a kabalistic principle whose dimensions are buried in mysticism. Its metes and bounds are familiar to the framers of our Constitutions. They knew that in its broadest sense, sovereignty is meant to be supreme, the jus summi imperu, the absolute right to govern."[81]

JUAN G. FRIVALDO v. COMELEC