Title 01 - 01. Laurel vs. Misa

of 18
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  1/21/2017 G.R. No. L-409 1/18 Today is Saturday, January 21, 2017 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT ManilaEN BANC G.R. No. L-409 January 30, 1947ANASTACIO LAUREL,  petitioner, vs. ERIBERTO MISA,  respondent. Claro M. Recto and Querube C. Makalintal for petitioner.First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Hernandez, Jr., for respondent. R E S O L U T I O NIn G.R. No. L-409,  Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the petition for habeascorpus  filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemygiving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that thesovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over theseIslands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic:(1) Considering that a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute andpermanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign; and that this absolute and permanent allegiance should not be confused with the qualified andtemporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein heresides, so long as he remains there, in return for the protection he receives, and which consists in theobedience to the laws of the government or sovereign. (Carlisle vs.  Unite States, 21 Law. ed., 429;Secretary of State Webster Report to the President of the United States in the case of Thraser, 6 Web.Works, 526);Considering that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by theenemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation,because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier,as we have held in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113) and of Peraltavs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285), and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remainvested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is thesupreme power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state) must be distinguishedfrom the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and transferred toanother, but it cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended withoutputting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control andgovernment of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; that thesubsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government in a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during the war, although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy over them is one of the rules of international law of our times ; (II Oppenheim, 6th Lauterpacht ed., 1944, p.482), recognized, by necessary implication, in articles 23, 44, 45, and 52 of Hague Regulation; and that, asa corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemyoccupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, andtherefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance, the basic theory on which the whole fabric of thepetitioner's contention rests;Considering that the conclusion that the sovereignty of the United State was suspended in Castine, set forthin the decision in the case of United States vs.  Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, 253, decided in 1819, and quoted inour decision in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon and Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra, in connection with the question, not of sovereignty, but of the existence of a government de  1/21/2017 G.R. No. L-409 2/18 facto  therein and its power to promulgate rules and laws in the occupied territory, must have been based,either on the theory adopted subsequently in the Hague Convention of 1907, that the military occupation of an enemy territory does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant; that, in the first case, the word sovereignty used therein should be construed to mean the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, becauseas this remains vested in the legitimate government and is not transferred to the occupier, it cannot besuspended without putting it out of existence or divesting said government thereof; and that in the secondcase, that is, if the said conclusion or doctrine refers to the suspension of the sovereignty itself, it hasbecome obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907, and therefore it can not be appliedto the present case;Considering that even adopting the words temporarily allegiance, repudiated by Oppenheim and other publicists, as descriptive of the relations borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemytoward the military government established over them, such allegiance may, at most, be considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory whereinhe resides in return for the protection he receives as above described, and does not do away with theabsolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his owngovernment or sovereign; that just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecutedfor and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territoryoccupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort; and that if theallegiance of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its lawsin return for the protection he receives, it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreigncountry or state would, on one hand, ipso facto  acquire the citizenship thereof since he has enforce publicorder and regulate the social and commercial life, in return for the protection he receives, and would, on theother hand, lose his srcinal citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws of hisown government or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign country, the protection he is entitledto in his own;Considering that, as a corollary of the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by thelegitimate government in the territory occupied by the enemy military forces, because the authority of thelegitimate power to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant (Article 43, Hague Regulations), thepolitical laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and citizens, aresuspended or in abeyance during military occupation (Co Kim cham vs.  Valdez Tan Keh and dizon, supra ),for the only reason that as they exclusively bear relation to the ousted legitimate government, they areinoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant; that the crimes againstnational security, such as treason and espionage; inciting to war, correspondence with hostile country, flightto enemy's country, as well as those against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, and disloyalty, illegalpossession of firearms, which are of political complexion because they bear relation to, and are penalizedby our Revised Penal Code as crimes against the legitimate government, are also suspended or becomeinapplicable as against the occupant, because they can not be committed against the latter (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra ); and that, while the offenses against public order to be preserved by thelegitimate government were inapplicable as offenses against the invader for the reason above stated,unless adopted by him, were also inoperative as against the ousted government for the latter was notresponsible for the preservation of the public order in the occupied territory, yet article 114 of the saidRevised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimategovernment, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to thelatter during the enemy occupation;Considering that, although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force, unlessabsolutely prevented by the circumstances, those laws that enforce public order and regulate the social andcommercial life of the country, he has, nevertheless, all the powers of de facto  government and may, at hispleasure, either change the existing laws or make new ones when the exigencies of the military servicedemand such action, that is, when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the country andthe protection of his army, subject to the restrictions or limitations imposed by the Hague Regulations, theusages established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience(Peralta vs.  Director of Prisons, supra ; 1940 United States Rules of Land Warfare 76, 77); and that,consequently, all acts of the military occupant dictated within these limitations are obligatory upon theinhabitants of the territory, who are bound to obey them, and the laws of the legitimate government whichhave not been adopted, as well and those which, though continued in force, are in conflict with such lawsand orders of the occupier, shall be considered as suspended or not in force and binding upon saidinhabitants;Considering that, since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of acitizen or subject to his government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but onlypassive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, theoccupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation of   1/21/2017 G.R. No. L-409 3/18 the law of treason, essential for the preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimategovernment, or compel them to adhere and give aid and comfort to him; because it is evident that suchaction is not demanded by the exigencies of the military service or not necessary for the control of theinhabitants and the safety and protection of his army, and because it is tantamount to practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the titular government or sovereign; and that, therefore, if aninhabitant of the occupied territory were compelled illegally by the military occupant, through force, threat or intimidation, to give him aid and comfort, the former may lawfully resist and die if necessary as a hero, or submit thereto without becoming a traitor;Considering that adoption of the petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance would lead to disastrousconsequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity andrequirements of public conscience, for it would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist the Quislinginhabitants of the occupied territory to fight against their own government without the latter incurring the riskof being prosecuted for treason, and even compel those who are not aid them in their military operationagainst the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and conquer the whole nation, and thusdeprive them all of their own independence or sovereignty — such theory would sanction the action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide;(2) Considering that the crime of treason against the government of the Philippines defined and penalizedin article 114 of the Penal Code, though srcinally intended to be a crime against said government as thenorganized by authority of the sovereign people of the United States, exercised through their authorizedrepresentative, the Congress and the President of the United States, was made, upon the establishment of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, a crime against the Government of the Philippines established byauthority of the people of the Philippines, in whom the sovereignty resides according to section 1, Article II,of the Constitution of the Philippines, by virtue of the provision of section 2, Article XVI thereof, whichprovides that All laws of the Philippine Islands . . . shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with thisConstitution . . . and all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands, shallbe construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under thisconstitution;Considering that the Commonwealth of the Philippines was a sovereign government, though not absolutebut subject to certain limitations imposed in the Independence Act and incorporated as Ordinanceappended to our Constitution, was recognized not only by the Legislative Department or Congress of theUnited States in approving the Independence Law above quoted and the Constitution of the Philippines,which contains the declaration that Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authorityemanates from them (section 1, Article II), but also by the Executive Department of the United States; thatthe late President Roosevelt in one of his messages to Congress said, among others, As I stated on August 12, 1943, the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as agovernment of other independent nations — in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood (Congressional Record, Vol. 29, part 6, page 8173); and that it is a principle upheld by the Supreme Courtof the United States in many cases, among them in the case of Jones vs.  United States (137 U.S., 202; 34Law. ed., 691, 696) that the question of sovereignty is a purely political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, aswell as all other officers, citizens and subjects of the country.Considering that section I (1) of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution which provides that pendingthe final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States All citizens of the Philippines shallowe allegiance to the United States , was one of the few limitations of the sovereignty of the Filipino peopleretained by the United States, but these limitations do not away or are not inconsistent with saidsovereignty, in the same way that the people of each State of the Union preserves its own sovereigntyalthough limited by that of the United States conferred upon the latter by the States; that just as to reasonmay be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treasonmay have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the United States aswell as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with thecrime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the samegovernment and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that Thegovernment established by this constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Uponthe final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippineindependence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of thePhilippines ;This Court resolves, without prejudice to write later on a more extended opinion, to deny the petitioner'spetition, as it is hereby denied, for the reasons above set forth and for others to be stated in the said  1/21/2017 G.R. No. L-409 4/18 opinion, without prejudice to concurring opinion therein, if any. Messrs. Justices Paras and Hontiverosdissent in a separate opinion. Mr. justice Perfecto concurs in a separate opinion. Separate OpinionsPERFECTO, J., concurring:Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be committed in peace time. While there is peace,there are no traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns. Treasonable acts may actually beperpetrated during peace, but there are no traitors until war has started. As treason is basically a war crime, it is punished by the state as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation.The law of treason is an emergency measure. It remains dormant until the emergency arises. But as soon as war starts, it is relentlessly put into effect. Any lukewarm attitude in its enforcement will only be consistent with national harakiri  . All war efforts would be of no avail if they should be allowed to be sabotaged by fifth columnists, bycitizens who have sold their country out to the enemy, or any other kind of traitors, and this would certainly be thecase if he law cannot be enforced under the theory of suspension.Petitioner's thesis that allegiance to our government was suspended during enemy occupation is advanced insupport of the proposition that, since allegiance is identical with obedience to law, during the enemy occupation,the laws of the Commonwealth were suspended. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, the law punishingtreason, under the theory, was one of the laws obedience to which was also suspended. Allegiance has been defined as the obligation for fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to hisgovernment or his sovereign in return for the protection which he receives. Allegiance , as the return is generally used, means fealty or fidelity to the government of which the personis either a citizen or subject. Murray vs.  The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 64, 120; 2 Law. ed., 208. Allegiance was said by Mr. Justice Story to be nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subjectto the sovereign, under whose protection he is. United States vs.  Wong Kim Ark, 18 S. Ct., 461; 169 U.S.,649; 42 Law. ed., 890. Allegiance is that duty which is due from every citizen to the state, a political duty binding on him whoenjoys the protection of the Commonwealth, to render service and fealty to the federal government. It isthat duty which is reciprocal to the right of protection, arising from the political relations between thegovernment and the citizen. Wallace vs.  Harmstad, 44 Pa. (8 Wright), 492, 501.By allegiance is meant the obligation to fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to thegovernment under which he lives, or to his sovereign, in return for the protection which he receives. It maybe an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. A citizen or subjectowes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some openand distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or sovereign, andan alien while domiciled in a country owes it a temporary allegiance, which is continuous during hisresidence. Carlisle vs.  United States, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.), 147, 154; 21 Law ed., 426. Allegiance, as defined by Blackstone, is the tie or ligament which binds the subject to the King, in returnfor that protection which the King affords the subject. Allegiance, both expressed and implied, is of twosorts, the one natural, the other local, the former being perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance issuch as is due from all men born within the King's dominions immediately upon their birth, for immediatelyupon their birth they are under the King's protection. Natural allegiance is perpetual, and for this reason,evidently founded on the nature of government. Allegiance is a debt due from the subject upon an impliedcontract with the prince that so long as the one affords protection the other will demean himself faithfully.Natural-born subjects have a great variety of rights which they acquire by being born within the King'sliegance, which can never be forfeited but by their own misbehaviour; but the rights of aliens are muchmore circumscribed, being acquired only by residence, and lost whenever they remove. If an alien couldacquire a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance equally permanent to the King, whichwould probably be inconsistent with that which he owes his natural liege lord; besides, that thereby thenation might, in time, be subject to foreign influence and feel many other inconveniences. Indians withinthe state are not aliens, but citizens owing allegiance to the government of a state, for they receiveprotection from the government and are subject to its laws. They are born in allegiance to the governmentof the state. Jackson vs.  Goodell, 20 Johns., 188, 911. (3 Words and Phrases, Permanent ed., 226-227.)  Allegiance . — Fealty or fidelity to the government of which the person is either a citizen or subject; the dutywhich is due from every citizen to the state; a political duty, binding on him who enjoys the protection of the

j Devrtj2 PDF

Apr 19, 2018
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!