[No.L409.January30,1947] ANASTACIOLAUREL,petitioner,vs.ERIBERTOMISA,respondent. 1.INTERNATIONALANDCONSTITUTIONALLAW;ALLEGIANCEOFCITIZENOR SUBJECTTOSOVEREIGN;NATUREOF.Acitizenorsubjectowes,notaqualified andtemporary,butanabsoluteandpermanentallegiance,whichconsistsinthe obligationoffidelityandobediencetohisgovernmentorsovereign. 2.ID.;ID.;ID.;EFFECTOFENEMYOCCUPATION.Theabsoluteandpermanent allegianceoftheinhabitantsofaterritoryoccupiedbytheenemytotheir legitimategovernmentorsovereignisnotabrogatedorseveredbytheenemy occupation,becausethesovereigntyofthegovernmentorsovereigndejureis nottransferredtherebytotheoccupier. 3.ID.;ID.;ID.;SOVEREIGNTY,EFFECTON,OFENEMYOCCUPATION.

The subsistenceofthesovereigntyofthelegitimategovernmentinaterritory occupiedbythemilitaryforcesoftheenemyduringawar,"althoughtheformer isinfactpreventedfromexercisingthesupremacyoverthem"isoneofthe "rulesofinternationallawofourtimes." 4.ID.;ID.;ID.;"TEMPORARYALLEGIANCE"SIMILARTOALLEGIANCEOF FOREIGNERTOGOVERNMENTOFHlSRESIDENCE.Thewords 857 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 857 Laurelvs.Misa "temporaryallegiance,"repudiatedbyOppenheimandotherpublicists,as descriptiveoftherelationsbornebytheinhabitantsoftheterritoryoccupiedby theenemytowardthemilitarygovernmentestablishedoverthem,may,atmost, beconsideredsimilartothetemporaryallegiancewhichaforeignerowestothe governmentorsovereignoftheterritorywhereinheresidesinreturnforthe protectionhereceivesanddoesnotdoawaywiththeabsoluteandpermanent allegiancewhichthecitizenresidinginaforeigncountryowestohisown governmentorsovereign. 5.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;TREASONINFOREIGNCOUNTRYANDINTERRITORYUNDER MILITARYOCCUPATION.Justasacitizenorsubjectofagovernmentor sovereignmaybeprosecutedforandconvictedoftreasoncommittedinaforeign country,inthesamewayaninhabitantofaterritoryoccupiedbythemilitary forcesoftheenemymaycommittreasonagainsthisownlegitimategovernment orsovereignifheadherestotheenemiesofthelatterbygivingthemaidand comfort. 6.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ARTICLE114OFREVISEDPENALCODE,APPLICABILITY OF.Article114oftheRevisedPenalCode,wasapplicabletotreasoncommitted

againstthenationalsecurityofthelegitimategovernment,becausethe inhabitantsoftheoccupiedterritorywerestillboundbytheirallegiancetothe latterduringtheenemyoccupation. 7.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;POWEROFMILITARYOCCUPANTTOCHANGELAWSORMAKE NEWONES.Althoughthemilitaryoccupantisenjoinedtorespectorcontinue inforce,unlessabsolutelypreventedbythecircumstances,thoselawsthat enforcepublicorderandregulatethesocialandcommerciallifeofthecountry, hehas,nevertheless,allthepowersofadefactogovernmentandmay,athis pleasure,eitherchangetheexistinglawsormakenewoneswhentheexigencies ofthemilitaryservicedemandsuchaction,thatis,whenitisnecessaryforthe occupiertodosoforthecontrolofthecountryandtheprotectionofhisarmy, subjecttotherestrictionsorlimitationsimposedbytheHagueRegulations,the usagesestablishedbycivilizednations,thelawsofhumanityandthe requirementsofpublicconscience. 8.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;MILITARYOCCUPANTCANNOTREPEALORSUSPEND OPERATIONOFLAWOFTREASON.Sincethepreservationoftheallegianceor theobligationoffidelityandobedienceofacitizenorsubjecttohisgovernment orsovereign'doesnotdemandfromhimapositiveaction,butonlypassive attitudeorforbearancefromadheringtotheenemybygivingthelatteraidand comfort,theoccupanthasnopower,asacorollaryofthe 858 858 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa precedingconsideration,torepealorsuspendtheoperationofthelawof treason. 9.ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;SUSPENDEDALLEGIANCE,EFFECTOFTHEORYOF, ADOPTED,Adoptionofthepetitioner'stheoryofsuspendedallegiancewould leadtodisastrousconsequencesforsmallandweaknationsorstates,andwould berepugnanttothelawsofhumanityandrequirementsofpublicconscience,for itwouldallowinvaderstolegallyrecruitorenlisttheQuislinginhabitantsofthe occupiedterritorytofightagainsttheirowngovernmentwithoutthelatter incurringtheriskofbeingprosecutedfortreason,andevencompelthosewho arenottoaidthemintheirmilitaryoperationagainsttheresistingenemyforces inordertocompletelysubdueandconquerthewholenation,andthusdeprive themalloftheirownindependenceorsovereigntysuchtheorywouldsanction theactionofinvadersinforcingthepeopleofafreeandsovereigncountrytobe apartyinthenefarioustaskofdeprivingthemselvesoftheirownfreedomand independenceandrepressingtheexercisebythemoftheirownsovereignty;in otherwords,tocommitapoliticalsuicide.

10.ID.,SOVEREIGNTY,INWHOMDOESITRESIDE.Sovereigntyresidesinthe peopleofthePhilippines. 11.ID.;ID.;COMMONWEALTHOFTHEPHILIPPINESASOVEREIGN GovERNMENT.TheCommonwealthofthePhilippineswasasovereign government,thoughnotabsolutebutsubjecttocertainlimitationsimposedin theIndependenceActandincorporatedasOrdinanceappendedtoour Constitution. 12.ID.;ID.;ID.;QUESTIONSOFSOVEREIGNTY,POLITICAL.Thequestionof sovereigntyis"apurelypoliticalquestion,thedeterminationofwhichbythe legislativeandexecutivedepartmentsofanygovernmentconclusivelybindsthe judges,aswellasallotherofficer,citizensandsubjectsofthecountry." 13.ID.;ID.;ID.;PHILIPPINEREPUBLIC,RIGHTOF,TOPROSECUTETREASON COMMITTEDDURINGJAPANESEOCCUPATION.Justastreasonmaybe committedagainsttheFederalaswellasagainsttheStateGovernment,inthe samewaytreasonmayhavebeencommittedduringtheJapaneseoccupation againstthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesaswellasagainstthesovereigntyof thePhilippineCommonwealth;andthatthechangeofourformofgovernment fromCommonwealthtoRepublicdoesnotaffecttheprosecutionofthose chargedwiththecrimeoftreasoncommittedduringtheCommonwealth, becauseitisanoffenseagainstthesamegovernmentandthesamesovereign people,forArticleXVIIIofourConstitutionprovidesthat:"Thegovernment establishedbythisConstitutionshallbeknownasthe 859 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 859 Laurelvs.Misa CommonwealthofthePhilippines.Uponthefinalandcompletewithdrawalof thesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesandtheproclamationofPhilippine Independence,theCommonwealthofthePhilippinesshallthenceforthbeknown astheRepublicofthePhilippines." ORIGINALACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Habeascorpus. Thefactsarestatedintheopinionofthecourt. ClaroM.RectoandQuerubeC.Makalintalforpetitioner. FirstAssistantSolicitorGeneralReyesandSolicitorHernandez,jr.,for respondent. RESOLUTION

"InG.R.No.L409,AnastacioLaurelvs.EribertoMisa,etc.,theCourt,actingon thepetitionforhabeascorpusfiledbyAnastacioLaurelandbasedonthetheory thataFilipinocitizenwhoadheredtotheenemygivingthelatteraidandcomfort duringtheJapaneseoccupationcannotbeprosecutedforthecrimeoftreason definedandpenalizedbyarticle114oftheRevisedPenalCode,forthereason (1)thatthesovereigntyofthelegitimategovernmentinthePhilippinesand, consequently,thecorrelativeallegianceofFilipinocitizenstheretowasthen suspended;and(2)thattherewasachangeofsovereigntyovertheseIslands upontheproclamationofthePhilippineRepublic: "(1)Consideringthatacitizenorsubjectowes,notaqualifiedandtemporary, butanabsoluteandpermanentallegiance,whichconsistsintheobligationof fidelityandobediencetohisgovernmentorsovereign;andthatthisabsoluteand permanentallegianceshouldnotbeconfusedwiththequalifiedandtemporary allegiancewhichaforeignerowestothegovernmentorsovereignofthe territorywhereinheresides,solongasheremainsthere,inreturnforthe protectionhereceives,andwhichconsistsintheobediencetothelawsofthe governmentorsovereign.(Carlislevs.UnitedStates,21Law.ed.,429;Secretary ofStateWebsterReporttothePresidentoftheUnitedStatesinthecaseof Thraser,6Web.Works,526); "Consideringthattheabsoluteandpermanentallegianceoftheinhabitantsofa territoryoccupiedbytheenemytotheirlegitimategovernmentorsovereignis notabrogatedorseveredbytheenemyoccupation,becausethesovereigntyof thegovernmentorsovereigndejureisnottransferredtherebytotheoccupier, aswehaveheldinthecasesofCoKimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizon(75 860 860 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa Phil.,113)andofPeraltavs.DirectorofPrisons(75Phil.,285),andifitisnot transferredtotheoccupantitmustnecessarilyremainvestedinthelegitimate government;thatthesovereigntyvestedinthetitulargovernment(whichisthe supremepowerwhichgovernsabodypoliticorsocietywhichconstitutethe state)mustbedistinguishedfromtheexerciseoftherightsinherentthereto,and maybedestroyed,orseveredandtransferredtoanother,butitcannotbe suspendedbecausetheexistenceofsovereigntycannotbesuspendedwithout puttingitoutofexistenceordivestingthepossessorthereofatleastduringthe socalledperiodofsuspension;thatwhatmaybesuspendedistheexerciseofthe rightsofsovereigntywiththecontrolandgovernmentoftheterritoryoccupied bytheenemypassestemporarilytotheoccupant;thatthesubsistenceofthe sovereigntyofthelegitimategovernmentinaterritoryoccupiedbythemilitary forcesoftheenemyduringthewar,'althoughtheformerisinfactprevented fromexercisingthesupremacyoverthem'isoneofthe'rulesofinternational

lawofourtimes';(IIOppenheim,6thLauterpachted.,1944,p.482),recognized, bynecessaryimplication,inarticles23,44,45,and52ofHagueRegulation;and that,asacorollaryoftheconclusionthatthesovereigntyitselfisnotsuspended andsubsistsduringtheenemyoccupation,theallegianceoftheinhabitantsto theirlegitimategovernmentorsovereignsubsists,andthereforethereisnosuch thingassuspendedallegiance,thebasictheory011whichthewholefabricofthe petitioner'scontentionrests; "ConsideringthattheconclusionthatthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStateswas suspendedinCastine,setforthinthedecisioninthecaseofUnitedStatesvs. Rice,4Wheaton,246,253,decidedin1819,andquotedinourdecisioninthe casesofCoKimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizonandPeraltavs.Directorof Prisons,supra,inconnectionwiththequestion,notofsovereignty,butofthe existenceofagovernmentdefactothereinanditspowertopromulgaterules andlawsintheoccupiedterritory,musthavebeenbased,eitheronthetheory adoptedsubsequentlyintheHagueConventionof1907,thatthemilitary occupationofanenemyterritorydoesnottransferthesovereignty,orontheold theorythatsuchoccupationtransfersthesovereigntytotheoccupant;that,in thefirstcase,theword'sovereignty'usedthereinshouldbeconstruedtomean theexerciseoftherightsofsovereignty,becauseasthisremainsvestedinthe legitimategovernmentandisnottransferredtotheoccupier,itcannotbe suspendedwithoutputtingitoutofexistenceordivestingsaidgovernment thereof;andthatinthesecondcase,thatis,ifthesaidconclusionordoctrine referstothesuspensionofthesovereigntyitself,ithasbecomeobsoleteafterthe adoptionoftheHagueRegulationsin1907,andthereforeitcannotbeappliedto thepresentcase; 861 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 861 Laurelvs.Misa "Consideringthatevenadoptingthewords'temporaryallegiance,'repudiatedby Oppenheimandotherpublicists,asdescriptiveoftherelationsbornebythe inhabitantsoftheterritoryoccupiedbytheenemytowardthemilitary governmentestablishedoverthem,suchallegiancemay,atmost,beconsidered similartothetemporaryallegiancewhichaforeignerowestothegovernmentor sovereignoftheterritorywhereinheresidesinreturnfortheprotectionhe receivesasabovedescribed,anddoesnotdoawaywiththeabsoluteand permanentallegiancewhichthecitizenresidinginaforeigncountryowestohis owngovernmentorsovereign;thatjustasacitizenorsubjectofagovernmentor sovereignmaybeprosecutedforandconvictedoftreasoncommittedinaforeign country,inthesamewayaninhabitantofaterritoryoccupiedbythemilitary forcesoftheenemymaycommittreasonagainsthisownlegitimategovernment orsovereignifheadherestotheenemiesofthelatterbygivingthemaidand comfort;andthatiftheallegianceofacitizenorsubjecttohisgovernmentor

sovereignisnothingmorethanobediencetoitslawsinreturnfortheprotection hereceives,itwouldnecessarilyfollowthatacitizenwhoresidesinaforeign countryorstatewould,ononehand,ipsofactoacquirethecitizenshipthereof sincehehastoobey,withcertainexceptions,thelawsofthatcountrywhich enforcepublicorderandregulatethesocialandcommerciallife,inreturnforthe protectionhereceives,andwould,ontheotherhand,losehisoriginal citizenship,becausehewouldnotbeboundtoobeymostofthelawsofhisown governmentorsovereign,andwouldnotreceive,whileinaforeigncountry,the protectionheisentitledtoinhisown; "Consideringthat,asacorollaryofthesuspensionoftheexerciseoftherightsof sovereigntybythelegitimategovernmentintheterritoryoccupiedbytheenemy militaryforces,becausetheauthorityofthelegitimatepowertogovernhas passedintothehandsoftheoccupant(Article43,HagueRegulations),the politicallawswhichprescribethereciprocalrights,dutiesandobligationof governmentandcitizens,aresuspendedorinabeyanceduringmilitary occupation(CoKimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizon,supra),fortheonly reasonthatastheyexclusivelybearrelationtotheoustedlegitimate government,theyareinoperativeornotapplicabletothegovernment establishedbytheoccupant;thatthecrimesagainstnationalsecurity,suchas treasonandespionage,incitingtowar,correspondencewithhostilecountry, flighttoenemy'scountry,aswellasthoseagainstpublicorder,suchasrebellion, sedition,anddisloyalty,illegalpossessionoffirearms,whichareofpolitical complexionbecausetheybearrelationto,andarepenalizedbyourRevised PenalCodeascrimesagainstthelegitimategovernment,arealsosuspendedor becomeinapplicableasagainsttheoccupant,becausethey 862 862 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa cannotbecommittedagainstthelatter(Peraltavs.DirectorofPrisons,supra); andthat,whiletheoffensesagainstpublicordertobepreservedbythe legitimategovernmentwereinapplicableasoffensesagainsttheinvaderforthe reasonabovestated,unlessadoptedbyhim,werealsoinoperativeasagainstthe oustedgovernmentforthelatterwasnotresponsibleforthepreservationofthe publicorderintheoccupiedterritory,yetarticle114ofthesaidRevisedPenal Code,wasapplicabletotreasoncommittedagainstthenationalsecurityofthe legitimategovernment,becausetheinhabitantsoftheoccupiedterritorywere stillboundbytheirallegiancetothelatterduringtheenemyoccupation; "Consideringthat,althoughthemilitaryoccupantisenjoinedtorespector continueinforce,unlessabsolutelypreventedbythecircumstances,thoselaws thatenforcepublicorderandregulatethesocialandcommerciallifeofthe country,hehas,nevertheless,allthepowersofadefactogovernmentandmay,

athispleasure,eitherchangetheexistinglawsormakenewoneswhenthe exigenciesofthemilitaryservicedemandsuchaction,thatis,whenitis necessaryfortheoccupiertodosoforthecontrolofthecountryandthe protectionofhisarmy,subjecttotherestrictionsorlimitationsimposedbythe HagueRegulations,theusagesestablishedbycivilizednations,thelawsof humanityandtherequirementsofpublicconscience(Peraltavs.Directorof Prisons,supra;1940UnitedStatesRulesofLandWarfare76,77);andthat, consequently,allactsofthemilitaryoccupantdictatedwithintheselimitations areobligatoryupontheinhabitantsoftheterritory,whoareboundtoobeythem, andthelawsofthelegitimategovernmentwhichhavenotbeenadopted,aswell andthosewhich,thoughcontinuedinforce,areinconflictwithsuchlawsand ordersoftheoccupier,shallbeconsideredassuspendedornotinforceand bindinguponsaidinhabitants; "Consideringthat,sincethepreservationoftheallegianceortheobligationof fidelityandobedienceofacitizenorsubjecttohisgovernmentorsovereigndoes notdemandfromhimapositiveaction,butonlypassiveattitudeorforbearance fromadheringtotheenemybygivingthelatteraidandcomfort,theoccupant hasnopower,asacorollaryoftheprecedingconsideration,torepealorsuspend theoperationofthelawoftreason,essentialforthepreservationofthe allegianceowedbytheinhabitantstotheirlegitimategovernment,orcompel themtoadhereandgiveaidandcomforttohim;becauseitisevidentthatsuch actionisnotdemandedbytheexigenciesofthemilitaryserviceornotnecessary forthecontroloftheinhabitantsandthesafetyandprotectionofhisarmy,and becauseitistantamounttopracticallytransfertemporarilytotheoccupanttheir allegiancetothetitulargovernmentorsovereign; 863 VOL.77,JANUARY,30,1947 863 Laurelvs.Misa andthat,therefore,ifaninhabitantoftheoccupiedterritorywerecompelled illegallybythemilitaryoccupant,throughforce,threatorintimidation,togive himaidandcomfort,theformermaylawfullyresistanddieifnecessaryasa hero,orsubmittheretowithoutbecomingatraitor; "Consideringthatadoptionofthepetitioner'stheoryofsuspendedallegiance wouldleadtodisastrousconsequencesforsmallandweaknationsorstates,and wouldberepugnanttothelawsofhumanityandrequirementsofpublic conscience,foritwouldallowinvaderstolegallyrecruitorenlisttheQuisling inhabitantsoftheoccupiedterritorytofightagainsttheirowngovernment withoutthelatterincurringtheriskofbeingprosecutedfortreason,andeven compelthosewhoarenottoaidthemintheirmilitaryoperationagainstthe resistingenemyforcesinordertocompletelysubdueandconquerthewhole nation,andthusdeprivethemalloftheirownindependenceorsovereignty

suchtheorywouldsanctiontheactionofinvadersinforcingthepeopleofafree andsovereigncountrytobeapartyinthenefarioustaskofdeprivingthemselves oftheirownfreedomandindependenceandrepressingtheexercisebythemof theirownsovereignty;inotherwords,tocommitapoliticalsuicide; "(2)Consideringthatthecrimeoftreasonagainstthegovernmentofthe Philippinesdefinedandpenalizedinarticle114ofthePenalCode,though originallyintendedtobeacrimeagainstsaidgovernmentasthenorganizedby authorityofthesovereignpeopleoftheUnitedStates,exercisedthroughtheir authorizedrepresentative,theCongressandthePresidentoftheUnitedStates, wasmade,upontheestablishmentoftheCommonwealthGovernmentin1935,a crimeagainsttheGovernmentofthePhilippinesestablishedbyauthorityofthe peopleofthePhilippines,inwhomthesovereigntyresidesaccordingtosection 1,ArticleII,oftheConstitutionofthePhilippines,byvirtueoftheprovisionof section2,ArticleXVIthereof,whichprovidesthat'AlllawsofthePhilippine Islands***shallremainoperative,unlessinconsistentwiththisConstitution** *andallreferencesinsuchlawstotheGovernmentorofficialsofthePhilippine Islands,shallbeconstrued,insofarasapplicable,torefertotheGovernmentand correspondingofficialsunderthisConstitution;' "ConsideringthattheCommonwealthofthePhilippineswasasovereign government,thoughnotabsolutebutsubjecttocertainlimitationsimposedin theIndependenceActandincorporatedasOrdinanceappendedtoour Constitution,wasrecognizednotonlybytheLegislativeDepartmentorCongress oftheUnitedStatesinapprovingtheIndependenceLawabovequotedandthe ConstitutionofthePhilippines,whichcontainsthedeclarationthat'Sovereignty residesinthepeopleandallgovernmentauthorityemanatesfrom 864 864 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa them'(section1,ArticleII),butalsobytheExecutiveDepartmentoftheUnited States;thatthelatePresidentRooseveltinoneofhismessagestoCongresssaid, amongothers,'AsIstatedonAugust12,1943,theUnitedStatesinpractice regardsthePhilippinesashavingnowthestatusasagovernmentofother independentnationsinfactalltheattributesofcompleteandrespected nationhood'(CongressionalRecord,Vol.29,part6,page8173);andthatitisa principleupheldbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesinmanycases, amongtheminthecaseofJonesvs.UnitedStates(137U.S.,202;34Law.ed., 691,696)thatthequestionofsovereigntyis'apurelypoliticalquestion,the determinationofwhichbythelegislativeandexecutivedepartmentsofany governmentconclusivelybindsthejudges,aswellasallotherofficers,citizens andsubjectsofthecountry.'

"ConsideringthatsectionI(1)oftheOrdinanceappendedtotheConstitution whichprovidesthatpendingthefinalandcompletewithdrawalofthe sovereigntyoftheUnitedStates'AllcitizensofthePhilippinesshallowe allegiancetotheUnitedStates',wasoneofthefewlimitationsofthesovereignty oftheFilipinopeopleretainedbytheUnitedStates,buttheselimitationsdonot doawayorarenotinconsistentwithsaidsovereignty,inthesamewaythatthe peopleofeachStateoftheUnionpreservesitsownsovereigntyalthoughlimited bythatoftheUnitedStatesconferreduponthelatterbytheStates;thatjustasto reasonmaybecommittedagainsttheFederalaswellasagainsttheState Government,inthesamewaytreasonmayhavebeencommittedduringthe JapaneseoccupationagainstthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesaswellas againstthesovereigntyofthePhilippineCommonwealth;andthatthechangeof ourformofgovernmentfromCommonwealthtoRepublicdoesnotaffectthe prosecutionofthosechargedwiththecrimeoftreasoncommittedduringthe Commonwealth,becauseitisanoffenseagainstthesamegovernmentandthe samesovereignpeople,forArticleXVIIIofourConstitutionprovidesthatThe governmentestablishedbythisConstitutionshallbeknownasthe CommonwealthofthePhilippines.Uponthefinalandcompletewithdrawalof thesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesandtheproclamationofPhilippine independence,theCommonwealthofthePhilippinesshallthenceforthbeknown astheRepublicofthePhilippines'; "ThisCourtresolves,withoutprejudicetowritelateronamoreextended opinion,todenythepetitioner'spetition,asitisherebydenied,forthereasons abovesetforthandforotherstobestatedinthesaidopinion,withoutprejudice toconcurringopiniontherein,ifany.Messrs.JusticesParasandHontiveros dissentinaseparateopinion.Mr.JusticePerfectoconcursinaseparateopinion." 865 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 865 Laurelvs.Misa PERFECTO,J.,concurring: Treasonisawarcrime.Itisnotanalltimeoffense.Itcannotbecommittedin peacetime.Whilethereispeace,therearenotraitors.Treasonmaybeincubated whenpeacereigns.Treasonableactsmayactuallybeperpetratedduringpeace, buttherearenotraitorsuntilwarhasstarted. Astreasonisbasicallyawarcrime,itispunishedbythestateasameasureof selfdefenseandselfpreservation.Thelawoftreasonisanemergencymeasure. Itremainsdormantuntiltheemergencyarises.Butassoonaswarstarts,itis relentlesslyputintoeffect.Anylukewarmattitudeinitsenforcementwillonlybe consistentwithnationalharakiri.Allwareffortswouldbeofnoavailifthey

shouldbeallowedtobesabotagedbyfifthcolumnists,bycitizenswhohavesold theircountryouttotheenemy,oranyotherkindoftraitors,andthiswould certainlybethecaseifthelawcannotbeenforcedunderthetheoryof suspension. Petitioner'sthesisthatallegiancetoourgovernmentwassuspendedduring enemyoccupationisadvancedinsupportofthepropositionthat,since allegianceisidenticalwithobediencetolaw,duringtheenemyoccupation,the lawsoftheCommonwealthweresuspended.Article114oftheRevisedPenal Code,thelawpunishingtreason,underthetheory,wasoneofthelaws obediencetowhichwasalsosuspended. Allegiancehasbeendefinedastheobligationforfidelityandobediencewhich theindividualowestohisgovernmentorhissovereigninreturnforthe protectionwhichhereceives. "'Allegiance,'asthetermisgenerallyused,meansfealtyorfidelitytothe governmentofwhichthepersoniseitheracitizenorsubject.Murrayvs.The CharmingBetsy,6U.S.(2Cranch),64,120;2Law.ed.,208. "'Allegiance'wassaidbyMr.JusticeStorytobe'nothingmorethanthetieor dutyofobedienceofasubjecttothesovereign, 866 866 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa underwhoseprotectionheis.'UnitedStatesvs.WongKimArk,18S.Ct.,456, 461;169U.S.,649;42Law.ed.,890."Allegianceisthatdutywhichisduefrom everycitizentothestate,apoliticaldutybindingonhimwhoenjoysthe protectionoftheCommonwealth,torenderserviceandfealtytothefederal government.Itisthatdutywhichisreciprocaltotherightofprotection,arising fromthepoliticalrelationsbetweenthegovernmentandthecitizen.Wallacevs. Harmstad,44Pa.(8Wright),492,501."By'allegiance'ismeanttheobligationto fidelityandobediencewhichtheindividualowestothegovernmentunderwhich helives,ortohissovereign,inreturnfortheprotectionwhichhereceives.Itmay beanabsoluteandpermanentobligation,oritmaybeaqualifiedandtemporary one.Acitizenorsubjectowesanabsoluteandpermanentallegiancetohis governmentorsovereign,oratleastuntil,bysomeopenanddistinctact,he renonuncesitandbe.comesacitizenorsubjectofanothergovernmentor sovereign,andanalienwhiledomiciledinacountryowesitatemporary allegiance,whichiscontinuousduringhis.residence.Carlislevs.UnitedStates, 83U.S.(16Wall.),147,154;21Lawed.,426. "'Allegiance/asdefinedbyBlackstone,'isthetieorligamentwhichbindsthe subjecttotheKing,inreturnforthatprotectionwhichtheKingaffordsthe

subject.Allegiance,bothexpressedandimplied,isoftwosorts,theonenatural, theotherlocal,theformerbeingperpetual,thelattertemporary.Natural allegianceissuchasisduefromallmenbornwithintheKing'sdominions immediatelyupontheirbirth,forimmediatelyupontheirbirththeyareunder theKing'sprotection.Naturalallegianceisperpetual,andforthisreason, evidentlyfoundedonthenatureofgovernment.Allegianceisadebtduefromthe subjectuponanimpliedcontractwiththeprincethatsolongastheoneaffords protectiontheotherwilldemeanhimselffaithfully.Naturalbornsubjectshavea greatvarietyofrightswhichtheyacquirebybeingbornwithintheKing's liegance,whichcanneverbeforfeitedbutbytheirownmisbehaviour;butthe rightsofaliensaremuchmorecircumscribed,beingacquiredonlybyresidence, andlostwhenevertheyremove.Ifanaliencouldacquireapermanentproperty inlands,hemustoweanallegianceequallypermanenttotheKing,whichwould probablybeinconsistentwiththatwhichheoweshisnaturalliegelord;besides, thattherebythenationmight,intime,besubjecttoforeigninfluenceandfeel manyotherinconveniences.'Indianswithinthestatearenotaliens,butcitizens owingallegiancetothegovernmentofastate,fortheyreceiveprotectionfrom thegovernmentandaresubjecttoitslaws.Theyareborninallegiancetothe governmentofthestate.Jacksonvs.Goodell,20Johns.,188,911."(3Wordsand Phrases,Permanented.,pp.226227.) 867 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 867 Laurelvs.Misa "Allegiance.Fealtyorfidelitytothegovernmentofwhichthepersonis'eithera citizenorsubject;thedutywhichisduefromeverycitizentothestate;apolitical duty,bindingonhimwhoenjoystheprotectionofthecommonwealth,torender serviceandfealtytothefederalgovernment;theobligationoffidelityand obediencewhichtheindividualowestothegovernmentortothesovereign underwhichhelivesinreturnfortheprotectionhereceives;thatdutywhichis reciprocaltotherightofprotection,arisingfromthepoliticalrelationsbetween thegovernmentandthecitizen. "Classification.Allegianceisoffourkinds,namely:(1)Naturalallegiancethat whicharisesbynatureandbirth;(2)acquiredallegiancethatarisingthrough somecircumstanceoractotherthanbirth,namely,bydenizationor naturalization;(3)localallegiancethatarisingfromresidencesimplywithin thecountry,forhowevershortatime;and(4)legalallegiancethatarisingfrom oath,takenusuallyatthetownorleet,for,bythecommonlaw,theoathof allegiancemightbetenderedtoeveryoneuponattainingtheageoftwelve years."(3C.J.S.,p.885.)

"Allegiance.Theobligationoffidelityandobediencewhichtheindividualowes tothegovernmentunderwhichhelives,ortohissovereigninreturnforthe protectionhereceives.15R.C.L.,140."(Ballentine,LawDictionary,p.68.) "'Allegiance/asitsetymologyindicates,isthenameforthetiewhichbindsthe citizentohisstatetheobligationofobedienceandsupportwhichheowestoit. Thestateisthepoliticalpersontowhomthisliegefealtyisdue.Itssubstanceis theaggregateofpersonsowingthisallegiance.Themachinerythroughwhichit operatesisitsgovernment.Thepersonswhooperatethismachineryconstitute itsmagistracy.Therulesofconductwhichthestateuttersorenforcesareitslaw, andmanifestitswill.Thiswill,viewedaslegallysupreme,isitssovereignty."(W. W.Willoughby,CitizenshipandAllegianceinConstitutionalandInternational Law,1AmericanJournalofInternationalLaw,p.915.) 'Theobligationsflowingfromtherelationofastateanditsnationalsare reciprocalincharacter.ThisprinciplehadbeenaptlystatedbytheSupreme CourtoftheUnitedStatesinitsopinioninthecaseofLuriavs.UnitedStates: "Citizenshipismembershipinapoliticalsocietyandimpliesadutyofallegiance onthepartofthememberandadutyofprotectiononthepartofthesociety. Thesearereciprocalobligations,onebeingacompensationfortheother."(3 Hackworth,DigestofInternationalLaw,1942ed.,p.6.) "Allegiance.Thetiewhichbindsthecitizentothegovernment,inreturnforthe protectionwhichthegovernmentaffordshim.The 868 868 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa dutywhichthesubjectowestothesovereign,correlativewiththeprotection received. "Itisacomparativelymoderncorruptionofligeance(ligeantia),whichisderived fromliege(ligius),meaningabsoluteorunqualified.Itsignifiedoriginallyliege fealty,i.e.,absoluteandunqualifiedfealty.18L.Q.Rev.,47. ******* "Allegiancemaybeanabsoluteandpermanentobligation,oritmaybea qualifiedandtemporaryone;thecitizenorsubjectowestheformertohis governmentorsovereign,untilbysomeacthedistinctlyrenouncesit,whilstthe aliendomiciledinthecountryowesatemporaryandlocalallegiancecontinuing duringsuchresidence.(Carlislevs.UnitedStates,16Wall.[U.S.],154;21Law. ed.,426."(1Bouvier'sLawDictionary,p.179.)

TheabovequotationsexpressideasthatdonotfitexactlyintothePhilippine patterninviewoftherevolutionaryinsertioninourConstitutionofthe fundamentalprinciplethat"sovereigntyresidesinthepeopleandall governmentauthorityemanatesfromthem."(Section1,ArticleII.)The authoritiesabovequoted,judgesandjuridicalpublicistsdefineallegiancewith theideathatsovereigntyresidessomewhereelse,onsymbolsorsubjectsother thanthepeoplethemselves.Althoughitispossiblethattheyhadalready discoveredthatthepeopleandonlythepeoplearethetruesovereign,their mindswerenotyetfreefromtheshacklesofthetraditionthatthepowersof sovereigntyhavebeenexercisedbyprincesandmonarchs,bysultansand emperors,byabsoluteandtyrannicalruleswhoseideologywasbestexpressed inthefamouswordsofoneofthekingsofFrance:"L'etatc'estmoi,"orsuch otherpersonsorgroupofpersonsposingasthegovernment,asanentity differentandinoppositiontothepeoplethemselves.Althoughdomocracyhas beenknowneversinceoldGreece,andmoderndemocraciesfunctiononthe assumptionthatsovereigntyresidesinthepeople,nowhereissuchprinciple moreimperativethaninthepronouncementembodiedinthefundamentallaw ofourpeople. 869 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 869 Laurelvs.Misa Tothosewhothinkthatsovereigntyisanattributeofgovernment,andnotofthe people,theremaybesomeplausibilityinthepropositionthatsovereigntywas suspendedduringtheenemyoccupation,withtheconsequencethatallegiance mustalsohavebeensuspended,becauseourgovernmentstoppedtofunctionin thecountry.ButtheideacannothaveanyplaceunderourConstitution.If sovereigntyisanessentialattributeofourpeople,accordingtothebasic philosophyofPhilippinedemocracy,itcouldnothavebeensuspendedduring theenemyoccupation.Sovereigntyistheverylifeofourpeople,andthereisno suchthingas"suspendedlife."Thereisnopossiblemiddlesituationbetweenlife anddeath.Sovereigntyistheveryessenceofthepersonalityandexistenceofour people.Cananyoneimaginethepossibilityof"suspendedpersonality"or "suspendedexistence"ofapeople?Innotimeduringenemyoccupationhavethe Filipinopeopleceasedtobewhattheyare. Theideaofsuspendedsovereigntyorsuspendedallegianceisincompatiblewith ourConstitution. Thereissimilarityincharacteristicsbetweenallegiancetothesovereignanda wife'sloyaltytoherhusband.Becausesomeexternalandinsurmountableforce precludesthehusbandfromexercisinghismaritalpowers,functions,andduties, andthewifeistherebydeprivedofthebenefitsofhisprotection,maythewife invokethetheoryofsuspendedloyaltyandmayshefreelyshareherbedwith

theassailantoftheirhome?Aftergivingaidandcomforttotheassailantand allowinghimtoenjoyhercharmsduringtheformer'sstayintheinvadedhome, maythewifeallegeasdefenseforheradulterytheprincipleofsuspended conjugalfidelity? Petitioner'sthesisonchangeofsovereigntyattheadventofindependenceon July4,1946,isunacceptable.WehavealreadydecidedinBrodettvs.DelaRosa andVda.deEscaler(p.752,ante)thattheConstitutionoftheRepublicisthe sameasthatoftheCommonwealth.Theadventof 870 870 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa independencehadtheeffectofchangingthenameofourGovernmentandthe withdrawalbytheUnitedStatesofherpowertoexercisefunctionsof sovereigntyinthePhiilippines.Suchfactsdidnotchangethesovereigntyofthe Filipinopeople.Thatsovereignty,followingourconstitutionalphilosophy,has existedeversinceourpeoplebegantoexist.IthasbeenrecognizedbytheUnited StatesofAmerica,atleastsince1935,whenPresidentRooseveltapprovedour Constitution.Bysuchact,PresidentRoosevelt,asspokesmanoftheAmerican people,acceptedandrecognizedtheprinciplethatsovereigntyresidesinthe peoplethatis,thatPhilippinesovereigntyresidesintheFilipinopeople. Thesamesovereigntyhadbeeninternationallyrecognizedlongbeforethe proclamationofindependenceonJuly4,1946.SincetheearlypartofthePacific war,PresidentQuezonhadbeensittingasrepresentativeofasovereignpeople intheAlliedWarCouncil,andinJune,1945,thesameFilipinopeopletookpart outstandingandbrilliant,itmaybeaddedinthedraftingandadoptionofthe charteroftheUnitedNations,theunmistakableforerunnerofthefuture democraticfederalconstitutionoftheworldgovernmentenvisionedbyallthose whoadheretotheprincipleofunityofallmankind,theearlyrealizationofwhich isanxiouslydesiredbyallwhowanttobesparedthesufferings,miseryand disasterofanotherwar. UnderourConstitution,thepowertosuspendlawsisoflegislativenatureandis lodgedinCongress.SometimesitisdelegatedtotheChiefExecutive,suchasthe powergrantedbytheElectionCodetothePresidenttosuspendtheelectionin certaindistrictsandareasforstrongreasons,suchaswhenthereisrebellion,or apubliccalamity,butithasneverbeenexercisedbytribunals.TheSupreme Courthasthepowertodeclarenullandvoidalllawsviolativeofthe Constitution,butithasnopower,authority,orjurisdictiontosuspendordeclare suspendedanyvalidlaw,suchastheoneontreasonwhichpetitionerwantsto beincludedamongthelawsoftheCommonwealthwhich,by 871

 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 871 Laurelvs.Misa histheoryofsuspendedallegianceandsuspendedsovereignty,heclaimshave beensuspendedduringtheJapaneseoccupation. SupposePresidentQuezonandhisgovernment,insteadofgoingfromCorregidor toAustralia,andlatertoWashington,hadfledtothemountainsofLuzon,anda groupofFilipinorenegadesshouldhavekilledthemtoservetheinterestsofthe Japaneseimperialforces.Bypetitioner'stheory,thoserenegadescannotbe prosecutedfortreasonorforrebellionorsedition,asthelawspunishingthem weresuspended.Suchabsurdresultbetraystheuntenabilityofthetheory. "ThedefenseoftheStateisaprimedutyofGovernment,andinthefulfillmentof thatdutyallcitizensmayberequiredbylawtorenderpersonal,militaryorcivil service."Thus,section2ofArticleIIoftheConstitutionprovides.Thatdutyof defensebecomesmoreimperativeintimeofwarandwhenthecountryis invadedbyanaggressornation.Howcanitbefulfillediftheallegianceofthe citizenstothesovereignpeopleissuspendedduringenemyoccupation?The framersoftheConstitutionsurelydidnotentertainevenforamomentthe absurditythatwhentheallegianceofthecitizenstothesovereignpeopleismore neededinthedefenseofthesurvivalofthestate,thesameshouldbesuspended, andthatuponsuchsuspensionthosewhomayberequiredtorenderpersonal, militaryorcivilservicemayclaimexemptionfromtheindispensabledutyof servingtheircountryindistress. Petitioneradvancesthetheorythatprotectionistheconsiderationofallegiance. HearguesthattheCommonwealthGovernmenthavingbeenincapacitated duringenemyoccupationtoprotectthecitizens,thelatterwererelievedoftheir allegiancetosaidgovernment.Thepropositionisuntenable.Allegiancetothe sovereignisanindispensablebondfortheexistenceofsociety.Ifthatbondis dissolved,societyhastodisintegrate.Whetherornottheexistenceofthelatteris theresultofthesocialcompactmentioned 872 872 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa byRoseau,therecanbenoquestionthatorganizedsocietywouldbedissolvedif itisnotunitedbythecohesivepowerofthecitizen'sallegiance.Ofcourse,the citizensareentitledtotheprotectionoftheirgovernment,butwhetherornot thatgovernmentfulfillsthatduty,isimmaterialtotheneedofmaintainingthe

loyaltyandfidelityofallegiance,inthesamewaythatthephysicalforcesof attractionshouldbekeptunhamperedifthelifeofanindividualshouldcontinue, irrespectiveoftheabilityorinabilityofhismindtochoosethemosteffective measuresofpersonalprotection. Afterdeclaringthatalllegislative,executive,andjudicialprocesseshadduring andundertheJapaneseregime,whetherexecutedbytheJapanesethemselvesor byFilipinoofficersofthepuppetgovernmenttheyhadsetup,arenullandvoid, aswehavedoneinouropinionsinCoKimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizon (75Phil.,113),inPeraltavs.DirectorofPrison(75,Phil.,285),andinseveral othercaseswherethesamequestionhasbeenmentioned,wecannot consistentlyacceptpetitioner'stheory. Ifalllawsorlegislativeactsoftheenemyduringtheoccupationwerenulland void,andaswecannotimaginetheexistenceoforganizedsociety,suchasthe oneconstitutedbytheFilipinopeople,withoutlawsgoverningit,necessarilywe havetoconcludethatthelawsoftheCommonwealthweretheonesineffect duringtheoccupationandtheonlyonesthatcouldclaimobediencefromour citizens. Petitionerwouldwantustoacceptthethesisthatduringtheoccupationwe owedallegiancetotheenemy.Togivewaytothatparadoxicalanddisconcerting allegiance,itissuggestedthatweacceptthatourallegiancetoourlegitimate governmentwassuspended.Petitioner'spropositionhastofallbyitsown weight,becauseofitsglaringabsurdities.Allegiance,likeitssynonyms,loyalty andfidelity,isbasedonfeelingsofattraction,love,sympathy,admiration, respect,veneration,gratitude,amity,under 873 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 873 Laurelvs.Misa standing,friendliness.Thesearethefeelingsorsomeofthefeelingsthatbindus toourownpeople,andarethenaturalrootsofthedutyofallegianceweowe them.Theenemyonlyprovokesrepellingandrepulsivefeelingshate,anger, vexation,chagrin,mortification,resentment,contempt,spitefulness.Thenatural incompatibilityofpolitical,socialandethicalideologies,betweenourpeopleand theJapanese,makingimpossibletheexistenceofanyfeelingofattraction betweenthem,asidefromtheinitialfactthattheJapaneseinvadedourcountry asourenemy,wasaggravatedbythemorbidcomplexitiesofhaughtiness, braggadocioandbeastlybrutalityoftheNipponsoldiersandofficersintheir dealingswitheventhemostinoffensiveofourcitizens. Givingbreadtoourenemy,and,afterslappingonesideofourface,offerhimthe othertobefurtherslapped,mayappeartobedivinelycharitable,buttomake themareality,itisnecessarytochangehumannature.Politicalactions,legal

rules,andjudicialdecisionsdealwithhumanrelations,takingmanasheis,not asheshouldbe.Tolovetheenemyisnotnatural.Aslongashumanpsychology remainsasitis,theenemyshallalwaysbehated.Isitpossibletoconceivean allegiancebasedonhatred? TheJapanese,havingwagedagainstusanillegalwarcondemnedbyprevailing principlesofinternationallaw,couldnothaveestablishedinourcountryany governmentthatcanbelegallyrecognizedasdefacto.Theycameasbanditsand ruffians,anditisinconceivablethatbanditryandruffianismcanclaimanyduty ofallegianceevenatemporaryonefromadecentpeople. Oneoftheimplicationsofpetitioner'stheory,asintimatedsomewhere,isthat thecitizens,incaseofinvasion,arefreetodoanythingnotforbiddenbythe HagueConventions.Anybodywillnoticeimmediatelythattheresultwillbethe doomofsmallnationsandpeoples,bywhettingthecovetousnessofstrong powersproneonimperialisticpractices.Intheimminenceofinvasion,weak hearted 874 874 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa soldiersofthesmallernationswillreadilythrowawaytheirarmstorallybehind thepaladiumoftheinvaders. TwoofthethreegreatdepartmentsofourGovernmenthavealreadyrejected petitioner'stheorysinceSeptember25,1945,thedaywhenCommonwealthAct No.682tookeffect.Bysaidact,creatingthePeople'sCourttotryanddecideall casesofcrimeagainstnationalsecurity"committedbetweenDecember8,1941 andSeptember2,1945,"(section2),thelegislativeandexecutivedepartments havejointlydeclaredthatduringtheperiodabovementioned,includingthetime ofJapaneseoccupation,alllawspunishingcrimesagainstnationalsecurity, includingarticle114oftheRevisedPenalCode,punishingtreason,hadremained infulleffectandshouldbeenforced. Thatnooneraisedavoiceinprotestagainsttheenactmentofsaidactandthat noone,atthetimetheactwasbeingconsideredbytheSenateandtheHouseof Representatives,everdaredtoexposetheuselessnessofcreatingaPeople's Courttotrycrimeswhich,asclaimedbypetitioner,couldnothavebeen committedasthelawspunishingthemhavebeensuspended,isahistoricalfact ofwhichtheSupremeCourtmaytakejudicialnotice.Thisfactshowsuniversal andunanimousagreementofourpeoplethatthelawsoftheCommonwealth werenotsuspendedandthatthetheoryofsuspendedallegianceisjustan afterthoughtprovokedbyadesperateefforttohelpquashthependingtreason casesatanycost.

Amongtheargumentsadducedinfavorofpetitioner'stheoryisthatitisbased ongenerallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallaw,althoughthisargument becomesfutilebypetitioner'sadmissionthatthetheoryisadvantageousto strongpowersbutharmfultosmallandweaknations,thushintingthatthelatter cannotacceptitbyheart.Supposeweacceptatfacevaluethepremisethatthe theories,urgedbypetitioner,ofsuspendedallegianceandsuspended sovereigntyarebasedongenerallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallaw.As thelatterformspartofourlawsbyvirtueoftheprovisionsofsection3ofArticle IIofthe 875 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 875 Laurelvs.Misa Constitution,itseemsthatthereisnoalternativebuttoacceptthetheory.But thetheoryhastheeffectofsuspendingthelaws,especiallythosepoliticalin nature.ThereisnolawmorepoliticalinnaturethantheConstitutionofthe Philippines.TheresultisaninvertedreproductionoftheGreekmythofSaturn devouringhisownchildren.Here,underpetitioner'stheory,theoffspring devoursitsparent. CanweconceiveofaninstanceinwhichtheConstitutionwassuspendedeven foramoment? Thereisconclusiveevidencethatthelegislature,aspolicydeterminingagencyof government,evensincethePacificwarstartedonDecember7,1941,intimated thatitwouldnotaccepttheideathatourlawsshouldbesuspendedduring enemyoccupation.ItmustberememberedthatinthemiddleofDecember,1941, whenManilaandotherpartsofthearchipelagowereunderconstantbombingby Japaneseaircraftandenemyforceshadalreadysetfootsomewhereinthe Philippines,theSecondNationalAssemblypassedCommonwealthActNo.671, whichcameintoeffectonDecember16,1941.Whenweapprovedsaidact,we startedfromthepremisethatallourlawsshallcontinueineffectduringthe emergency,andinsaidactweevenwenttotheextentofauthorizingthe President"tocontinueinforcelawsandappropriationswhichwouldlapseor otherwisebecomeinoperative,"(section2,[d]),andalsoto"promulgatesuch rulesandregulationsashemaydeemnecessarytocarryoutthenationalpolicy," (section2),that"theexistenceofwarbetweentheUnitedStatesandother countriesofEuropeandAsia,whichinvolvesthePhilippines,makesitnecessary toinvestthePresidentwithextraordinarypowersinordertomeettheresulting emergency."(Section1.)Togivemoreemphasistotheintimation,weprovided thattherulesandregulationsprovided"shallbeinforceandeffectuntilthe CongressofthePhilippinesshallotherwiseprovide,"foreseeingthepossibility thatCongressmaynotmeetasscheduledasaresultoftheemergency,including invasionandoccupationby

876 876 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa theenemyEverybodywasthenconvincedthatwedidnothaveavailablethe necessarymeansofrepellingeffectivelytheenemyinvasion. Maybeitisnotoutofplacetoconsiderthattheacceptanceofpetitioner'stheory ofsuspendedallegiancewillcauseagreatinjusticetothosewho,although innocent,arenowunderindictmentfortreasonandothercrimesinvolving disloyaltytotheircountry,becausetheircaseswillbedismissedwithoutthe opportunityforthemtorevindicatethemselves.Havingbeenacquittedupona merelegaltechnicalitywhichappearstoustobewrong,historywill indiscriminatelyclassifythemwiththeotheraccusedwhowerereallytraitorsto theircountry.Ourconsciencerevoltsagainsttheideaofallowingtheinnocent onestogodowninthememoryoffuturegenerationswiththeinfamousstigma ofhavingbetrayedtheirownpeople.Theyshouldnotbedeprivedofthe opportunitytoshowthroughthedueprocessoflawthattheyarefreefromall blameandthat,iftheywerereallypatriots,theyactedassuchduringthecritical periodoftest. HILADO,J.,concurring: Iconcurintheresultreachedinthemajorityopiniontotheeffectthatduringthe socalledJapaneseoccupationofthePhilippines(whichwasnothingmorethan theoccupationofManilaandcertainotherspecificregionsoftheIslandswhich constitutedtheminorareaoftheArchipelago)theallegianceofthecitizensof thiscountrytotheirlegitimategovernmentandtotheUnitedStateswasnot suspended,aswellastherulingthatduringthesameperiodtherewasnochange ofsovereigntyhere;butmyreasonsaredifferentandIproceedtosetthemf orth: I.SUSPENDEDALLEGIANCE (a)BeforethehorrorandatrocitiesofWorldWarI,whichweremultipliedmore thanahundredfoldinWorldWarII,thenationshadevolvedcertainrulesand principleswhichcametobeknownasInternationalLaw,governingtheir conductwitheachotherandtowardtheir 877 VOL,77,JANUARY30,1947

877 Laurelvs.Misa respectivecitizensandinhabitants,inthearmedforcesorincivilianlife,intime ofpeaceorintimeofwar.Duringtheageswhichprecededthatfirstworld conflictthecivilizedgovernmentshadnorealizationofthepotentialexcessesof which"men'sinhumanitytoman"couldbecapable.Uptothattimewarwas,at leastundercertainconditions,consideredassufficientlyjustified,andthe nationshadnotonthataccount,proscribednorrenounceditasaninstrumentof nationalpolicy,orasameansofsettlinginternationaldisputes.Itisnotforus nowtodwelluponthereasonsaccountingforthishistoricalfact.Sufficeitto recognizeitsexistenceinhistory. ButwheninWorldWarIcivilizedhumanitysawthatwarcouldbe,asitactually was,employedforentirelydifferentreasonsandfromentirelydifferentmotives, comparedtopreviouswars,andtheinstrumentsandmethodsofwarfarehad beensomateriallychangedasnotonlytoinvolvethecontendingarmedforces onwelldefinedbattlefieldsorareas,onland,inthesea,andintheair,butto spreaddeathanddestructiontotheinnocentcivilianpopulationsandtotheir properties,notonlyinthecountriesengagedintheconflictbutalsoinneutral ones,nolessthan61civilizednationsandgovernments,amongthemJapan,had toformulateandsolemnlysubscribetothenowfamousBriandKelloggPactin theyear1928.AssaidbyJusticeJacksonoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,as chiefcounselfortheUnitedStatesintheprosecutionof"Axiswarcriminals,"in hisreporttoPresidentTrumanofJune7,1945: "Internationallawisnotcapableofdevelopmentbylegislation,forthereisno continuouslysittinginternationallegislature.Innovationsandrevisionsin internationallawarebroughtaboutbytheactionofgovernmentsdesignedto meetachangeincircumstances.Itgrows,asdidthecommonlaw,through decisionsreachedfromtimetotimeinadoptingsettledprinciplestonew situations. ******* "Aftertheshocktocivilizationofthewarof19141918,however,amarked reversiontotheearlierandsounderdoctrinesofinterna 878 878 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa tionallawtookplace.BythetimetheNaziscametopoweritwasthoroughly establishedthatlaunchinganaggressivewarortheinstitutionofwarby

treacherywasillegalandthatthedefenseoflegitimatewarfarewasnolonger availabletothosewhoengagedinsuchanenterprise.Itishightimethatweact onthejuridicalprinciplethataggressivewarmakingisillegalandcriminal. "Thereestablishmentoftheprincipleofjustifiablewaristraceableinmany steps.OneofthemostsignificantistheBriandKelloggPactof1928bywhich Germany,Italy,andJapan,incommonwiththeUnitedStatesandpracticallyall thenationsoftheworld,renouncedwarasaninstrumentofnationalpolicy, boundthemselvestoseekthesettlementofdisputesonlybypacificmeans,and condemnedrecoursetowarforthesolutionofinternationalcontroversies. "UnlessthisPactalteredthelegalstatusofwarsofaggression,ithasnomeaning atallandcomesclosetobeinganactofdeception.In1932Mr.HenryL.Stimson, asUnitedStatesSecretaryofState,gavevoicetotheAmericanconceptofits effect.Hesaid,'warbetweennationswasrenouncedbythesignatoriesofthe BriandKelloggTreaty.Thismeansthatithasbecomeillegalthroughout practicallytheentireworldItisnolongertobethesourceandsubjectofrights. Itisnolongertobetheprinciplearoundwhichtheduties,theconduct,andthe rightsofnationsrevolve.Itisanillegalthing***.Bythatveryactwehavemade obsoletemanylegalprecedentsandhavegiventhelegalprofessionthetaskof reexaminingmanyofitsCodesandtreaties.' "ThisPactconstitutesonlyonereversaloftheviewpointthatallwarislegaland hasbroughtinternationallawintoharmonywiththecommonsenseof mankindthatunjustifiablewarisacrime. "Withoutattemptinganexhaustivecatalogue,wemaymentiontheGeneva Protocolof1924forthePacificSettlementofInternationalDisputes,signedby therepresentativesoffortyeightgovernments,whichdeclaredthat'awarof aggressionconstitutes***aninternationalcrime.' "TheEighthAssemblyoftheLeagueofNationsin1927,onunanimousresolution oftherepresentativesoffortyeightmembernations,includingGermany, declaredthatawarofaggressionconstitutesaninternationalcrime.AttheSixth PanAmericanConferenceof1928,thetwentyoneAmericanRepublics unanimouslyadoptedaresolutionstatingthat'warofaggressionconstitutesan internationalcrimeagainstthehumanspecies.' ******* "Wethereforeproposetochargethatawarofaggressionisacrime,andthat modeminternationallawhasabolishedthedefensethatthosewhoinciteor wageitareengagedinlegitimatebusiness.Thusmaytheforcesofthelawbe mobilizedonthesideofpeace." 879 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947

879 Laurelvs.Misa ("U.S.A.AnAmericanReview,"publishedbytheUnitedStatesOfficeofWar Information,Vol.2,No.10;italicssupplied.) WhenJusticeJacksonspeaksof"amarkedreversiontotheearlierandsounder doctrinesofinternationallaw"and"thereestablishmentoftheprincipleof justifiablewar,"hehasinmindnootherthan"thedoctrinetaughtbyGrotius,the fatherofinternationallaw,thatthereisadistinctionbetweenthejustandthe unjustwarthewarofdefenseandthewarofaggression"towhichhealludesin anearlierparagraphofthesamereport. Intheparagraphofsaidreportimmediatelyprecedingtheonelastabove mentionedJusticeJacksonsaysthat"internationallawastaughtinthe19thand theearlypartofthe20thcenturygenerallydeclaredthatwarmakingwasnot illegalandnocrimeatlaw."But,ashesaysinoneoftheparagraphshereinabove quotedfromthatreport,theBriandKelloggPactconstitutesareversalofthe viewpointthatallwarislegalandhasbroughtinternationallawintoharmony withthecommonsenseofmankindthatunjustifiablewarisacrime.Thenhe mentionsasotherreversalsofthesameviewpoint,theGenevaProtocolof1924 forthePacificSettlementofInternationalDisputes,declaringthatawarof aggressionconstitutesaninternationalcrime;the8thassemblyoftheLeagueof Nationsin1927,declaringthatawarofaggressionconstitutesaninternational crime;andthe6thPanAmericanConferenceof1928,whichunanimously adoptedaresolutionstatingthatwarofaggressionconstitutesaninternational crimeagainstthehumanspecies:whichenumeration,hesays,isnotanattempt atanexhaustivecatalogue. ItisnotdisputedthatthewarstartedbyJapaninthePacific,first,againstthe UnitedStates',andlater,inrapidsuccession,againstotheralliednations,wasa warofaggressionandutterlyunjustifiable.Moreaggressivestill,andmore unjustifiable,asadmittedonallsides,wasitsattackagainstthePhilippinesand itsconsequentinvasionandoccupationofcertainareasthereof. 880 880 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa Someoftherulesandprinciplesofinternationallawwhichhavebeencitedfor petitionerhereininsupportofhistheoryofsuspendedallegiance,havebeen evolvedandacceptedduringthoseperiodsofthehistoryofnationswhenallwar wasconsideredlegal,asstatedbyJusticeJackson,andtheothershavereference tomilitaryoccupationinthecourseofreallyjustifiablewar.

JapaninsubscribingtheBriandKelloggPactthirteenyearsbeforeshestarted theaggressivewarwhichthrewtheentirePacificareaintoaseethingcauldron fromthelastmonthof1941tothefirstweekofSeptember,1945,expressly agreedtooutlaw,proscribeandrenouncewarasaninstrumentofnational policy,andboundherselftoseekthesettlementofherdisputeswithother nationsonlybypacificmeans.Thussheexpresslygaveherconsenttothat modificationofthethenexistingrulesandprinciplesofinternationallaw governingthematter.Withthatmodification,allthesignatoriestothepact necessarilyacceptedandboundthemselvestoabidebyallitsimplications, amongthemtheoutlawing,proscriptionandrenunciationofmilitaryoccupation ofanothernation'sterritoryinthecourseofawarthusoutlawed,proscribed andrenounced.Thisisonlyonewayofsayingthattherulesandprinciplesof internationallawthereforeexistingonthesubjectofmilitaryoccupationwere automaticallyabrogatedandrenderedineffectiveinallfuturecasesofwar comingunderthebanandcondemnationofthepact. Ifanunjustifiablewarisacrime;ifawarofaggressionconstitutesan internationalcrime;ifsuchawarisaninternationalcrimeagainstthehuman species:anationwhichoccupiesaforeignterritoryinthecourseofsuchawar cannotpossibly,underanyprincipleofnaturalorpositivelaw,acquireor possessanylegitimatepowerorrightgrowingoutorincidenttosuch occupation.Concretely,JapanincriminallyinvadingthePhilippinesand occupyingcertainportions'ofitsterritoryduringthePacificwar,couldnothave norexercise,inthelegalsense 881 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 881 Laurelvs.Misa andonlyinthissenseshouldwespeakherewithrespecttothiscountryandits citizens,anymorethancouldaburglarbreakingthroughaman'shousepretends tohaveortoexerciseanylegalpowerorrightwithinthathousewithrespect eithertothepersonoftheownerortohisproperty.Torecognizeinthefirst instanceanylegalpowerorrightonthepartoftheinvader,andinthesecond anylegalpowerorrightonthepartoftheburglar,thesameasincaseofa militaryoccupantinthecourseofajustifiablewar,wouldbenothingshortof legalizingthecrimeitself.Itwouldbethemostmonstrousandunpardonable contradictiontoprosecute,condemnandhangtheappropriatelycalledwar criminalsofGermany,Italy,andJapan,andatthesametimerecognizeanylawf ulnessintheiroccupationofterritoriestheyhavesobarbarouslyandfeloniously invaded.AndletitnotbeforgottenthatthePhilippinesisamemberofthe UnitedNationswhohaveinstitutedandconductedthesocalledwarcrimes trials.Neithershouldwelosesightofthefurtherfactthatthisgovernmenthasa representativeintheinternationalcommissioncurrentlytryingtheJapanese warcriminalsinTokyo.Thesefactsleavenoroomfordoubtthatthis

governmentisinentireaccordwiththeotherUnitedNationsinconsideringthe PacificwarstartedbyJapanasacrime.Notonlythis,butthiscountryhadsix yearsbeforetheoutbreakofthePacificwaralreadyrenouncedwarasan instrumentofnationalpolicy(Constitution,ArticleII,section2),thusin consequenceadoptingthedoctrineoftheBriandKelloggPact. Consequently,itissubmittedthatitwouldbeabsolutelywrongandimproperfor thisCourttoapplytotheoccupationbyJapanofcertainareasofthePhilippines duringthatwartherulesandprinciplesofinternationallawwhichmightbe applicabletoamilitaryoccupationoccurringinthecourseofajustifiablewar. HowcanthisCourtrecognizeanylawfulnessorvalidityinthatoccupationwhen ourowngovernmenthassentarepresentativetosaidin 882 882 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa ternationalcommissioninTokyotryingtheJapanese"warcriminals"precisely forthe"crimesagainsthumanityandpeace"committedbythemduringWorld WarIIofwhichsaidoccupationwasbutpartandparcel?Insuchcircumstances howcouldsuchoccupationproducenolessaneffectthanthesuspensionofthe allegianceofourpeopletotheircountryandgovernment? (b)Buteveninthehypothesisandnotmorethanamerehypothesisthat whenJapanoccupiedtheCityofManilaandcertainotherareasofthePhilippines shewasengagedinajustifiablewar,stillthetheoryofsuspendedallegiance wouldnotholdgood,Thecontinuanceoftheallegianceowedtoanationbyits citizensisoneofthosehighprivilegesofcitizenshipwhichthelawofnations deniestotheoccupantthepowertointerferewith. "***His(Ofoccupant)rightsarenot,however,commensuratewithhispower. Heisthusforbiddentotakecertainmeasureswhichhemaybeabletoapply,and thatirrespectiveoftheirefficacy.Therestrictionsimposeduponhimarein theorydesignedtoprotecttheindividualintheenjoymentofsomehighly importantprivileges.Theseconcernhisallegiancetothedejuresovereign,his familyhonoranddomesticrelations,religiousconvictions,personalservice,and connectionwithorresidenceintheoccupiedterritory. "TheHagueRegulationsdeclarethattheoccupantisforbiddentocompelthe inhabitantstoswearallegiancetothehostilepower.***"(IIIHyde, InternationalLaw,2dreviseded.,pp.18981899.) "***Normayhe(occupant)compelthem(inhabitants)totakeanoathof allegiance.Sincetheauthorityoftheoccupantisnotsovereignty,theinhabitants owenotemporaryallegiancetohim.***"(IIOppenheim,InternationalLaw,pp. 341344.)

Theoccupant'slackofauthoritytoexactanoathofallegiancefromthe inhabitantsoftheoccupiedterritoryisbutacorollaryofthecontinuanceoftheir allegiancetotheirownlawfulsovereign.Thisallegiancedoesnotconsistmerely inobediencetothelawsofthelawfulsovereign,butmoreessentiallyconsistsin loyaltyorfealtytohim.InthesamevolumeandpagesofOppenheim'swork abovecited,afterthepassagetotheeffectthattheinhabitants 883 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 883 Laurelvs,Misa oftheoccupiedterritoryowenotemporaryallegiancetotheoccupantitissaid that"Ontheotherhand,hemaycompelthemtotakeanoathsometimescalled an'oathofneutrality'***willinglytosubmittohis'legitimatecommands.' Since,naturally,such"legitimatecommands"includetheoccupant'slaws,it followsthatsaidoccupant,wheretheruleisapplicable,hastherighttocompel theinhabitantstotakeanoathofobediencetohislaws;andsince,accordingto thesamerule,hecannotexactfromtheinhabitantsanoathofallegiance,it followsthatobediencetohislaws,whichhecanexactfromthem,doesnot constituteallegiance. (c)Thetheoryofsuspendedallegianceisunpatriotictothelastdegree.Tosay thatwhenone'scountryisunabletoaffordhimitsprotection,heceasestobe boundtoitbythesacredtiesofallegiance,istoadvocatethedoctrinethat preciselywhenhiscountryisinsuchdistress,andthereforemostneedshis loyalty,heisabsolvedfromthatloyalty.Loveofcountryshouldbesomething permanentandlasting,endingonlyindeath;loyaltyshouldbeitsworthy offspring.Theoutwardmanifestationofoneortheothermayforatimebe preventedorthwartedbytheirresistibleactionoftheoccupant;butthisshould notintheleastextinguishnorobliteratetheinvisiblefeelings,andpromptingsof thespirit.Andbeyondtheunavoidableconsequencesoftheenemy'sirresistible pressure,thoseinvisiblefeelingsandpromptingsofthespiritofthepeople shouldneverallowthemtoact,tospeak,noreventothinkawhitcontraryto theirloveandloyaltytotheFatherland.Forthem,indicted,tofacetheircountry andsaytoitthat,becausewhenitwasoverrunandvanquishedbythebarbarous invaderand,inconsequence,wasdisabledfromaffordingthemprotection,they werereleasedfromtheirsacredobligationofallegianceandloyalty,andcould thereforefreelyadheretoitsenemy,givinghimaidandcomfort,incurringno criminalresponsibilitytherefor,wouldonlytendtoaggravatetheircrime. 884 884

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa II.CHANGEOFSOVEREIGNTY ArticleII,section1,oftheConstitutionprovidesthat"Sovereigntyresidesinthe peopleandallgovernmentauthorityemanatesfromthem."TheFilipinopeople aretheselfsamepeoplebeforeandafterPhilippineIndependence,proclaimed onJuly4,1946.DuringthelifeoftheCommonwealthsovereigntyresidedin themundertheConstitution;aftertheproclamationofindependencethat sovereigntyremainedwiththemundertheverysamefundamentallaw.Article XVIIIofthesaidConstitutionstipulatesthatthegovernmentestablishedthereby shallbeknownastheCommonwealthofthePhilippines;andthatuponthefinal andcompletewithdrawalofthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesandthe proclamationofPhilippineindependence,"TheCommonwealthofthe PhilippinesshallthenceforthbeknownastheRepublicofthePhilippines."Under thisprovisiontheGovernmentofthePhilippinesimmediatelypriorto independencewasessentiallytobetheidenticalgovernmentthereafteronly thenameofthatgovernmentwastobechanged. BothbeforeandaftertheadoptionofthePhilippineConstitutionthepeopleof thePhilippineswereandarealwaystheplaintiffinallcriminalprosecutions,the casebeingentitled:"ThePeopleofthePhilippinesvs.(thedefendantor defendants)."ThiswasalreadytrueinprosecutionsundertheRevisedPenal Codecontainingthelawoftreason."TheGovernmentofthePhilippines"spoken ofinarticle114ofsaidCodemerelyrepresentsthepeopleofthePhilippines. Saidcodewascontinued,alongwiththeotherlaws,byArticleXVI,section2,of theConstitution,whichconstitutionalprovisionfurtherdirectsthat"all referencesinsuchlawstotheGovernmentorofficialsofthePhilippineIslands shallbeconstrued,insofarasapplicable,toreferertotheGovernmentand correspondingofficialsunderthisConstitution"ofcourse,meaningthe CommonwealthofthePhilippinesbefore,andtheRepublicofthe 885 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 885 Laurelvs.Misa Philippinesafter,independence(ArticleXVIII).Underbothgovernments sovereigntyresidedandresidesinthepeople(ArticleII,section1).Said sovereigntywasnevertransferredfromthatpeopletheyarethesamepeople whopreserveittothisday.Therehasneverbeenanychangeinthisrespect. IfonecommittedtreasonagainstthepeopleofthePhilippinesbeforeJuly4, 1946,hecontinuestobecriminallyliableforthecrimetothesamepeoplenow. Andif,followingtheliteralwordingoftheRevisedPenalCode,ascontinuedby

theConstitution,thataccusedowedallegianceuponthecommissionofthecrime tothe"GovernmentofthePhilippines,"inthetextualwordsoftheConstitution (ArticlesXVI,section2,andXVIII)thatwasthesamegovernmentwhichafter independencebecameknownasthe"RepublicofthePhilippines."Themostthat canbesaidisthatthesovereigntyofthepeoplebecamecompleteandabsolute afterindependencethattheybecame,politically,fullyofage,tousea metaphor.Butiftheresponsibilityforacrimeagainstaminorisnot extinguishedbythemerefactofhisbecomingofage,whyshouldthe responsibilityforthecrimeoftreasoncommittedagainsttheFilipinopeople whentheywerenotfullypoliticallyindependentbeextinguishedafterthey acquirethisstatus?Theoffendedpartycontinuestobethesameonlyhisstatus haschanged. PARS,J.,dissenting: DuringthelongperiodofJapaneseoccupation,allthepoliticallawsofthe Philippinesweresuspended.*Thisisinfullharmonywiththegenerally acceptedprinciplesofinternationallawadoptedbyourConstitution(ArticleII, section3)asapartofthelawoftheNation.Accordingly,wehaveonmorethan oneoccasionalreadystatedthat"lawsofapoliticalnatureoraffectingpolitical relations,***areconsideredassuspendedorinabeyanceduringthemilitary occupation"(CoKimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizon,75Phil.,113,124),and thattherule"thatlawsofpoliticalnatureoraffectingpolitical 886 886 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa relationsareconsideredsuspendedorinabeyanceduringthemilitary occupation,isintendedforthegoverningofthecivilinhabitantsoftheoccupied territory."(Ruffyvs.ChiefofStaff,PhilippineArmy,75,Phil.,875,881.) TheprincipleisrecognizedbytheUnitedStatesofAmerica,whichadmitsthat theoccupantwillnaturallysuspendalllawsofapoliticalnatureandalllaws whichaffectthewelfareandsafetyofhiscommand,suchactiontobemade knowntotheinhabitants.(UnitedStatesRulesofLandWarfare,1940,Article 287.)AsallegiancetotheUnitedStatesisanessentialelementinthecrimeof treasonunderarticle114oftheRevisedPenalCode,andinviewofitspositionin ourpoliticalstructurepriortotheindependenceofthePhilippines,theruleas interpretedandpracticedintheUnitedStatesnecessarilyhasabindingforce andeffectinthePhilippines,totheexclusionofanyotherconstructionfollowed elsewhere,suchasmaybeinferred,rightlyorwrongly,fromtheisolatedcases' broughttoourattention,which,moreover,haveentirelydifferentfactualbases.

CorrespondingnoticewasgivenbytheJapaneseoccupyingarmy,first,inthe proclamationofitsCommanderinchiefofJanuary2,1942,totheeffectthatasa "resultoftheJapaneseMilitaryoperations,thesovereigntyoftheUnitedStates ofAmericaoverthePhilippineshascompletelydisappearedandtheArmy herebyproclaimstheMilitaryAdministrationundermartiallawoverthe districtsoccupiedbytheArmy;"secondly,inOrderNo.3ofthesaidCommander inChiefofFebruary20,1942,providingthat"activitiesoftheadministrative organsandjudicialcourtsinthePhilippinesshallbebasedupontheexisting statutes,orders,ordinancesandcustomsuntilfurtherordersprovidedthatthey arenotinconsistentwith _______________ 1EnglishcaseofDeJagervs.AttorneyGeneralofNaval;BelgiancaseofAuditeur Militairesvs.VanDieren;casesofPetain,LavalandQuisling. 887 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 887 Laurelvs.Misa thepresentcircumstancesundertheJapaneseMilitaryAdministration;"and, thirdly,intheexplanationstoOrderNo.3remindingthat"alllawsand regulationsofthePhilippineshavebeensuspendedsinceJapaneseoccupation," andexceptingtheapplicationof"lawsandregulationswhicharenotproperto actunderthepresentsituationoftheJapaneseMilitaryAdministration," especiallythose"providedwithsomepoliticalpurposes." Thesuspensionofpoliticallawsduringenemyoccupationislogical,wiseand humane.Thelatterphaseoutweighsallotheraspectsoftheprincipleaimed more'orlessatpromotingthenecessarilyselfishmotivesandpurposesofa militaryoccupant.Itisthusconsolingtonotethatthepowersinstrumentalinthe crystallizationoftheHagueConventionsof1907didnotforgettodeclarethat theywere"animatedbythedesiretoserve***theinterestsofhumanityand theoverprogressiveneedsofcivilization,"andthat"incasesnotincludedinthe Regulationsadoptedbythem,theinhabitantsandthebelligerentsremainunder theprotectionandtheruleoftheprinciplesofinternationallaw,astheyresult fromtheusagesestablishedamongcivilizedpeoples,fromthelawsofhumanity, andthedictatesofthepublicconscience."Thesesavingstatementscometothe aidoftheinhabitantsintheoccupiedterritoryinasituationwherein,even beforethebelligerentoccupant"takesafurtherstepandbyappropriate affirmativeactionundertakestoacquiretherightofsovereigntyforhimself,*** theoccupantislikelytoregardhimselfasclothedwithfreedomtoendeavorto impregnatethepeoplewhoinhabittheareaconcernedwithhisownpolitical ideology,andtomakethatendeavorsuccessfulbyvariousformsofpressure

exerteduponenemyofficialswhoarepermittedtoretaintheexerciseofnormal governmentalfunctions."(Hyde,InternationalLaw,Vol.III,SecondRevised Edition,1945,p.1879.) Theinhabitantsoftheoccupiedterritoryshouldnecessarilybeboundtothesole authorityoftheinvading 888 888 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa power,whoseinterestsandrequirementsarenaturallyinconflictwiththoseof thedisplacedgovernment,ifitislegitimateforthemilitaryoccupanttodemand andenforcefromtheinhabitantssuchobedienceasmaybenecessaryforthe securityofhisforces,forthemaintenanceoflawandorder,andfortheproper administrationofthecountry(UnitedStatesRulesofLandWarfare,1940,article 297),andtodemandallkindsofservices"ofsuchanatureasnottoinvolvethe populationintheobligationoftakingpartinmilitaryoperationsagainsttheir owncountry"(HagueRegulations,article52);andif,aswehaveineffectsaid,by thesurrendertheinhabitantspassunderatemporaryallegiancetothe governmentoftheoccupantandareboundbysuchlaws,andsuchonly,asit choosestorecognizeandimpose,andthebelligerentoccupant'istotally independentoftheconstitutionandthelawsoftheterritory,sinceoccupationis anaimofwarfare,andthemaintenanceandsafetyofhisforces,andthepurpose ofwar,standintheforegroundofhisinterestandmustbepromotedunderall circumstancesorconditions."(Peraltavs.DirectorofPrisons,75Phil.,285,295), citingUnitedStatesvs.Rice,4Wheaton,246,andquotingOppenheim, InternationalLaw,Vol.II,SixthEdition,Revised,1944,p.432.) Hewouldbeabigotwhocannotorwouldrefusetoseethecruelresultifthe peopleinanoccupiedterritorywererequiredtoobeytwoantagonisticand oppositepowers.Toemphasizeourpoint,wewouldadopttheargument,ina reverseorder,ofMr.JusticeHiladoinPeraltavs.DirectorofPrisons(75Phil., 285,358),containedinthefollowingpassage: "Tohaveboundthoseofourpeoplewhoconstitutedthegreatmajoritywho neversubmittedtotheJapaneseoppressors,bythelaws,regulations,processes andotheractsofthosetwopuppetgovernments,wouldnotonlyhavebeen utterlyunjustanddownrightillegal,butwouldhaveplacedthemintheabsurd andimpossibleconditionofbeingsimultaneouslysubmittedtotwomutually hostilegovernments,withtheirrespectiveconstitutionalandlegislative 889 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947

889 Laurelvs.Misa enactmentsandinstitutionsontheonehandboundtocontinueowing allegiancetotheUnitedStatesandtheCommonwealthGovernment,and,onthe other,tooweallegiance,ifonlytemporary,toJapan." Theonlysensiblepurposeofthetreasonlawwhichisofpoliticalcomplexion andtakenoutoftheterritoriallawandpenalizedasanewoffensecommitted againstthebelligerentoccupant,incidenttoastateofwarandnecessaryforthe controloftheoccupant(Alcantaravs.DirectorofPrisons,75Phil.,494),must bethepreservationofthenation,certainlynotitsdestructionorextermination. Andyetthelatterisunwittinglywishedbythosewhoarefondofthetheorythat whatissuspendedismerelytheexerciseofsovereigntybythedejure governmentorthelatter'sauthoritytoimposepenalsanctionsorthat,otherwise stated,thesuspensionrefersonlytothemilitaryoccupant.Ifthisweretobethe onlyeffect,therulewouldbeameaninglessandsuperfluousopticalillusion, sinceitisobviousthatthefleeingordisplacedgovernmentcannot,evenifit shouldwant,physicallyassertitsauthorityinaterritoryactuallybeyondits reach,andthattheoccupant,ontheotherhand,willnottaketheabsurdstepof prosecutingandpunishingtheinhabitantsforadheringtoandaidingit.Ifwe weretobelievetheopponentsoftheruleinquestion,wehavetoacceptthe absurdpropositionthattheguerrillascanallbeprosecutedwithillegal possessionoffirearms.Itshouldbeborneinmindthat"thepossessionbythe belligerentoccupantoftherighttocontrol,maintainormodifythelawsthatare toobtainwithintheoccupiedareaisanexclusiveone.Theterritorialsovereign driventherefrom,cannotcompetewithitonanevenplane.Thus,ifthelatter attemptsinterference,itsactionisameremanifestationofbelligerenteffortto weakentheenemy.Ithasnobearinguponthelegalqualityofwhattheoccupant exacts,whileitretainscontrol.Thusiftheabsentterritorialsovereign,through somequasilegislativedecree,forbidsitsnationalstocomplywithwhatthe occupanthasordainedobedienceto 890 890 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa suchcommandwithintheoccupiedterritorywouldnotsafeguardtheindividual fromprosecutionbytheoccupant."(Hyde,InternationalLaw,Vol.III,Second RevisedEdition,1945,p.1886.) Aslongaswehavenotoutlawedtherightofthebelligerentoccupantto prosecuteandpunishtheinhabitantsfor"wartreason"or"warcrimes,"asan incidentofthestateofwarandnecessityforthecontroloftheoccupiedterritory andtheprotectionofthearmyoftheoccupant,againstwhichprosecutionand

punishmentsuchinhabitantscannotobviouslybeprotectedbytheirnative sovereign,itishardtounderstandhowwecanjustlyrulethattheymayatthe sametimebeprosecutedandpunishedforanactpenalizedbytheRevisedPenal Code,butalreadytakenoutoftheterritoriallawandpenalizedasanewoffense committedagainstthebelligerentoccupant. InPeraltavs.DirectorofPrisons.75Phil.,285,296),weheldthat"the ConstitutionoftheCommonwealthGovernmentwassuspendedduringthe occupationofthePhilippinesbytheJapaneseforcesorthebelligerentoccupant atregularwarwiththeUnitedStates,"andthemeaningoftheterm"suspended" isveryplainlyexpressedinthefolliwingpassage(page298): "Noobjectioncanbesetuptothelegalityofitsprovisionsinthelightofthe preceptsofourCommonwealthConstitutionrelatingtotherightsofaccused underthatConstitution,becausethelatterwasnotinforceduringtheperiodof theJapanesemilitaryoccupation,aswehavealreadystated.Normaysaid Constitutionbeapplieduponitsrevivalatthetimeofthereoccupationofthe Philippinesbyvirtueoftheprincipleofpostliminium,because'aconstitution shouldoperateprospectivelyonly,unlessthewordsemployedshowaclear intentionthatitshouldhavearetrospectiveeffect,'(Cooley'sConstitutional Limitations,seventhedition,page97,andacasequotedandcitedinthefoot note),especiallyasregardslawsofprocedureappliedtocasesalready terminatedcompletely." 891 VOL.77,JANUARY30,1947 891 Laurelvs.Misa Inmuchthesameway,weshouldholdthatnotreasoncouldhavebeen committedduringtheJapanesemilitaryoccupationagainsttheUnitedStatesor theCommonwealthGovernment,becausearticle114oftheRevisedPenalCode wasnottheninforce.Normaythispenalprovisionbeapplieduponitsrevivalat thetimeofthereoccupationofthePhilippinesbyvirtueoftheprincipleof postliminium,becauseoftheconstitutionalinhibitionagainstanyexpostfacto lawandbecause,underarticle22oftheRevisedPenalCode,criminallawsshall havearetroactiveeffectonlyinsofarastheyfavortheaccused.Whydidwe refusetoenforcetheConstitution,moreessentialtosovereigntythanarticle114 oftheRevisedPenalCodeintheaforesaidcaseofPeraltavs.DirectorofPrisons if,asallegedbythemajority,thesuspensionwasgoodonlyastothemilitary occupant? ThedecisioninUnitedStatesvs.Rice(4Wheaton,246),conclusivelysupports ourposition.AsanalyzedanddescribedinUnitedStatesvs.Reiter(27Fed.Cas., 773),thatcase"wasdecidedbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesthe courtofhighesthumanauthorityonthatsubjectandasthedecisionwas againsttheUnitedStates,andinfavoroftheauthorityofGreatBritain,itsenemy

inthewar,andwasmadeshortlyaftertheoccurrenceofthewaroutofwhichit grew;andwhilenodepartmentofthisGovernmentwasinclinedtomagnifythe rightsofGreatBritainordisparagethoseofitsowngovernment,therecanbeno suspicionofbiasinthemindofthecourtinfavoroftheconclusionatwhichit arrived,andnodoubtthatthelawseemedtothecourttowarrantanddemand suchadecision.Thatcasegrewoutofthewarof1812,betweentheUnitedStates andGreatBritain.ItappearedthatinSeptember,1814,theBritishforceshad takentheportofCastine,intheStateofMaine,andhelditinmilitaryoccupation; andthatwhileitwassoheld,foreigngoods,bythelawsoftheUnitedStates subjecttoduty,hadbeenintroducedintothatportwithoutpaying 892 892 PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED Laurelvs.Misa, dutiestotheUnitedStates.Atthecloseofthewartheplacewasbytreaty restoredtotheUnitedStates,andafterthatwasdonetheGovernmentofthe UnitedStatessoughttorecoverfromthepersonssointroducingthegoodsthere whileinpossessionoftheBritish,thedutiestowhichbythelawsoftheUnited States,theywouldhavebeenliable.TheclaimoftheUnitedStateswasthatits lawswereproperlyinforcethere,althoughtheplacewasatthetimeheldbythe BritishforcesinhostilitytotheUnitedStates,andthelaws,therefore,couldnot atthetimebeenforcedthere;andthatacourtoftheUnitedStates(thepowerof thatgovernmenttherehavingsincebeenrestored)wasboundsotodecide.But thisillusionoftheprosecutingofficertherewasdispelledbythecourtinthe mostsummarymanner.Mr.JusticeStory,thatgreatluminaryoftheAmerican bench,beingtheorganofthecourtindeliveringitsopinion,said:Thesingle questioniswhethergoodsimportedintoCastineduringitsoccupationbythe enemyareliabletothedutiesimposedbytherevenuelawsupongoods importedintotheUnitedStates.***Weareallofopinionthattheclaimfor dutiescannotbesustained.***ThesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesoverthe territorywas,ofcourse,suspended,andthelawsoftheUnitedStatescouldno longerberightfullyenforcedthere,orbeobligatoryupontheinhabitantswho remainedandsubmittedtotheconquerors.Bythesurrendertheinhabitants passedunderatemporaryallegianceoftheBritishGovernment,andwerebound bysuchlaws,andsuchonly,asitchosetorecognizeandimpose.Fromthenature ofthecasenootherlawscouldbeobligatoryuponthem.***Castinewas therefore,duringthisperiod,asfarasrespectedourrevenuelaws,tobedeemed aforeignport,andgoodsimportedintoitbytheinhabitantsweresubjectsto suchdutiesonlyastheBritishGovernmentchosetorequire.Suchgoodswerein nocorrectsenseimportedintotheUnitedStates.'Thecourtthenproceededto say,thatthecaseisthesameasiftheportofCastinehadbeenforeignterritory, cededbytreatytotheUnitedStates,andthegoodshadbeenimportedthere previoustoitscession.Inthiscasetheysaytherewouldbenopretensetosay thatAmericandutiescouldbedemanded;anduponprinciplesofpublicor

municipallaw,thecasesarenotdistinguishable.Theyaddattheconclusionof theopinion:Theauthoritiescitedatthebarwould,iftherewereanydoubt,be decisiveofthequestion.Butwethinkittoocleartorequireanyaidfrom authority.'Doesthiscaseleaveroomforadoubtwhetheracountryheldasthis wasinarmedbelligerentoccupation,istobegovernedbyhimwhoholdsit,and byhimalone?Doesitnotsodecideintermsasplainascanbestated?Itis assertedbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateswithentireunanimity,the greatandveneratedMarshallpresiding,andtheeruditeandaccomplishedStory deliveringtheopinionofthecourt,thatsuchisthelaw,anditissoadjudgedin thiscase.Nay,more:itisevenadjudgedthatnootherlawscouldbeobligatory; thatsuchcountry,soheld,isforthepurposeoftheapplicationofthelawoffits formergovernmenttobedeemedforeignterritory,andthatgoodsimported there(andbyparityofreasoningotheractsdonethere)areinnocorrectsense donewithintheterritoryofitsformersovereign,theUnitedStates." Butitisallegedbythemajoritythatthesovereigntyspokenofinthedecisionof theUnitedStatesvs.Riceshouldbeconstruedtorefertotheexerciseof sovereignty,andthat,ifsovereigntyitselfwasmeant,thedoctrinehasbecome obsoleteaftertheadoptionoftheHagueRegulationsin1907.Inanswer,wemay statethatsovereigntycanhaveanyimportantsignificanceonlywhenitmaybe exercised;and,toourwayofthinking,itisimmaterialwhetherthethingheldin abeyanceisthesovereigntyitselforitsexercise,becausethepointcannotnullify, vary,orotherwisevitiatetheplainmeaningofthedoctrinalwords"thelawsof theUnitedStatescouldnolongerberightfullyenforcedthere,orbeobligatory upontheinhabitantswhoremainedandsubmittedtotheconquerors."We cannotacceptthetheoryofthemajority,withoutineffectviolatingtheruleof internationallaw,hereinaboveadvertedto,thatthepossessionbythe belligerentoccupantoftherighttocontrol,maintainormodifythelawsthatare toobtainwithintheoccupiedareaisanexclusiveone,andthattheterritorial sovereigndriventherefromcannotcompetewithitonanevenplane.Neither maythedoctrineinUnitedStatesvs.Ricebesaidtohavebecomeobsolete, withoutrepudiatingtheactualruleprescribedandfollowedbytheUnitedStates, allowingthemilitary.occupanttosuspendalllawsofapoliticalnatureandeven requirepublicofficialsandtheinhabitantstotakeanoathoffidelity(United StatesRulesofLandWarfare,1940,article309).Infact,itisarecognized doctrineofAmericanConstitutionalLawthatmereconquestormilitary occupationofaterritoryofanotherStatedoesnotoperatetoannexsuch territorytotheoccupyingState,butthattheinhabitantsoftheoccupieddistrict, nolongerreceivingtheprotectionoftheirnativeState,forthetimebeingoweno allegiancetoit,and,beingunderthecontrolandprotectionofthevictorious power,owetothatpowerfealtyandobedience.(Willoughby,TheFundamental ConceptsofPublicLaw[1931],p.364.) Themajorityhaveresortedtodistinctions,moreapparentthanreal,ifnot immaterial,intryingtoarguethatthelawoftreasonwasobligatoryonthe FilipinosduringtheJapaneseoccupation.Thusitisinsistedthatacitizenor subjectowesnotaqualifiedandtemporary,butanabsoluteandpermanent allegiance,andthat"temporaryallegiance"tothemilitaryoccupantmaybe likenedtothetemporaryallegiancewhichaforeignerowestothegovernmentor sovereignoftheterritorywhereinheresidesinreturnfortheprotectionhe

receivestherefrom.Thecomparisonismostunfortunate.Saidforeignerisinthe territoryofapowernothostiletoorinactualwarwithhisowngovernment;he isintheterritoryofapowerwhichhasnotsuspended,undertherulesof internationallaw,thelawsofpoliticalnatureofhisowngovernment;andthe protectionsreceivedbyhimfromthatfriendlyorneutralpowerisreal,notthe kindofprotectionwhichtheinhabitantsofanoccupiedterritorycanexpectfrom abelligerentarmy."ItisbutreasonablethatStates,whentheyconcedetoother Statestherighttoexercisejurisdictionoversuchoftheirownnationalsasare withintheterritoriallimitsofsuchotherStates,shouldinsistthatthoseStates shouldprovidesystemoflawandofcourts,andinactualpractice,soadminister them,astofurnishsubstantiallegaljusticetoalienresidents.Thisdoesnot meanthataStatemustorshouldextendtoalienswithinitsbordersallthecivil, ormuchless,allthepoliticalrightsorprivilegeswhichitgrantstoitsown citizens;butitdoesmeanthataliensmustorshouldbegivenadequate opportunitytohavesuchlegalrightsasaregrantedtothembythelocallaw impartiallyandjudiciallydetermined,and,whenthusdetermined,protected." (Willoughby,TheFundamentalConceptsofPublicLaw[1931],p.360.) Whenitisthereforesaidthatacitizenofasovereignmaybeprosecutedforand convictedoftreasoncommittedinaforeigncountryor,inthelanguageofarticle 114oftheRevisedPenalCode,"elsewhere,"aterritoryotherthanoneunder belligerentoccupationmusthavebeencontemplated.Thiswouldmakesense, becausetreasonisacrime"thedirectorindirectpurposeofwhichisthe delivery,inwholeorinpart,ofthecountrytoaforeignpower,ortopavethe wayfortheenemytoobtaindominionoverthenationalterritory"(Albert,The RevisedPenalCode,citing3Groizard,14);and,veryevidently,aterritory alreadyunderoccupationcannolongerbe"delivered." Themajoritylikewisearguethatthetheoryofsuspendedsovereigntyor allegiancewillenablethemilitaryoccupanttolegallyrecruittheinhabitantsto fightagainsttheirowngovernment,withoutsaidinhabitantsbeingliablefor treason.Thisargumentisnotcorrect,becausethesuspensiondoesnotexempt theoccupantfromcomplyingwiththeHagueRegulation(article52)thatallows ittodemandallkindsofservicesprovidedthattheydonotinvolvethe population"intheobligationoftakingpartinmilitaryoperationsagainsttheir owncountry."Neitherdoesthesuspensionpreventtheinhabitantsfrom assumingapassiveattitude,muchlessfromdyingandbecomingheroesif compelledbytheoccupanttofightagainsttheirowncountry.Anyimperfection inthepresentstateofinternationallawshouldbecorrectedbysuchworld agencyastheUnitedNationsorganization. Itisofcommonknowledgethatevenwiththeallegedcooperationimputedto thecollaborators,analarmingnumberofFilipinoswerekilledorotherwise torturedbytheruthless,orwemaysaysavage,JapaneseArmy.Whichleadsto theconclusionthatiftheFilipinosdidnotobeytheJapanesecommandsandf eigncooperation,therewouldnotbeanyFilipinonationthatcouldhavebeen liberated.Assumingthattheentirepopulationcouldgotoandliveinthe mountains,orotherwisefightasguerrillasaftertheformalsurrenderofour andtheAmericanregularfightingforces,theywouldhavefacedcertain annihilationbytheJapanese,consideringthelatter'smilitarystrengthatthe

timeandthelongperiodduringwhichtheywereleftmilitarilyunmolestedby America.Inthisconnection,wehatetomakereferencetotheatomicbombasa possiblemeansofdestruction. Ifasubstantialnumberofguerrillaswereabletosurviveandultimatelyhelpin theliberationofthePhilippines,itwasbecausethefeignedcooperationoftheir countrymenenabledthemtogetfoodandotheraidnecessaryintheresistance movement.Iftheywereabletosurvive,itwasbecausetheycouldcamouflage themselvesinthemidstofthecivilianpopulationincitiesandtowns.Itiseasyto arguenowthatthepeoplecouldhavemerelyfollowedtheirordinarypursuitsof lifeorotherwisebeindifferenttotheoccupant.Thefundamentaldefectofthis lineofthoughtisthattheJapaneseareassumedtobesostupidanddumbasnot tonoticeanysuchattitude.Duringbelligerentoccupation,"theoutstandingfact tobereckonedwithisthesharpoppositionbetweentheinhabitantsofthe occupiedareasandthehostilemilitaryforceexercisingcontroloverthem.At hearttheyremainatwarwitheachother.Fearfortheirownsafetymaynot servetodetertheinhabitantsfromtakingadvantageofopportunitiesto interferewiththesafetyandsuccessoftheoccupant,andinsodoingtheymay arouseitspassionsandcauseittotakevengeanceincruelfashion.Again,even whenitisuntaintedbysuchconduct,theoccupantasameansofattaining ultimatesuccessinitsmajorconflictmay,underpleaofmilitarynecessity,and regardlessofconventionalorcustomaryprohibitions,proceedtoutilizethe inhabitantswithinitsgripasaconvenientmeansofmilitaryachievement." (Hyde,InternationalLaw,Vol.III,SecondRevisedEdition[1945],p.1912.)It shouldbestressedthattheJapaneseoccupationwasnotamatterofafew months;itextendedoveralittlemorethanthreeyears.Saidoccupationwasa fact,inspiteofthe"presenceofguerrillabandsinbarriosandmountains,and evenintownsofthePhilippineswheneverthesetownswereleftbyJapanese garrisonsorbythedetachmentsoftroopssentonpatroltothoseplaces."(Co KimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizon,75Phil.,371,373.)Thelawofnations acceptsbelligerentoccupationasafacttobereckonedwith,regardlessofthe meritsoftheoccupant'scause.(Hyde,InternationalLaw,SecondRevisedEdition [1945],Vol.III,p.1879.) Thosewhocontendorfearthatthedoctrinehereinadheredtowillleadtoan overproductionoftraitors,haveawrongandlowconceptionofthepsychology andpatriotismoftheircountrymen.Patriotsaresuchaftertheirbirthinthefirst place,andnoamountoflawsorjudicialdecisionscanmakeorunmakethem.On theotherhand,theFilipinosarenotsobaseastobeinsensitivetothethought thattherealtraitoriscursedeverywhereandinallages.Ourpatriotswhofought anddiedduringthelastwar,andthebraveguerrillaswhohavesurvived,were undoubtedlymotivatedbytheirinbornloveofcountry,andnotbysuchathing asthetreasonlaw.TheFilipinopeople,asawhole,passivelyopposedthe Japaneseregime,notoutoffearofthetreasonstatutebutbecausetheypreferred andwillpreferthedemocraticandcivilizedwayoflifeandAmericanaltruismto Japanesebarbaricandtotalitariandesigns.Ofcourse,therearethosewhomight athearthavebeenproJapanese;buttheymetandwillunavoidablymeetthe necessaryconsequences.Theregularsoldiersfacedtherisksofwarfare;the spiesandinformerssubjectedthemselvestotheperilsofmilitaryoperations, likelyreceivedsummaryliquidationorpunishmentsfromtheguerrillasandthe

partiesinjuredbytheiracts,andmaybeprosecutedaswarspiesbythemilitary authoritiesofthereturningsovereign;thosewhocommittedothercommon crimes,directlyorthroughtheJapanesearmy,maybeprosecutedunderthe municipallaw,andunderthisgroup,eventhespiesandinformers,Makapilior otherwise,areincluded,fortheycanbemadeanswerableforanyactoffensiveto personorproperty;thebuyandsellopportunistshavethewarprofitstaxto reckonwith.Wecannotcloseoureyestotheconspicuousfactthat,inthe majorityofcases,thoseresponsibleforthedeathof,orinjuryto,anyFilipinoor AmericanatthehandsoftheJapanese,werepromptedmorebypersonal motivesthanbyadesiretolevywaragainsttheUnitedStatesortoadheretothe occupant.TheallegedspiesandinformersfoundintheJapaneseoccupationthe royalroadtovengeanceagainstpersonalorpoliticalenemies.Therecent amnestygrantedtotheguerrillasforacts,otherwisecriminal,committedinthe furtheranceoftheirresistancemovementhasinawaylegalizedthepenal sanctionsimposedbythemupontherealtraitors. Itisonlyfromarealistic,practicalandcommonsensepointofview,andby rememberingthattheobedienceandcooperationoftheFilipinoswereeffected whiletheJapanesewereincompletecontrolandoccupationofthePhilippines, whentheirmerephysicalpresenceimpliedforceandpressureandnotafter theAmericanforcesofliberationhadrestoredthePhilippineGovernmentthat wewillcometorealizethat,apartfromanyruleofinternationallaw,itwas necessarytoreleasetheFilipinostemporarilyfromtheoldpoliticaltieinthe senseindicatedherein.Otherwise,oneispronetodismissthereasonforsuch cooperationandobedience.Iftherewerethosewhodidnotinanywise coperateorobey,theycanbecountedbythefingers,andlettheirnamesadorn thepagesofPhilippinehistory.Essentially,however,everybodywhotook advantage,toanyextentanddegree,ofthepeaceandorderprevailingduringthe occupation,forthesafetyandsurvivalofhimselfandhisfamily,gaveaidand comforttotheenemy. Ourgreatliberatorhimself,GeneralDouglasMacArthur,hadconsideredthelaws ofthePhilippinesineffectiveduringtheoccupation,andrestoredtotheirfull vigorandforceonlyaftertheliberation.Thus,inhisproclamationofOctober23, 1944,heordainedthat"thelawsnowexistingonthestatutebooksofthe CommonwealthofthePhilippines***areinfullforceandeffectandlegally bindinguponthepeopleinareasofthePhilippinesfreeofenemyoccupationand control,"andthat"alllaws***ofanyothergovernmentinthePhilippinesthan thatofthesaidCommonwealtharenullandvoidandwithoutlegaleffectinareas ofthePhilippinesfreeofenemyoccupationandcontrol."Repeatingwhatwe havesaidinCoKimChamvs.ValdezTanKehandDizon(75Phil.,113,133),"itis tobepresumedthatGeneralDouglasMacArthur,whowasactingasanagentora representativeoftheGovernmentandthePresidentoftheUnitedStates, constitutionalCommanderinChiefoftheUnitedStatesArmy,didnotintendto actagainsttheprinciplesofthelawofnationsassertedbytheSupremeCourtof theUnitedStatesfromtheearlyperiodofitsexistence,appliedbythePresident oftheUnitedStates,andlaterembodiedintheHagueConventionsof1907." TheprohibitionintheHagueConventions(Article45)against"anypressureon thepopulationtotakeoathtothehostilepower,"wasinsertedforthemoral

protectionandbenefitoftheinhabitants,anddoesnotnecessarilycarrythe implicationthatthelattercontinuetobeboundtothepoliticallawsofthe displacedgovernment.TheUnitedStates,asignatorytotheHagueConventions, hasmadethepointclear,byadmittingthatthemilitaryoccupantcansuspendall lawsofapoliticalnatureandevenrequirepublicofficialsandtheinhabitantsto takeanoathoffidelity(UnitedStatesRulesofLandWarfare,1940,article309), andasalreadystated,itisadoctrineofAmericanConstitutionalLawthatthe inhabitants,nolongerreceivingtheprotectionoftheirnativestate,forthetime beingowenoallegiancetoit,andbeingunderthecontrolandprotectionofthe victoriouspower,owetothatpowerfealtyandobedience.Indeed,whatis prohibitedistheapplicationofforcebytheoccupant,fromwhichitisfairto deducethattheConventionsdonotaltogetheroutlawvoluntarysubmissionby thepopulation.Theonlystrongreasonforthisisundoubtedlythedesireofthe authorsoftheConventionstogiveasmuchfreedomandallowancetothe inhabitantsasarenecessaryfortheirsurvival.Thisiswiseandhumane,because thepeopleshouldbeinabetterpositiontoknowwhatwillsavethemduringthe militaryoccupationthananyexilegovernment. "Beforehewasappointedprosecutor,JusticeJacksonmadeaspeechinwhichhe warnedagainsttheuseofthejudicialprocessfornonjudicialends,andattacked cynicswho'seenoreasonwhycourts,justlikeotheragencies,shouldnotbe policyweapons.IfwewanttoshootGermansasamatterofpolicy,letitbedone assuch,saidhe,butdon'thidethedeedbehindacourt.Ifyouaredeterminedto executeamaninanycasethereisnooccasionforatrial;theworldyieldsno respectforcourtsthataremerelyorganizedtoconvict/Mussolinimayhavegot hisjustdesserts,butnobodysupposeshegotafairtrial.***Letusbearthatin mindaswegoaboutpunishingcriminals.Thereareenoughlawsonthebooksto convictguiltyNaziswithoutriskingtheprestigeofourlegalsystem.Itisfar,far betterthatsomeguiltymenescapethanthattheideaoflawbeendangered.In thelongruntheideaoflawisourbestdefenseagainstNazisminallitsforms." ThesepassagesweretakenfromtheeditorialappearingintheLife,May28, 1945,page34,andconveyideasworthyofsomereflection. IftheFilipinosinfactcommittedanyerrorsinfeigningcooperationand obedienceduringtheJapanesemilitaryoccupation,theywereatmost borrowingthefamousandsignificantwordsofPresidentRoxaserrorsofthe mindandnotoftheheart.Weadvisedlysaid"feigning"notasanadmissionof thefallacyofthetheoryofsuspendedallegianceorsovereignty,butasan affirmationthattheFilipinos,contrarytotheiroutwardattitude,hadalways remainedloyalbyfeelingandconsciencetotheircountry. Assumingthatarticle114oftheRevisedPenalCodewasinforceduringthe Japanesemilitaryoccupation,thepresentRepublicofthePhilippineshasno righttoprosecutetreasoncommittedagainsttheformersovereigntyexisting duringtheCommonwealthGovernmentwhichwasnoneotherthanthe sovereigntyoftheUnitedStates.Thiscourthasalreadyheldthat,uponachange ofsovereignty;theprovisionsofthePenalCodehavingtodowithsuchsubjects astreason,rebellionandseditionarenolongerinforce(Peoplevs.Perfecto,43 Phil.,887).Itistruethat,ascontendedbythemajority,section1ofArticleIIof theConstitutionofthePhilippinesprovidesthat"sovereigntyresidesinthe

people,"butthisdidnotmaketheCommonwealthGovernmentortheFilipino peoplesovereign,becausesaiddeclarationofprinciple,priortothe independenceofthePhilippines,wassubservienttoandcontrolledbythe OrdinanceappendedtotheConstitutionunderwhich,inadditiontoitsmany provisionsessentiallydestructiveoftheconceptofsovereignty,itisexpressly madeclearthatthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesoverthePhilippineshadnot thenbeenwithdrawn.TheframersoftheConstitutionhadtomakesaid declarationofprinciplebecausethedocumentwasultimatelyintendedforthe independentPhilippines.Otherwise,thePreambleshouldnothaveannounced thatoneofthepurposesoftheConstitutionistosecuretotheFilipinopeople andtheirposteritythe"blessingsofindependence."Noone,wesuppose,will dareallegethatthePhilippineswasanindependentcountryunderthe CommonwealthGovernment. TheCommonwealthGovernmentmighthavebeenmoreautonomousthanthat existingundertheJonesLaw,butitsnonsovereignstatusneverthelessremained unaltered;andwhatwasenjoyedwastheexerciseofsovereigntydelegatedby theUnitedStateswhosesovereigntyoverthePhilippinescontinuedtobe complete. "TheexerciseofSovereigntyMaybeDelegated.Ithasalreadybeenseenthat theexerciseofsovereigntyisconceivedofasdelegatedbyaStatetothevarious organswhich,collectively,constitutetheGovernment.Forpracticalpolitical reasonswhichcanbeeasilyappreciated,itisdesirablethatthepublicpoliciesof aStateshouldbeformulatedandexecutedbygovernmentalagenciesofitsown creationandwhicharenotsubjecttothecontrolofotherStates.Thereis, however,nothinginanatureofsovereigntyorofStatelifewhichpreventsone Statefromentrustingtheexerciseofcertainpowerstothegovernmental agenciesofanotherState.Theoretically,indeed,asovereignStatemaygotoany extentinthedelegationoftheexerciseofitspowertothegovernmentalagencies ofotherStates,thosegovernmentalagenciesthusbecomingquoadhocpartsof thegovernmentalmachineryoftheStatewhosesovereigntyisexercised.Atthe sametimetheseagenciesdonotceasetobeinstrumentalitiesfortheexpression ofthewilloftheStatebywhichtheywereoriginallycreated. "BythisdelegationtheagentStateisauthorizedtoexpressthewillofthe delegatingState,andthelegalhypothesisisthatthisStatepossessesthelegal competenceagaintodrawtoitselftheexercise,throughorgansofitsown creation,ofthepowersithasgranted.Thus,Statesmayconcedetocolonies almostcompleteautonomyofgovernmentandreservetothemselvesarightof controlofsoslightandsonegativeacharacterastomakeitsexercisearareand improbableoccurrence;yet,soIongassuchrightofcontrolisrecognizedto exist,andtheautonomyofthecoloniesisconcededtobefoundeduponagrant andthecontinuingconsentofthemothercountriesthesovereigntyofthose mothercountriesoverthemiscompleteandtheyaretobeconsideredas possessingonlyadministrativeautonomyandnotpoliticalindependence.Again, aswillbemorefullydiscussedinalaterchapter,inthesocalledConfederateor CompositeState,thecooperatingStatesmayyieldtothecentralGovernmentthe exerciseofalmostalloftheirpowersofGovernmentandyetretaintheirseveral sovereignties.Or,ontheotherhand,aStatemay,withoutpartingwithits

sovereigntyoflesseningitsterritorialapplication,yieldtothegoverningorgans ofparticularareassuchanamplitudeofpowersastocreateofthembodies politicendowedwithalmostallofthecharacteristicsofindependentStates.Inall States,indeed,whenofanyconsiderablesize,efficiencyofadministration demandsthatcertainautonomouspowersoflocalselfgovernmentbegrantedto particulardistricts."(Willoughby,TheFundamentalConceptsofPublicLaw [1931],pp.74,75.) ThemajorityhavedrawnananalogybetweentheCommonwealthGovernment andtheStatesoftheAmericanUnionwhich,itisalleged,preservetheirown sovereigntyalthoughlimitedbytheUnitedStates.Thisisnottrueforithasbeen authoritativelystatedthattheConstituentStateshavenosovereigntyoftheir own,thatsuchautonomouspowersastheynowpossessarehadandexercised bytheexpresswillorbytheconstitutionalforbearanceofthenational sovereignty,andthatthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesandthenonsovereign statusoftheindividualStatesisnolongercontested. "ItisthereforeplainthattheconstituentStateshavenosovereigntyoftheirown, andthatsuchautonomouspowersastheynowpossessarehadandexercisedby theexpresswillorbytheconstitutionalforbearanceofthenationalsovereignty. TheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateshasheldthat,evenwhenselecting membersforthenationallegislature,orelectingthePresident,orratifying proposedamendmentstothefederalConstitution,theStatesact,adhoc,as agentsoftheNationalGovernment."(Willoughby,TheFundamentalConceptsof PublicLaw[1931],p.250.) "Thisisthesituationatthepresenttime.ThesovereigntyoftheUnitedStates andthenonsovereignstatusoftheindividualStatesisnolongercontested." (Willoughby,TheFundamentalConceptsofPublicLaw[1931],pp.251,252.) ArticleXVIIIoftheConstitutionprovidesthat"Thegovernmentestablishedby thisConstitutionshallbeknownastheCommonwealthofthePhilippines.Upon thefinalandcompletewithdrawalofthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesandthe proclamationofPhilippineindependence,theCommonwealthofthePhilippines shallthenceforthbeknownastheRepublicofthePhilippines."Fromthis,the deductionismadethattheGovernmentundertheRepublicofthePhilippines andundertheCommonwealthisthesame.Wecannotagree.Whilethe CommonwealthGovernmentpossessedadministrativeautonomyandexercised thesovereigntydelegatedbytheUnitedStatesanddidnotceasetobean instrumentalityofthelatter(Willoughby,TheFundamentalConceptsofPublic Law[1931],pp.74,75),theRepublicofthePhilippinesisanindependentState notreceivingitspowerorsovereigntyfromtheUnitedStates.Treason committedagainsttheUnitedStatesoragainstitsinstrumentality,the CommonwealthGovernment,whichexercised,butdidnotpossess,sovereignty (id.,p.49),isthereforenottreasonagainstthesovereignandindependent RepublicofthePhilippines.ArticleXVIIIwasinsertedinorder,merely,tomake theConstitutionapplicabletotheRepublic. Relianceisalsoplacedonsection2oftheConstitutionwhichprovidesthatall lawsofthePhilippineIslandsshallremainoperative,unlessinconsistent therewith,untilamended,altered,modifiedorrepealedbytheCongressofthe

Philippines,andonsection3whichistotheeffectthatallcasespendingin courtsshallbeheard,tried,anddeterminedunderthelawstheninforce,thereby insinuatingthattheseconstitutionalprovisionsauthorizetheRepublicofthe Philippinestoenforcearticle114oftheRevisedPenalCode.Theerroris obvious.Thelatterarticlecanremainoperativeunderthepresentregimeifitis notinconsistentwiththeConstitution.Thefactremains,however,thatsaidpenal provisionisfundamentallyincompatiblewiththeConstitution,inthatthose liablefortreasonthereundershouldoweallegiancetotheUnitedStatesorthe GovernmentofthePhilippines,thelatterbeing,aswehavealreadypointedout,a mereinstrumentalityoftheformer,whereasundertheConstitutionofthe presentRepublic,thecitizensofthePhilippinesdonotandarenotrequiredto oweallegiancetotheUnitedStates.Tocontendthatarticle114mustbedeemed tohavebeenmodifiedinthesensethatallegiancetotheUnitedStatesisdeleted, and,asthusmodified,shouldbeappliedtoprioracts,wouldbetosanctionthe enactmentandapplicationofanexpostfactolaw. InreplytothecontentionoftherespondentthattheSupremeCourtofthe UnitedStateshasheldinthecaseofBradfordvs.ChaseNationalBank(24Fed. Supp.,38),thatthePhilippineshadasovereignstatus,thoughwithrestrictions,it issufficienttostatethatsaidcasemustbetakeninthelightofasubsequent decisionofthesamecourtinCincinnatiSoapCo.vs.UnitedStates(301U.S., 308),renderedinMay,1937,whereinitwasaffirmedthatthesovereigntyofthe UnitedStatesoverthePhilippineshadnotbeenwithdrawn,withtheresultthat theearliercasecanonlybeinterpretedtorefertotheexerciseofsovereigntyby thePhilipinesasdelegatedbythemothercountry,theUnitedStates. NoconclusivenessmaybeconcededtothestatementofPresidentRoosevelton August12,1943,that"theUnitedStatesinpracticeregardsthePhilippinesas havingnowthestatusasagovernmentofotherindependentnationsinfactall theattributesofcompleteandrespectednationhood,"sincesaidstatementwas notmeantashavingacceleratedthedate,muchlessasaformalproclamationof, thePhilippineIndependenceascontemplatedintheTydingsMcDuffieLaw,it appearingthat(1)nolessalsothanthePresidentoftheUnitedStateshadto issuetheproclamationofJuly4,1946,withdrawingthesovereigntyoftheUnited StatesandrecognizingPhilippineIndependence;(2)itwasGeneralMacArthur, andnotPresidentOsmeawhowaswithhim,thatproclaimedonOctober23, 1944,therestorationoftheCommonwealthGovernment;(3)thePhilippineswas notgivenofficialparticipationinthesigningoftheJapanesesurrender;(4)the UnitedStatesCongress,andnottheCommonwealthGovernment,extendedthe tenureofofficeofthePresidentandVicePresidentofthePhilippines. ThesuggestionthatastreasonmaybecommittedagainsttheFederalaswellas againsttheStateGovernment,inthesamewaytreasonmayhavebeen committedagainstthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStatesaswellasagainstthe sovereigntyofthePhilippineCommonwealth,isimmaterialbecause,aswehave alreadyexplained,treasonagainsteitherisnotandcannotbetreasonagainstthe newanddifferentsovereigntyoftheRepublicofthePhilippines. Petitiondenied. _______________

 Copyright2012CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.[Laurelvs.Misa, 77Phil.856(1947)]