Laurel V Misa.docx

LAUREL v MISA Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa 77 Phil 856, G.R. No. L-409 January 30, 1947 LAW: Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court. Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. (As amended by E.O. No. 44, May 31, 1945). DOCTRINE: Allegiance is either permanent or temporary. A Filipino citizen owes permanent allegiance to the Philippines while a resident alien owes a temporary allegiance to our country. Treason cannot be committed in time of peace. It is a war crime. While there is peace, there are no traitors. There must be a war in which the Philippines is involved. FACTS:  This is a resolution of the decision of the SC denying the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by Laurel. Anastacio Laurel was arrested by the US Army and was interned under a commitment order for collaborating with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation. He was turned over to the Commonwealth Government and since then has been under the custody of the respondent Director of Prisons. He filed an original action in the Supreme Court invoking the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.  He maintains that his arrest was illegal and in violation of his constitutional rights and that the People’s Court Act 682 which suspends the application of the six-hour limitation on detention to political prisoners is unconstitutional. The SC court in its decision, denied his petition and rejected the petitioner’s contention mainly because no vested right was violated as the Act is not an ex-post facto law. Although the RPC was in effect during his arrest, he could not have asked for release after 6 hours as Gen. Douglas McArthur revived the laws of Commonwealth but held the active collaborationists in restraint “for the duration of the war”.  Laurel, not discouraged, filed a motion and contends that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason because a) the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines, and consequently, the allegiance of Filipino citizens was suspended; b) there was a change of sovereignty over the Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic ISSUES: a) Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines is suspended upon occupation b) Whether the occupation by an enemy suspends the allegiance of Filipino citizens to the sovereignty c) Whether the temporary allegiance by inhabitants of a territory to their occupants removes the permanent allegiance of a citizen to his legitimate government d) Whether political laws, such as crimes against national security, are suspended or inapplicable against the occupants e) Whether political laws, such as crimes against national security, are suspended or inapplicable against the inhabitants f) Whether the occupant may repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason g) Whether there was a change of sovereignty of the Islands upon proclamation of the Republic and therefore petitioner can be released as treason was not committed against this sovereignty h) Whether petitioner can be granted the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus HELD/RATIO: a) No. Sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier but remains with the legitimate government. It cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof. What is suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy which passes temporarily to the occupant. b) No. A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his legitimate government and it cannot be transferred to the occupant. Moreover, sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during enemy occupation so the allegiance to the sovereign subsists and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance.

c) No. The temporary allegiance of inhabitants to occupants is similar to temporary allegiance of a resident alien to the territory wherein he resides. In the same way that the citizen of a sovereign or government can be convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, the inhabitant of a territory occupied by military forces of an enemy may also commit treason against his own legitimate government. Allegiance is not merely the obedience to laws in return for a man’s protection in his place of residence because by obeying said laws, he is not bound to obey the laws of his own government. d) Yes. With the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government, the authority to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant and political laws are suspended. They are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant because they exclusively bear relation to the legitimate government. Crimes against national security (of the legitimate government) such as treason as penalized by the RPC are also deemed suspended against the occupant because they cannot be committed against it. e) No. Treason is applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimate government because the inhabitants of the occupied territory are still bound by their allegiance to the latter during enemy occupation. f) No. This is not necessary to control the inhabitants and it is tantamount to practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the sovereign. If an inhabitant is compelled illegally, he can lawfully resist or submit without becoming a traitor. g) No. There is no change of sovereignty so the crime of treason committed during the Japanese occupation was committed against the same sovereign people and the same government. h) No. He cannot be released. Perfecto, concurring: Treason is a war crime and cannot be committed during time of peace. Allegiance to the government was not suspended during the enemy occupation. 4 kinds: Natural, Acquired, Legal, Local. The idea of suspended sovereignty of suspended allegiance is incompatible with the Constitution which states that “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” Hilado, concurring: Allegiance to citizens of the country to the legitimate government and US was not suspended during the Japanese occupation. Because of the Brian-Kellogg Pact in which Japan is an asignatory, the unjustifiable war is a crime committed by Japan; hence it is an illegal war. Dissent: During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were suspended. Thus, treason under the Revised Penal Code cannot be punishable where the laws of the land are momentarily halted. Regarding the change of sovereignty, it is true that the Philippines wasn’t sovereign at the time of the Commonwealth since it was under the United States. Hence, the acts of treason done cannot carry over to the new Republic where the Philippines is now indeed sovereign.