Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaSECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs.HON. JUDGE JAVIER PABALAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch III, La Union, AGOO TOBACCO PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, and PANFILO P. JIMENEZ, Deputy Sheriff, La Union, respondents. Conrado E. Medina, Edgardo M. Magtalas & Walfrido Climaco for petitioner.Felimon A. Aspirin fit respondent Agoo 'Tobacco Planters Association, Inc.Virgilio C. Abejo for respondent Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration. FERNANDO, Acting C.J.:The reliance of petitioner Philippine National Bank in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding against respondent Judge Javier Pabalan who issued a writ of execution, 1 followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the funds of respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, 2 deposited with it, is on the fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non-suability of a state, it being alleged that such funds are public in character. This is not the first time petitioner raised that issue. It did so before in Philippine National Bank v. Court of industrial Relations, 3 decided only last January. It did not meet with success, this Court ruling in accordance with the two previous cases of National Shipyard and Steel Corporation 4 and Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, 5 that funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment. As respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration is likewise a public corporation possessed of the same attributes, 6 a similar outcome is indicated. This petition must be dismissed. It is undisputed that the judgment against respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration had reached the stage of finality. A writ of execution was, therefore, in order. It was accordingly issued on December 17, 1970. 7 There was a notice of garnishment for the full amount mentioned in such writ of execution in the sum of P12,724,66. 8 In view of the objection, however, by petitioner Philippine National Bank on the above ground, coupled with an inquiry as to whether or not respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration had funds deposited with petitioner's La Union branch, it was not until January 25, 1971 that the order sought to be set aside in this certiorari proceeding was issued by respondent Judge. 9 Its dispositive portion reads as follows: Conformably with the foregoing, it is now ordered, in accordance with law, that sufficient funds of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration now deposited with the Philippine National Bank, La Union Branch, shall be garnished and delivered to the plaintiff immediately to satisfy the Writ of Execution for one-half of the amount awarded in the decision of November 16, 1970." 10 Hence this certiorari and prohibition proceeding. As noted at the outset, petitioner Philippine National Bank would invoke the doctrine of non-suability. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a fundamental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms: "The State may not be sued without its consent." 11 If the funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices in the government, then, certainly, such a provision would be a bar to garnishment. Such is not the case here. Garnishment would lie. Only last January, as noted in the opening paragraph of this decision, this Court, in a case brought by the same petitioner precisely invoking such a doctrine, left no doubt that the funds of public corporations could properly be made the object of a notice of garnishment. Accordingly, this petition must fail. 1. The alleged grave abuse of discretion, the basis of this certiorari proceeding, was sought to be justified on the failure of respondent Judge to set aside the notice of garnishment of funds belonging to respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration. This excerpt from the aforecited decision of Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations makes manifest why such an argument is far from persuasive. "The premise that the funds could be spoken as public character may be accepted in the sense that the People Homesite and Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though that they were exempt. from garnishment. National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations is squarely in point. As was explicitly stated in the

opinion of the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion: "The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government, and that, as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable for, as a government owned and controlled corporation, the NASSCO has a personality of its own. distinct and separate from that of the Government. It has — pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 356, dated October 23, 1950 ... , pursuant to which The NASSCO has been established — all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law ... ." Accordingly, it may be sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation (Section 13, Act No. 1459, as amended.)" ... To repeat, the ruling was the appropriate remedy for the prevailing party which could proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government." 12 2. The National Shipyard and Steel Corporation decision was not the first of its kind. The ruling therein could be inferred from the judgment announced in Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, decided as far back as 1941. 13 In the language of its ponente Justice Ozaeta "On the other hand, it is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. (Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L.ed. 244). By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations." 14 It is worth mentioning that Justice Ozaeta could find support for such a pronouncement from the leading American Supreme Court case of united States v. Planters' Bank, 15 with the opinion coming from the illustrious Chief Justice Marshall. It was handed down more than one hundred fifty years ago, 1824 to be exact. It is apparent, therefore, that petitioner Bank could it legally set forth as a bar or impediment to a notice of garnishment the doctrine of non-suability. WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed. No costs. Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Santos, JJ., concur. Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.  Footnotes

1 Petition, Statement of Facts, par. 6, Annex A.2 Ibid, par. 12, Annex S.3 L-32667, January 31, 1978.4 118 Phil. 782 (1963). 5 73 Phil. 374 (1941). 6 Cf. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Court of Industrial Relations, L-32052, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 416. 7 Annex B to Petition.8 Annex C to Petition.

9 Annex to Petition. 10 Ibid, 11. 11 Article XV, Section 16, Constitution of the Philippines.12 L-32667, January 31, 1978. The National Shipyard decision, as previously mentioned, was promulgated in 1963 and reported in 118 Phil. 782. 13 73 Phil. 374. 14 Ibid, 388-389. 15 9 Wheat, 904. 6 L. ed. 244.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs.HON. JUDGE JAVIER PABALAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch III, La Union, AGOO TOBACCO PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, and PANFILO P. JIMENEZ, Deputy Sheriff, La Union, respondents.

Conrado E. Medina, Edgardo M. Magtalas & Walfrido Climaco for petitioner.

Felimon A. Aspirin fit respondent Agoo 'Tobacco Planters Association, Inc.

Virgilio C. Abejo for respondent Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration.

 

FERNANDO, Acting C.J.:

The reliance of petitioner Philippine National Bank in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding against respondent Judge Javier Pabalan who issued a writ of execution, 1 followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the funds of respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, 2 deposited with it, is on the fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non-suability of a state, it being alleged that such funds are public in character. This is not the first time petitioner raised that issue. It did so before in Philippine National Bank v. Court of industrial Relations, 3 decided only last January. It did not meet with success, this Court ruling in accordance with the two previous cases of National Shipyard and Steel Corporation 4 and Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, 5 that funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment. As respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration is likewise a public corporation possessed of the same attributes, 6 a similar outcome is indicated. This petition must be dismissed.

It is undisputed that the judgment against respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration had reached the stage of finality. A writ of execution was, therefore, in order. It was accordingly issued on December 17, 1970. 7 There was a notice of garnishment for the full amount mentioned in such writ of execution in the sum of P12,724,66. 8 In view of the objection, however, by petitioner Philippine National Bank on the above ground, coupled with an inquiry as to whether or not respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration had funds deposited with petitioner's La Union branch, it was not until January 25, 1971 that the order sought to be set aside in this certiorari proceeding was issued by respondent Judge. 9 Its dispositive portion reads as follows: Conformably with the foregoing, it is now ordered, in accordance with law, that sufficient funds of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration now deposited with the Philippine National Bank, La Union Branch, shall be garnished and delivered to the plaintiff immediately to satisfy the Writ of Execution for one-half of the amount awarded in the decision of November 16, 1970." 10 Hence this certiorari and prohibition proceeding.

As noted at the outset, petitioner Philippine National Bank would invoke the doctrine of non-suability. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a fundamental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms: "The State may not be sued without its consent." 11 If the funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices in the government, then, certainly, such a provision would be a bar to garnishment. Such is not the case here. Garnishment would lie. Only last January, as noted in the opening paragraph of this decision, this Court, in a case brought by the same petitioner precisely invoking such a doctrine, left no doubt that the funds of public corporations could properly be made the object of a notice of garnishment. Accordingly, this petition must fail.

1. The alleged grave abuse of discretion, the basis of this certiorari proceeding, was sought to be justified on the failure of respondent Judge to set aside the notice of garnishment of funds belonging to respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration. This excerpt from the aforecited decision of Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations makes manifest why such an argument is far from persuasive. "The premise that the funds could be spoken as public character may be accepted in the sense that the People Homesite and Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though that they were exempt. from garnishment. National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations is squarely in point. As was explicitly stated in the opinion of the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion: "The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government, and that, as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable for, as a government owned and controlled corporation, the NASSCO has a personality of its own. distinct and separate from that of the Government. It has — pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 356, dated October 23, 1950 ... , pursuant to which The NASSCO has been established — all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law ... ." Accordingly, it may be sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation (Section 13, Act No. 1459, as amended.)" ... To repeat, the ruling was the appropriate remedy for the prevailing party which could proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government." 12

2. The National Shipyard and Steel Corporation decision was not the first of its kind. The ruling therein could be inferred from the judgment announced in Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, decided as far back as 1941. 13 In the language of its ponente Justice Ozaeta "On the other hand, it is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. (Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L.ed. 244). By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations." 14 It is worth mentioning that Justice Ozaeta could find support for such a pronouncement from the leading American Supreme Court case of united States v. Planters' Bank, 15 with the opinion coming from the illustrious Chief Justice Marshall. It was handed down more than one hundred fifty years ago, 1824 to be exact. It is apparent, therefore, that petitioner Bank could it legally set forth as a bar or impediment to a notice of garnishment the doctrine of non-suability.

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed. No costs.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Santos, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave. Footnotes

1 Petition, Statement of Facts, par. 6, Annex A.2 Ibid, par. 12, Annex S.3 L-32667, January 31, 1978.4 118 Phil. 782 (1963). 5 73 Phil. 374 (1941). 6 Cf. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Court of Industrial

Relations, L-32052, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 416. 7 Annex B to Petition.8 Annex C to Petition. 9 Annex to Petition. 10 Ibid, 11. 11 Article XV, Section 16, Constitution of the Philippines.

12 L-32667, January 31, 1978. The National Shipyard decision, as previously mentioned, was promulgated in 1963 and reported in 118 Phil. 782. 13 73 Phil. 374. 14 Ibid, 388-389. 15 9 Wheat, 904. 6 L. ed. 244.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

December 13, 1916

G.R. No. 9959 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, represented by the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORRAS DE MANILA, defendant-appellant.

William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for appellant. Attorney-General Avanceña for appellee.

TRENT, J.:

About $400,000, were subscribed and paid into the treasury of the Philippine Islands by the inhabitants of the Spanish Dominions of the relief of those damaged by the earthquake which took place in the Philippine Islands on June 3, 1863. Subsequent thereto and on October 6 of that year, a central relief board was appointed, by authority of the King of Spain, to distribute the moneys thus voluntarily contributed. After a thorough investigation and consideration, the relief board allotted $365,703.50 to the various sufferers named in its resolution, dated September 22, 1866, and, by order of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, a list of these allotments, together with the names of those entitled thereto, was published in the Official Gazette of Manila dated April 7, 1870. There was later distributed, inaccordance with the above-mentioned allotments, the sum of $30,299.65, leaving a balance of S365,403.85 for distribution. Upon the petition of the governing body of the Monte de Piedad, dated February 1, 1833, the Philippine Government, by order dated the 1st of that month, directed its treasurer to turn over to the Monte de Piedad the sum of $80,000 of the relief fund in installments of $20,000 each. These amounts were received on the following dates: February 15, March 12, April 14, and June 2, 1883, and are still in the possession of the Monte de Piedad. On account of various petitions of the persons, and heirs of others to whom the above-mentioned allotments were made by the central relief board for the payment of those amounts, the Philippine Islands to bring suit against the Monte de Piedad a recover, "through the Attorney-General and in representation of the Government of the Philippine Islands," the $80.000, together with interest, for the benefit of those persons or their heirs appearing in the list of names published in the Official Gazette instituted on May 3, 1912, by the Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by the Insular Treasurer, and after due trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $80,000 gold or its equivalent in Philippine currency, together with legal interest from February 28, 1912, and the costs of the cause. The defendant appealed and makes the following assignment of errors:

1. The court erred in not finding that the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), give to the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, were so given as a donation subject to one condition, to wit: the return of such sum of money to the Spanish Government of these Islands, within eight days following the day when claimed, in case the Supreme Government of Spain should not approve the action taken by the former government.

2. The court erred in not having decreed that this donation had been cleared; said eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) being at present the exclusive property of the appellant the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros.

3. That the court erred in stating that the Government of the Philippine Islands has subrogated the Spanish Government in its rights, as regards an important sum of money resulting from a national subscription opened by reason of the earthquake of June 3, 1863, in these Island.

4. That the court erred in not declaring that Act Numbered 2109, passed by the Philippine Legislature on January 30, 1912, is unconstitutional.

5. That the court erred in holding in its decision that there is no title for the prescription of this suit brought by the Insular Government against the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros for the reimbursement of the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) given to it by the late Spanish Government of these Islands.

6. That the court erred in sentencing the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros to reimburse the Philippine Government in the sum of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) gold coin, or the equivalent thereof in the present legal tender currency in circulation, with legal interest thereon from February 28th, 1912, and the costs of this suit.

In the royal order of June 29, 1879, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands was directed to inform the home Government in what manner the indemnity might be paid to which, by virtue of the resolutions of the relief board, the persons who suffered damage by the earthquake might be entitled, in order to perform the sacred obligation which the Government of Spain had assumed toward the donors.

The next pertinent document in order is the defendant's petition, dated February 1, 1883, addressed to the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, which reads:

Board of Directors of the Monte de Piedad of Manila Presidencia.

Excellency: The Board of Directors of the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros of Manila informs your Excellency, First: That the funds which it has up to the present been able to dispose of have been exhausted in loans on jewelry, and there only remains the sum of one thousand and odd pesos, which will be expended between to-day and day after tomorrow. Second: That, to maintain the credit of the establishment, which would be greatly injured were its operations suspended, it is necessary to procure money. Third: That your Excellency has proposed to His Majesty's Government to apply to the funds of the Monte de Piedad a part of the funds held in the treasury derived form the national subscription for the relief of the distress caused by the earthquake of 1863. Fourth: That in the public treasury there is held at the disposal of the central earthquake relief board over $1090,000 which was deposited in the said treasury by order of your general Government, it having been transferred thereto from the Spanish-Filipino Bank where it had been held. fifth: That in the straightened circumstances of the moment, your Excellency can, to avert impending disaster to the Monte de Piedad, order that, out of that sum of one hundred thousand pesos held in the Treasury at the disposal of the central relief board, there be transferred to the Monte de Piedad the sum of $80,000, there to be held under the same conditions as at present in the Treasury, to wit, at the disposal of the Relief Board. Sixth: That should this transfer not be approved for any reason, either because of the failure of His Majesty's Government to approve the proposal made by your Excellency relative to the application to the needs of the Monte de Piedad of a pat of the subscription intended to believe the distress caused by the earthquake of 1863, or for any other reason, the board of directors of the Monte de Piedad obligates itself to return any sums which it may have received on account of the eighty thousand pesos, or the whole thereof, should it have received the same, by securing a loan from whichever bank or banks may lend it the money at the cheapest rate upon the security of pawned jewelry. — This is an urgent measure to save the Monte de Piedad in the present crisis and the board of directors trusts to secure your Excellency's entire cooperation and that of the other officials who have take part in the transaction.

The Governor-General's resolution on the foregoing petition is as follows:

GENERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES. MANILA, February 1, 1883.

In view of the foregoing petition addressed to me by the board of directors of the Monte de Piedad of this city, in which it is stated that the funds which the said institution counted upon are nearly all invested in loans on jewelry and that the small account remaining will scarcely suffice to cover the transactions of the next two days, for which reason it entreats the general Government that, in pursuance of its telegraphic advice to H. M. Government, the latter direct that there be turned over to said Monte de Piedad $80,000 out of the funds in the public treasury obtained from the national subscription for the relief of the distress caused by the earthquake of 1863, said board obligating itself to return this sum should H. M. Government, for any reason, not approve the said proposal, and for this purpose it will procure funds by means of loans raised on pawned jewelry; it stated further that if the aid so solicited is not furnished, it will be compelled to suspend operations, which would seriously injure the credit of so beneficient an institution; and in view of the report upon the matter made by the Intendencia General de Hacienda; and considering the fact that the public treasury has on hand a much greater sum from the source mentioned than that solicited; and considering that this general Government has submitted for the determination of H. M. Government that the balance which, after strictly applying the proceeds obtained from the subscription referred to, may remain as a surplus should be delivered to the Monte de Piedad, either as a donation, or as a loan upon the security of the credit of the institution, believing that in so doing the wishes of the donors would be faithfully interpreted inasmuch as those wishes were no other than to relieve distress, an act of charity which is exercised in the highest degree by the Monte de Piedad, for it liberates needy person from the pernicious effects of usury; and

Considering that the lofty purposes that brought about the creation of the pious institution referred to would be frustrated, and that the great and laudable work of its establishment, and that the great and laudable and valuable if the aid it urgently seeks is not granted, since the suspension of its operations would seriously and regrettably damage the ever-growing credit of the Monte de Piedad; and

Considering that if such a thing would at any time cause deep distress in the public mind, it might be said that at the present juncture it would assume the nature of a disturbance of public order because of the extreme poverty of the poorer classes resulting from the late calamities, and because it is the only institution which can mitigate the effects of such poverty; and

Considering that no reasonable objection can be made to granting the request herein contained, for the funds in question are sufficiently secured in the unlikely event that H> M. Government does not approve the recommendation mentioned, this general Government, in the exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred upon it and in conformity with the report of the Intendencia de Hacienda, resolves as follows:

First. Authority is hereby given to deliver to the Monte de Piedad, out of the sum held in the public treasury of these Islands obtained from the national subscription opened by reason of the earthquakes of 1863, amounts up to the sum $80,000, as its needs may require, in installments of $20,000.

Second. The board of directors of the Monte de Piedad is solemnly bound to return, within eight days after demand, the sums it may have so received, if H. M. Government does not approve this resolution.

Third. The Intendencia General de Hacienda shall forthwith, and in preference to all other work, proceed to prepare the necessary papers so that with the least possible delay the payment referred to may be made and the danger that menaces the Monte de Piedad of having to suspend its operations may be averted.

H. M. Government shall be advised hereof.(Signed) P. DE RIVERA.

By the royal order of December 3, 1892, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands was ordered to "inform this ministerio what is the total sum available at the present time, taking into consideration the sums delivered to the Monte de Piedad pursuant to the decree issued by your general Government on February 1, 1883," and after the rights of the claimants, whose names were published in the Official Gazette of Manila on April 7, 1870, and their heirs had been established, as therein provided, as such persons "have an unquestionable right to be paid the donations assigned to them therein, your general Government shall convoke them

all within a reasonable period and shall pay their shares to such as shall identify themselves, without regard to their financial status," and finally "that when all the proceedings and operations herein mentioned have been concluded and the Government can consider itself free from all kinds of claims on the part of those interested in the distribution of the funds deposited in the vaults of the Treasury, such action may be taken as the circumstances shall require, after first consulting the relief board and your general Government and taking account of what sums have been delivered to the Monte de Piedad and those that were expended in 1888 to relieve public calamities," and "in order that all the points in connection with the proceedings had as a result of the earthquake be clearly understood, it is indispensable that the offices hereinbefore mentioned comply with the provisions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the royal order of June 25, 1879." On receipt of this Finance order by the Governor-General, the Department of Finance was called upon for a report in reference to the $80,000 turned over to the defendant, and that Department's report to the Governor-General dated June 28, 1893, reads:

Intendencia General de Hacienda de Filipinas (General Treasury of the Philippines) — Excellency. — By Royal Order No. 1044 of December 3, last, it is provided that the persons who sustained losses by the earthquakes that occurred in your capital in the year 1863 shall be paid the amounts allotted to them out of the sums sent from Spain for this purpose, with observance of the rules specified in the said royal order, one of them being that before making the payment to the interested parties the assets shall be reduced to money. These assets, during the long period of time that has elapsed since they were turned over to the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, were used to cover the general needs of the appropriation, a part besides being invested in the relief of charitable institutions and another part to meet pressing needs occasioned by public calamities. On January 30, last, your Excellency was please to order the fulfillment of that sovereign mandate and referred the same to this Intendencia for its information and the purposes desired (that is, for compliance with its directions and, as aforesaid, one of these being the liquidation, recovery, and deposit with the Treasury of the sums paid out of that fund and which were expended in a different way from that intended by the donors) and this Intendencia believed the moment had arrived to claim from the board of directors of the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros the sum of 80,000 pesos which, by decree of your general Government of the date of February 1, 1883, was loaned to it out of the said funds, the (Monte de Piedad) obligating itself to return the same within the period of eight days if H. M. Government did not approve the delivery. On this Intendencia's demanding from the Monte de Piedad the eighty thousand pesos, thus complying with the provisions of the Royal Order, it was to be supposed that no objection to its return would be made by the Monte de Piedad for, when it received the loan, it formally engaged itself to return it; and, besides, it was indisputable that the moment to do so had arrived, inasmuch as H. M. Government, in ordering that the assets of the earthquake relief fund should he collected, makes express mention of the 80,000 pesos loaned to the Monte de Piedad, without doubt considering as sufficient the period of ten years during which it has been using this large sum which lawfully belongs to their persons. This Intendencia also supposed that the Monte de Piedad no longer needed the amount of that loan, inasmuch as, far from investing it in beneficient transactions, it had turned the whole amount into the voluntary deposit funds bearing 5 per cent interests, the result of this operation being that the debtor loaned to the creditor on interest what the former had gratuitously received. But the Monte de Piedad, instead of fulfilling the promise it made on receiving the sum, after repeated demands refused to return the money on the ground that only your Excellency, and not the Intendencia (Treasury), is entitled to order the reimbursement, taking no account of the fact that this Intendencia was acting in the discharge of a sovereign command, the fulfillment of which your Excellency was pleased to order; and on the further ground that the sum of 80,000 pesos which it received from the fund intended for the earthquake victims was not received as a loan, but as a donation, this in the opinion of this Intendencia, erroneously interpreting both the last royal order which directed the apportionment of the amount of the subscription raised in the year 1863 and the superior decree which granted the loan, inasmuch as in this letter no donation is made to the Monte de Piedad of the 80,000 pesos, but simply a loan; besides, no donation whatever could be made of funds derived from a private subscription raised for a specific purpose, which funds are already distributed and the names of the beneficiaries have been published in the Gaceta, there being lacking only the mere material act of the delivery, which has been unduly delayed. In view of the unexpected reply made by the Monte de Piedad, and believing it useless to insist further in the matter of the claim for the aforementioned loan, or to argue in support thereof, this Intendencia believes the intervention of your Excellency necessary in this matter, if the royal Order No. 1044 of December 3, last, is to be complied with, and for this purpose I beg your Excellency kindly to order the Monte de Piedad to reimburse within the period of eight days the 80,000 which it owes, and that you give this Intendencia power to carry out the provisions of the said royal order. I must call to the attention of your Excellency that the said pious establishment, during the last few days and after demand was made upon it, has endorsed to the Spanish-Filipino Bank nearly the whole of the sum which it had on deposit in the general deposit funds.

The record in the case under consideration fails to disclose any further definite action taken by either the Philippine Government or the Spanish Government in regard to the $80,000 turned over to the Monte de Piedad.

In the defendant's general ledger the following entries appear: "Public Treasury: February 15, 1883, $20,000; March 12, 1883, $20,000; April 14, 1883, $20,000; June 2, 1883, $20,000, total $80,000." The book entry for this total is as follows: "To the public Treasury derived from the subscription for the earthquake of 1863, $80,000 received from general Treasury as a returnable loan, and without interest." The account was carried in this manner until January 1, 1899, when it was closed by transferring the amount to an account called "Sagrada Mitra," which latter account was a loan of $15,000 made to the defendant by the Archbishop of Manila, without interest, thereby placing the "Sagrada Mitra" account at $95,000 instead of $15,000. The above-mentioned journal entry for January 1, 1899, reads: "Sagrada Mitra and subscription, balance of these two account which on this date are united in accordance with an order of the Exmo. Sr. Presidente of the Council transmitted verbally to the Presidente Gerente of these institutions, $95,000."

On March 16, 1902, the Philippine government called upon the defendant for information concerning the status of the $80,000 and received the following reply:

MANILA, March 31, 1902.

To the Attorney-General of the Department of Justice of the Philippine Islands.

SIR: In reply to your courteous letter of the 16th inst., in which you request information from this office as to when and for what purpose the Spanish Government delivered to the Monte de Piedad eighty thousand pesos obtained from the subscription opened in connection with the earthquake of 1863, as well as any other information that might be useful for the report which your office is called upon to furnish, I must state to your department that the books kept in these Pious Institutions, and which have been consulted for the purpose, show that on the 15th of February, 1883, they received as a reimbursable loan and without interest, twenty thousand pesos, which they deposited with their own funds. On the same account and on each of the dates of March 12, April 14 and June 2 of the said year, 1883, they also received and turned into their funds a like sum of twenty thousand pesos, making a total of eighty thousand pesos. — (Signed) Emilio Moreta.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a literal copy of that found in the letter book No. 2 of those Pious Institutions.

Manila, November 19, 1913 (Sgd.) EMILIO LAZCANOTEGUI, Secretary

(Sgd.) O. K. EMILIO MORETA,Managing Director.

The foregoing documentary evidence shows the nature of the transactions which took place between the Government of Spain and the Philippine Government on the one side and the Monte de Piedad on the other, concerning the $80,000. The Monte de Piedad, after setting forth in its petition to the Governor-General its financial condition and its absolute necessity for more working capital, asked that out of the sum of $100,000 held in the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, at the disposal of the central relief board, there be transferred to it the sum of $80,000 to be held under the same conditions, to wit, "at the disposal of the relief board." The Monte de Piedad agreed that if the transfer of these funds should not be approved by the Government of Spain, the same would be returned forthwith. It did not ask that the $80,000 be given to it as a donation. The Governor-General, after reciting the substance of the petition, stated that "this general Government has submitted for the determination of H. M. Government that the balance which, after strictly applying the proceeds obtained from the subscription referred to, may

remain as a surplus, should be delivered to the Monte de Piedad, either as a donation, or as a loan upon the security of the credit of the institution," and "considering that no reasonable objection can be made to granting the request herein contained," directed the transfer of the $80,000 to be made with the understanding that "the Board of Directors of the Monte de Piedad is solemnly bound to return, within eight days after demand, the sums it may have so received, if H. M. Government does not approve this resolution." It will be noted that the first and only time the word "donation" was used in connection with the $80,000 appears in this resolution of the Governor-General. It may be inferred from the royal orders that the Madrid Government did tacitly approve of the transfer of the $80,000 to the Monte de Piedad as a loan without interest, but that Government certainly did not approve such transfer as a donation for the reason that the Governor-General was directed by the royal order of December 3, 1892, to inform the Madrid Government of the total available sum of the earthquake fund, "taking into consideration the sums delivered to the Monte de Piedad pursuant to the decree issued by your general Government on February 1, 1883." This language, nothing else appearing, might admit of the interpretation that the Madrid Government did not intend that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands should include the $80,000 in the total available sum, but when considered in connection with the report of the Department of Finance there can be no doubt that it was so intended. That report refers expressly to the royal order of December 3d, and sets forth in detail the action taken in order to secure the return of the $80,000. The Department of Finance, acting under the orders of the Governor-General, understood that the $80,000 was transferred to the Monte de Piedad well knew that it received this sum as a loan interest." The amount was thus carried in its books until January, 1899, when it was transferred to the account of the "Sagrada Mitra" and was thereafter known as the "Sagrada Mitra and subscription account." Furthermore, the Monte de Piedad recognized and considered as late as March 31, 1902, that it received the $80,000 "as a returnable loan, and without interest." Therefore, there cannot be the slightest doubt the fact that the Monte de Piedad received the $80,000 as a mere loan or deposit and not as a donation. Consequently, the first alleged error is entirely without foundation.

Counsel for the defendant, in support of their third assignment of error, say in their principal brief that:

The Spanish nation was professedly Roman Catholic and its King enjoyed the distinction of being deputy ex officio of the Holy See and Apostolic Vicar-General of the Indies, and as such it was his duty to protect all pious works and charitable institutions in his kingdoms, especially those of the Indies; among the latter was the Monte de Piedad of the Philippines, of which said King and his deputy the Governor-General of the Philippines, as royal vice-patron, were, in a special and peculiar manner, the protectors; the latter, as a result of the cession of the Philippine Islands, Implicitly renounced this high office and tacitly returned it to the Holy See, now represented by the Archbishop of Manila; the national subscription in question was a kind of foundation or pious work, for a charitable purpose in these Islands; and the entire subscription not being needed for its original purpose, the royal vice-patron, with the consent of the King, gave the surplus thereof to an analogous purpose; the fulfillment of all these things involved, in the majority, if not in all cases, faithful compliance with the duty imposed upon him by the Holy See, when it conferred upon him the royal patronage of the Indies, a thing that touched him very closely in his conscience and religion; the cessionary Government though Christian, was not Roman Catholic and prided itself on its policy of non-interference in religious matters, and inveterately maintained a complete separation between the ecclesiastical and civil powers.

In view of these circumstances it must be quite clear that, even without the express provisions of the Treaty of Paris, which apparently expressly exclude such an idea, it did not befit the honor of either of the contracting parties to subrogate to the American Government in lieu of the Spanish Government anything respecting the disposition of the funds delivered by the latter to the Monte de Piedad. The same reasons that induced the Spanish Government to take over such things would result in great inconvenience to the American Government in attempting to do so. The question was such a delicate one, for the reason that it affected the conscience, deeply religious, of the King of Spain, that it cannot be believed that it was ever his intention to confide the exercise thereof to a Government like the American. (U. S. vs. Arredondo, 6 Pet. [U. S.], 711.)

It is thus seen that the American Government did not subrogate the Spanish Government or rather, the King of Spain, in this regard; and as the condition annexed to the donation was lawful and possible of fulfillment at the time the contract was made, but became impossible of fulfillment by the cession made by the Spanish Government in these Islands, compliance therewith is excused and the contract has been cleared thereof.

The contention of counsel, as thus stated, in untenable for two reason, (1) because such contention is based upon the erroneous theory that the sum in question was a donation to the Monte de Piedad and not a loan, and (2) because the charity founded by the donations for the earthquake sufferers is not and never was intended to be an ecclesiastical pious work. The first proposition has already been decided adversely to the defendant's contention. As to the second, the record shows clearly that the fund was given by the donors for a specific and definite purpose — the relief of the earthquake sufferers — and for no other purpose. The money was turned over to the Spanish Government to be devoted to that purpose. The Spanish Government remitted the money to the Philippine Government to be distributed among the suffers. All officials, including the King of Spain and the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, who took part in the disposal of the fund, acted in their purely civil, official capacity, and the fact that they might have belonged to a certain church had nothing to do with their acts in this matter. The church, as such, had nothing to do with the fund in any way whatever until the $80,000 reached the coffers of the Monte de Piedad (an institution under the control of the church) as a loan or deposit. If the charity in question had been founded as an ecclesiastical pious work, the King of Spain and the Governor-General, in their capacities as vicar-general of the Indies and as royal vice-patron, respectively, would have disposed of the fund as such and not in their civil capacities, and such functions could not have been transferred to the present Philippine Government, because the right to so act would have arisen out of the special agreement between the Government of Spain and the Holy See, based on the union of the church and state which was completely separated with the change of sovereignty.

And in their supplemental brief counsel say:

By the conceded facts the money in question is part of a charitable subscription. The donors were persons in Spain, the trustee was the Spanish Government, the donees, the cestuis que trustent, were certain persons in the Philippine Islands. The whole matter is one of trusteeship. This is undisputed and indisputable. It follows that the Spanish Government at no time was the owner of the fund. Not being the owner of the fund it could not transfer the ownership. Whether or not it could transfer its trusteeship it certainly never has expressly done so and the general terms of property transfer in the Treaty of Paris are wholly insufficient for such a purpose even could Spain have transferred its trusteeship without the consent of the donors and even could the United States, as a Government, have accepted such a trust under any power granted to it by the thirteen original States in the Constitution, which is more than doubtful. It follows further that this Government is not a proper party to the action. The only persons who could claim to be damaged by this payment to the Monte, if it was unlawful, are the donors or the cestuis que trustent, and this Government is neither.

If "the whole matter is one of trusteeship," and it being true that the Spanish Government could not, as counsel say, transfer the ownership of the fund to the Monte de Piedad, the question arises, who may sue to recover this loan? It needs no argument to show that the Spanish or Philippine Government, as trustee, could maintain an action for this purpose had there been no change of sovereignty and if the right of action has not prescribed. But those governments were something more than mere common law trustees of the fund. In order to determine their exact status with reference to this fund, it is necessary to examine the law in force at the time there transactions took place, which are the law of June 20, 1894, the royal decree of April 27, 1875, and the instructions promulgated on the latter date. These legal provisions were applicable to the Philippine Islands (Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil. Rep., 34 )

The funds collected as a result of the national subscription opened in Spain by royal order of the Spanish Government and which were remitted to the Philippine Government to be distributed among the earthquake sufferers by the Central Relief Board constituted, under article 1 of the law of June 20, 1894, and article 2 of the instructions of April 27, 1875, a special charity of a temporary nature as distinguished from a permanent public charitable institution. As the Spanish Government initiated the creation of the fund and as the donors turned their contributions over to that Government, it became the duty of the latter, under article 7 of the instructions, to exercise supervision and control over the moneys thus collected to the end that the will of the donors should be carried out. The relief board had no power whatever to dispose of the funds confided to its charge for other purposes than to distribute them among the sufferers, because paragraph 3 of article 11 of the instructions conferred the power upon the secretary of the interior of Spain, and no other, to dispose of the surplus funds, should there be any, by assigning them to some other charitable purpose or institution. The secretary could not dispose of any of the funds in this manner so long as they were necessary for the specific purpose for which they were contributed. The secretary had the power, under the law above mentioned to appoint and totally or partially change the personnel of the relief board and to authorize the board to defend the rights of the charity in the courts. The authority of the board consisted only in carrying out the will of the donors as directed by the Government whose duty it was to watch over the acts of the board and to see that the funds were applied to the purposes for

which they were contributed. The secretary of the interior, as the representative of His Majesty's Government, exercised these powers and duties through the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands. The Governments of Spain and of the Philippine Islands in complying with their duties conferred upon them by law, acted in their governmental capacities in attempting to carry out the intention of the contributors. It will this be seen that those governments were something more, as we have said, than mere trustees of the fund.

It is further contended that the obligation on the part of the Monte de Piedad to return the $80,000 to the Government, even considering it a loan, was wiped out on the change of sovereignty, or inn other words, the present Philippine Government cannot maintain this action for that reason. This contention, if true, "must result from settled principles of rigid law," as it cannot rest upon any title to the fund in the Monte de Piedad acquired prior to such change. While the obligation to return the $80,000 to the Spanish Government was still pending, war between the United States and Spain ensued. Under the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, the Archipelago, known as the Philippine Islands, was ceded to the United States, the latter agreeing to pay Spain the sum of $20,000,000. Under the first paragraph of the eighth article, Spain relinquished to the United States "all buildings, wharves, barracks, forts, structures, public highways, and other immovable property which, in conformity with law, belonged to the public domain, and as such belonged to the crown of Spain." As the $80,000 were not included therein, it is said that the right to recover this amount did not, therefore, pass to the present sovereign. This, in our opinion, does not follow as a necessary consequence, as the right to recover does not rest upon the proposition that the $80,000 must be "other immovable property" mentioned in article 8 of the treaty, but upon contractual obligations incurred before the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States. We will not inquire what effect his cession had upon the law of June 20, 1849, the royal decree of April 27, 1875, and the instructions promulgated on the latter date. In Vilas vs. Manila (220 U. S., 345), the court said:

That there is a total abrogation of the former political relations of the inhabitants of the ceded region is obvious. That all laws theretofore in force which are in conflict with the political character, constitution, or institutions of the substituted sovereign, lose their force, is also plain. (Alvarez y Sanchez vs. United States, 216 U. S., 167.) But it is equally settled in the same public law that the great body of municipal law which regulates private and domestic rights continues in force until abrogated or changed by the new ruler.

If the above-mentioned legal provisions are in conflict with the political character, constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, they became inoperative or lost their force upon the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States, but if they are among "that great body of municipal law which regulates private and domestic rights," they continued in force and are still in force unless they have been repealed by the present Government. That they fall within the latter class is clear from their very nature and character. They are laws which are not political in any sense of the word. They conferred upon the Spanish Government the right and duty to supervise, regulate, and to some extent control charities and charitable institutions. The present sovereign, in exempting "provident institutions, savings banks, etc.," all of which are in the nature of charitable institutions, from taxation, placed such institutions, in so far as the investment in securities are concerned, under the general supervision of the Insular Treasurer (paragraph 4 of section 111 of Act No. 1189; see also Act No. 701).

Furthermore, upon the cession of the Philippine Islands the prerogatives of he crown of Spain devolved upon he United States. In Magill vs. Brown (16 Fed. Cas., 408), quoted with approval in Mormon Charch vs. United States (136 U. S.,1, 57), the court said:

The Revolution devolved on the State all the transcendent power of Parliament, and the prerogative of the crown, and gave their Acts the same force and effect.

In Fontain vs. Ravenel (17 Hw., 369, 384), Mr. Justice McLean, delivering the opinion of the court in a charity case, said:

When this country achieved its independence, the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States. And this power still remains with them except so fact as they have delegated a portion of it to the Federal Government. The sovereign will is made known to us by legislative enactment. The State as a sovereign, is the parens patriae.

Chancelor Kent says:

In this country, the legislature or government of the State, as parens patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no other person is entrusted with it. (4 Kent Com., 508, note.)

The Supreme Court of the United States in Mormon Church vs. United States, supra, after approving also the last quotations, said:

This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties. On the contrary, it is a most beneficient functions, and often necessary to be exercised in the interest of humanity, and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect themselves.

The court in the same case, after quoting from Sohier vs. Mass. General Hospital (3 Cush., 483, 497), wherein the latter court held that it is deemed indispensible that there should be a power in the legislature to authorize the same of the estates of in facts, idiots, insane persons, and persons not known, or not in being, who cannot act for themselves, said:

These remarks in reference to in facts, insane persons and person not known, or not in being, apply to the beneficiaries of charities, who are often in capable of vindicating their rights, and justly look for protection to the sovereign authority, acting as parens patriae. They show that this beneficient functions has not ceased t exist under the change of government from a monarchy to a republic; but that it now resides in the legislative department, ready to be called into exercise whenever required for the purposes of justice and right, and is a clearly capable of being exercised in cases of charities as in any other cases whatever.

In People vs. Cogswell (113 Cal. 129, 130), it was urged that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest; that the Attorney-General had no power to institute the action; and that there must be an allegation and proof of a distinct right of the people as a whole, as distinguished from the rights of individuals, before an action could be brought by the Attorney-General in the name of the people. The court, in overruling these contentions, held that it was not only the right but the duty of the Attorney-General to prosecute the action, which related to charities, and approved the following quotation from Attorney-General vs. Compton (1 Younge & C. C., 417):

Where property affected by a trust for public purposes is in the hands of those who hold it devoted to that trust, it is the privilege of the public that the crown should be entitled to intervene by its officers for the purpose of asserting, on behalf on the public generally, the public interest and the public right, which, probably, no individual could be found effectually to assert, even if the interest were such as to allow it. (2 Knet's Commentaries, 10th ed., 359; Lewin on Trusts, sec. 732.)

It is further urged, as above indicated, that "the only persons who could claim to be damaged by this payment to the Monte, if it was unlawful, are the donors or the cestuis que trustent, and this Government is neither. Consequently, the plaintiff is not the proper party to bring the action." The earthquake fund was the result or the accumulation of a great number of small contributions. The names of the contributors do not appear in the record. Their whereabouts are unknown. They parted with the title to their respective contributions. The beneficiaries, consisting of the original sufferers and their heirs, could have been ascertained. They are quite numerous also. And no doubt a large number of the original sufferers have died, leaving various heirs. It would be impracticable for them to institute an action or actions either individually or collectively to recover the $80,000. The only course that can be satisfactorily pursued is for the Government to again assume control of the fund and devote it to the object for which it was originally destined.

The impracticability of pursuing a different course, however, is not the true ground upon which the right of the Government to maintain the action rests. The true ground is that the money being given to a charity became, in a measure, public property, only applicable, it is true, to the specific purposes to which it was intended to be devoted, but within those limits consecrated to the public use, and became part of the public resources for promoting the happiness and welfare of the Philippine Government. (Mormon Church vs. U. S., supra.) To deny the Government's right to maintain this action would be contrary to sound public policy, as tending to discourage the prompt exercise of similar acts of humanity and Christian benevolence in like instances in the future.

As to the question raised in the fourth assignment of error relating to the constitutionality of Act No. 2109, little need be said for the reason that we have just held that the present Philippine Government is the proper party to the action. The Act is only a manifestation on the part of the Philippine Government to exercise the power or right which it undoubtedly had. The Act is not, as contended by counsel, in conflict with the fifth section of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, because it does not take property without due process of law. In fact, the defendant is not the owner of the $80,000, but holds it as a loan subject to the disposal of the central relief board. Therefor, there can be nothing in the Act which transcends the power of the Philippine Legislature.

In Vilas vs. Manila, supra, the plaintiff was a creditor of the city of Manila as it existed before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States by the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898. The action was brought upon the theory that the city, under its present charter from the Government of the Philippine Islands, was the same juristic person, and liable upon the obligations of the old city. This court held that the present municipality is a totally different corporate entity and in no way liable for the debts of the Spanish municipality. The Supreme Court of the United States, in reversing this judgment and in holding the city liable for the old debt, said:

The juristic identity of the corporation has been in no wise affected, and, in law, the present city is, in every legal sense, the successor of the old. As such it is entitled to the property and property rights of the predecessor corporation, and is, in law, subject to all of its liabilities.

In support of the fifth assignment of error counsel for the defendant argue that as the Monte de Piedad declined to return the $80,000 when ordered to do so by the Department of Finance in June, 1893, the plaintiff's right of action had prescribed at the time this suit was instituted on May 3, 1912, citing and relying upon article 1961, 1964 and 1969 of the Civil Code. While on the other hand, the Attorney-General contends that the right of action had not prescribed (a) because the defense of prescription cannot be set up against the Philippine Government, (b) because the right of action to recover a deposit or trust funds does not prescribe, and (c) even if the defense of prescription could be interposed against the Government and if the action had, in fact, prescribed, the same was revived by Act No. 2109.

The material facts relating to this question are these: The Monte de Piedad received the $80,000 in 1883 "to be held under the same conditions as at present in the treasury, to wit, at the disposal of the relief board." In compliance with the provisions of the royal order of December 3, 1892, the Department of Finance called upon the Monte de Piedad in June, 1893, to return the $80,000. The Monte declined to comply with this order upon the ground that only the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement. The amount was carried on the books of the Monte as a returnable loan until January 1, 1899, when it was transferred to the account of the "Sagrada Mitra." On March 31, 1902, the Monte, through its legal representative, stated in writing that the amount in question was received as a reimbursable loan, without interest. Act No. 2109 became effective January 30, 1912, and the action was instituted on May 3rd of that year.

Counsel for the defendant treat the question of prescription as if the action was one between individuals or corporations wherein the plaintiff is seeking to recover an ordinary loan. Upon this theory June, 1893, cannot be taken as the date when the statute of limitations began to run, for the reason that the defendant acknowledged in writing on March 31, 1902, that the $80,000 were received as a loan, thereby in effect admitting that it still owed the amount. (Section 50, Code of Civil Procedure.) But if counsels' theory is the correct one the action may have prescribed on May 3, 1912, because more than ten full years had elapsed after March 31, 1902. (Sections 38 and 43, Code of Civil Procedure.)

Is the Philippine Government bound by the statute of limitations? The Supreme Court of the United States in U. S. vs. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. (118 U. S., 120, 125), said:

It is settled beyond doubt or controversy — upon the foundation of the great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided — that the United States, asserting rights vested in it as a sovereign government, is not bound by any statute of limitations, unless Congress has clearly manifested its intention that it should be so bound. (Lindsey vs. Miller, 6 Pet. 666; U. S. vs. Knight, 14 Pet., 301; Gibson vs. Chouteau, 13 Wall., 92; U. S. vs. Thompson, 98 U. S., 486; Fink vs. O'Neil, 106 U. S., 272, 281.)

In Gibson vs. Choteau, supra, the court said:

It is a matter of common knowledge that statutes of limitation do not run against the State. That no laches can be imputed to the King, and that no time can bar his rights, was the maxim of the common laws, and was founded on the principle of public policy, that as he was occupied with the cares of government he ought not to suffer from the negligence of his officer and servants. The principle is applicable to all governments, which must necessarily act through numerous agents, and is essential to a preservation of the interests and property of the public. It is upon this principle that in this country the statutes of a State prescribing periods within which rights must be prosecuted are not held to embrace the State itself, unless it is expressly designated or the mischiefs to be remedied are of such a nature that it must necessarily be included. As legislation of a State can only apply to persons and thing over which the State has jurisdiction, the United States are also necessarily excluded from the operation of such statutes.

In 25 Cyc., 1006, the rule, supported by numerous authorities, is stated as follows:

In the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary, statute of limitations do not as a general rule run against the sovereign or government, whether state or federal. But the rule is otherwise where the mischiefs to be remedied are of such a nature that the state must necessarily be included, where the state goes into business in concert or in competition with her citizens, or where a party seeks to enforces his private rights by suit in the name of the state or government, so that the latter is only a nominal party.

In the instant case the Philippine Government is not a mere nominal party because it, in bringing and prosecuting this action, is exercising its sovereign functions or powers and is seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States. The United States having in 1852, purchased as trustee for the Chickasaw Indians under treaty with that tribe, certain bonds of the State of Tennessee, the right of action of the Government on the coupons of such bonds could not be barred by the statute of limitations of Tennessee, either while it held them in trust for the Indians, or since it became the owner of such coupons. (U. S. vs. Nashville, etc., R. Co., supra.) So where lands are held in trust by the state and the beneficiaries have no right to sue, a statute does not run against the State's right of action for trespass on the trust lands. (Greene Tp. vs. Campbell, 16 Ohio St., 11; see also Atty.-Gen. vs. Midland R. Co., 3 Ont., 511 [following Reg. vs. Williams, 39 U. C. Q. B., 397].)

These principles being based "upon the foundation of the great principle of public policy" are, in the very nature of things, applicable to the Philippine Government.

Counsel in their argument in support of the sixth and last assignments of error do not question the amount of the judgment nor do they question the correctness of the judgment in so far as it allows interest, and directs its payment in gold coin or in the equivalent in Philippine currency.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur.Moreland, J., did not sign

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-60403 August 3, 1983

ALLIANCE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS (AGW); PNB-FEMA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW); KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG MWSS (AGW); BALARA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW); GSIS WORKERS ASSOCIATION (AGW); SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW); PVTA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW); NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS AND OFFICE WORKERS (AGW); , petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (PNB); METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS); GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS); SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS); PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION (PVTA) PHILIPPINE NORMAL COLLEGE (PNC); POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (PUP), respondents.

The Solicitor General for MOLE, PNB, SSS, PNC and PUP.

Oliver Gesmundo for petitioners.

Jesus C. Gentiles for petitioner SSSEA-AGW.

 

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Are the branches, agencies, subdivisions, and instrumentalities of the Government, including government owned or controlled corporations included among the 4 "employers"" under Presidential Decree No. 851 which are required to pay an their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, a thirteenth (13th) month pay not later than December 24 of every year?

Petitioner Alliance of Government Workers (AGW) is a registered labor federation while the other petitioners are its affiliate unions with members from among the employees of the following offices, schools, or government owned or controlled corporations:

1. Philippine National Bank (PNB) Escolta Street, Manila

2. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) Katipunan Road, Balara, Quezon City

3. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Arroceros Street, Manila

4. Social Security System (SSS) East Avenue, Quezon City

5. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) Consolacion Building, Cubao, Quezon City

6. Philippine Normal College (PNC) Ayala Boulevard, Manila

7. Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) Hippodromo Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila

On February 28, 1983, the Philippine Government Employees Association (PGEA) filed a motion to come in as an additional petitioner.

Presidential Decree No. 851 provides in its entirety:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to further protect the level of real f wages from the ravage of world-wide inflation;

WHEREAS, there has been no increase case in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970;

WHEREAS, the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution do hereby decree as follows:

SECTION 1. All employers are hereby required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than Pl,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year.

SECTION 2. Employers already paying their employees a 13th-month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree.

SECTION 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately. Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of December 1975.

According to the petitioners, P.D. No. 851 requires all employers to pay the 13th-month pay to their employees with one sole exception found in Section 2 which states that "(E)mployers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree. " The petitioners contend that Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 included other types of employers not exempted by the decree. They state that nowhere in the decree is the secretary, now Minister of Labor and Employment, authorized to exempt other types of employers from the requirement.

Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 provides:

Section 3. Employers covered — The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:

a) Distressed employers, such as (1) those which are currently incurring substantial losses or 112) in the case of non-profit institutions and organizations, where their income, whether from donations, contributions, grants and other earnings from any source, has consistently declined by more than forty (40%) per cent of their normal income for the last two (2) )years, subject to the provision of Section 7 of this issuance.

b) The Government and any of its political subdivisions, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except)t those corporation, operating essentially as private, ,subsidiaries of the government;

c) Employers already paying their employees 13th-month pay or more in a calendar year or its equivalent at the of this issuance;

d) Employers of household helpers and persons in the personal service of another in relation to such workers: and

e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis and those who are paid a fixed for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the workers are paid an piece- rate basis in which case the employer shall be covered by this issuance :insofar ab such workers are concerned ...

The petitioners assail this rule as ultra vires and void. Citing Philippine Apparel Workers'Union v. NIRC et al., (106 SCRA 444); Teoxon v. Members of the Board of' Administators (33 SCRA 585); Santos u. Hon. Estenzo et al., (109 Phil. 419); Hilado u. Collector of Internal Revenue (100 Phil. 288), and Olsen & Co. Inc. v. Aldanese and Trinidad (43 Phil. 259), the petitioners argue that regulations adopted under legislative authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the law and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. They state that a legislative act cannot be amended by a rule and an administrative officer cannot change the law. Section 3 is challenged as a substantial modification by rule of a Presidential Decree and an unlawful exercise of legislative power.

Our initial reaction was to deny due course to the petition in a minute resolution, however, considering the important issues propounded and the fact, that constitutional principles are involved, we have now decided to give due course to the petition, to consider the various comments as answers and to resolve the questions raised through a full length decision in the exercise of this Court's symbolic function as an aspect of the power of judicial review.

At the outset, the petitioners are faced with a procedural barrier. The petition is one for declaratory relief, an action not embraced within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Remotigue v. Osmena,, Jr., 21 SCRA 837; Rural Bank of Olongapo v. Commission of Land Registration, 102 SCRA 794; De la Llana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294). There is no statutory or jurisprudential basis for the petitioners' statement that the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over declaratory relief suits where only questions of law are involved. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. The petitioners have not pointed to any provision of the Constitution or statute which sustains their sweeping assertion. On this ground alone, the petition could have been dismissed outright.

Following similar action taken in Nacionalista Party v. Angelo Bautista (85 Phil. 101) and Aquino v. Commission on Elections (62 SCRA 275) we have, however, decided to treat the petition as one for mandamus. The petition has far reaching implications and raises questions that should be resolved. Have the respondents unlawfully excluded the petitioners from the use and enjoyment of rights to which they are entitled under the law?

An analysis of the "whereases" of P.D. No. 851 shows that the President had in mind only workers in private employment when he issued the decree. There was no intention to cover persons working in the government service. The decree states:

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970;

xxx xxx xxx

As pointed out by the Solicitor General in his comment for the Minister of Labor and Employment, the Social Security System the Philippine Normal College, and Polytechnic University, the contention that govermment owned and controlled corporations and state colleges and universities are covered by the term "all employers" is belied by the nature of the 13- month pay and the intent behind the decree.

The Solicitor General states:

"Presidential Decree No. 851 is a labor standard law which requires covered employers to pay their employees receiving not more than P1,000.00 a month an additional thirteenth-month pay. Its purpose is to increase the real wage of the worker (Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Ople, 105 SCRA 75; and National Federation of Sugar Workers v. Ovejera, G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982) as explained in the'whereas'clause which read:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to further protect the level of real wages from the ravage of world-wide inflation;

WHEREAS, there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970; 11

WHEREAS, the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses so they may celebrate the Christmas and New Year.

xxx xxx xxx

What the P.D. No. 851 intended to cover, as explained in the prefatory statement of the Decree, are only those in the private sector whose real wages require protection from world-wide inflation. This is emphasized by the "whereas" clause which states that 'there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970'. This could only refer to the private sector, and not to those in the government service because at the time of the enactment of Presidential Decree No. 851 in 1975, only the employees in the private sector had not been given any increase in their minimum wage. The employees in the government service had already been granted in 1974 a ten percent across-the-board increase on their salaries as stated in P.D. No. 525, Section 4.

Moreover, where employees in the government service were to benefit from labor standard laws, their coverage is explicitly stated in the statute or presidential enactment. This is evident in (a) Presidential Decree No. 390, Sec. 1 which granted emergency cost of living allowance to employees in the national government; (b) Republic Act No. 6111, Sec. 10 on medicare benefits; (c) Presidential Decree No -442, Title II, Article 97 on the applicable minimum wage rates; (d) Presidential Decree No. 442, Title 11, Article 167 (g) on workmen's compensation; (e) Presidential Decree No. 1123 which provides for increases in emergency allowance to employees in the private sector and in salary to government employees in Section 2 thereof; and (f) Executive Order No. 752 granting government employees a year-end bonus equivalent to one week's pay. Thus, had the intention been to include government employees under the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 851, said Decree should have expressly so provided and there should have been accompanying yearly appropriation measures to implement the same. That no such express provision was provided and no accompanying appropriation measure to was passed clearly show the intent to exclude government employees from the coverage of P. D. No. 85 1.

We agree.

It is an old rule of statutory construction that restrictive statutes and acts which impose burdens on the public treasury or which diminish rights and interests, no matter how broad their terms do not embrace the Sovereign, unless the Sovereign is specifically mentioned. (See Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall

(U.S.) 227; United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 265). The Republic of the Philippines, as sovereign, cannot be covered by a general term like "employer" unless the language used in the law is clear and specific to that effect.

The issue raised in this petition, however, is more basic and fundamental than a mere ascertainment of intent or a construction of statutory provisions. It is concerned with a revisiting of the traditional classification of government employment into governmental functions and proprietary functions and of the many ramifications that this dichotomous treatment presents in the handling of concerted activities, collective bargaining, and strikes by government employees to wrest concessions in compensation, fringe benefits, hiring and firing, and other terms and conditions of employment.

The workers in the respondent institutions have not directly petitioned the heads of their respective offices nor their representatives in the Batasang Pambansa. They have acted through a labor federation and its affiliated unions. In other words, the workers and employees of these state firms, college, and university are taking collective action through a labor federation which uses the bargaining power of organized labor to secure increased compensation for its members.

Under the present state of the law and pursuant to the express language of the Constitution, this resort to concerted activity with the ever present threat of a strike can no longer be allowed.

The general rule in the past and up to the present is that "the terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof are governed by law" (Section 11, the Industrial Peace Act, R.A. No. 875, as amended and Article 277, the Labor Code, P.D. No. 442, as amended). Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers. The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. In government employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment. And this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through collective bargaining agreements.

At the same time, the old Industrial Peace Act excepted employees and workers in proprietary functions of government from the above compulsion of law. Thus, in the past, government employees performing proprietary functions could belong to labor organizations imposing the obligation to join in strikes or engage in other concerted action. (Section 11, R.A. 875, as amended). They could and they did engage in concerted activities and various strikes against government owned and controlled corporations and other government institutions discharging proprietary functions. Among the institutions as falling under the exception in Section 11 of the Industrial Peace Act were respondents Government Service Insurance System (GSISEA v. Alvendia, 108 Phil. 505) and Social Security System (SSSEA v. Soriano, 7 SCRA 1016). And this Court has supported labor completely in the various strikes and concerted activities in firms and agencies discharging proprietary functions because the Constitution and the laws allowed these activities.

The exception, however belongs to the past.

The petitioners state in their counter comment filed July 23, 1982 that the 1973 Constitution is categorical about the grant of the rights to self- organization and collective bargaining to all workers and that no amount of stretched interpretation of lesser laws like the Labor Code and the Civil Service Act can overturn the clear message of the Constitution with respect to these rights to self-organization and collective bargaining.

These statements of the petitioners are error insofar as government workers are now concerned.

Under the present Constitution, govemment-owned or controlled corporations are specifically mentioned as embraced by the civil service. (Section 1, Article XII-B, Constitution). The inclusion of the clause "including every government owned or controlled corporation" in the 1973 amendments to the Constitution was a deliberate amendment for an express purpose. There may be those who disagree with the intent of the framers of the amendment but because it is fundamental law, we are all bound by it. The amendment was intended to correct the situation where more favored employees of the government could enjoy the benefits of two worlds. They were protected by the laws governing government employment. They could also engage in collective bargaining and join in strikes to secure higher wages and fringe benefits which equally hardworking employees engaged in government functions could only envy but not enjoy.

Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines has implemented the 1973 Constitutional amendment. It is categorical about the inclusion of personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations in the civil service and their being subject to civil service requirements:

SECTION 56. Government- owned or Controlled Corporations Personnel.—All permanent personnel of government- owned or controlled corporations whose positions are now embraced in the civil service shall continue in the service until they have been given a chance to qualify in an appropriate examination, but in the meantime, those who do not possess the appropriate civil service eligibility shall not be promoted until they qualify in an appropriate civil service examination. Services of temporary personnel ma be y terminated any time.

Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations are now part of the civil service. It would not be fair to allow them to engage in concerted activities to wring higher salaries or fringe benefits from Government even as other civil service personnel such as the hundreds of thousands of public school teachers, soldiers, policemen, health personnel, and other government workers are denied the right to engage in similar activities.

To say that the words "all employers" in P.D. No. 851 includes the Government and all its agencies, instrumentalities, and government-owned or controlled corporations would also result in nightmarish budgetary problems.

For instance, the Supreme Court is trying its best to alleviate the financial difficulties of courts, judges, and court personnel in the entire country but it can do so only within the limits of budgetary appropriations. Public school teachers have been resorting to what was formerly unthinkable, to mass leaves and demonstrations, to get not a 13th-month pay but promised increases in basic salaries and small allowances for school uniforms. The budget of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports has to be supplemented every now and then for this purpose. The point is, salaries and fringe benefits of those embraced by the civil service are fixed by law. Any increases must come from law, from appropriations or savings under the law, and not from concerted activity.

The Government Corporate Counsel, Justice Manuel Lazaro, in his consolidated comment * for respondents GSIS, MWSS, and PVTA gives the background of the amendment which includes every government-owned or controlled corporation in the embrace of the civil service:

Records of the 1971 Constitutional Convention show that in the deliberations held relative to what is now Section 1(1) Article XII-B, supra the issue of the inclusion of government-owned or controlled corporations figured prominently.

The late delegate Roberto S. Oca, a recognized labor leader, vehemently objected to the inclusion of government-owned or controlled corporations in the Civil Service. He argued that such inclusion would put asunder the right of workers in government corporations, recognized in jurisprudence under the 1935 Constitution, to form and join labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining with their employers in the same manner as in the private section (see: records of 1971 Constitutional Convention).

In contrast, other labor experts and delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention enlightened the members of the Committee on Labor on the divergent situation of government workers under the 1935 Constitution, and called for its rectification. Thus, in a Position Paper dated November-

22, 1971, submitted to the Committee on Labor, 1971 Constitutional Convention, then Acting Commissioner of Civil Service Epi Rev Pangramuyen declared:

It is the stand, therefore, of this Commission that by reason of the nature of the public employer and the peculiar character of the public service, it must necessarily regard the right to strike given to unions in private industry as not applying to public employees and civil service employees. It has been stated that the Government, in contrast to the private employer, protects the interests of all people in the public service, and that accordingly, such conflicting interests as are present in private labor relations could not exist in the relations between government and those whom they employ.

Moreover, determination of employment conditions as well as supervision of the management of the public service is in the hands of legislative bodies. It is further emphasized that government agencies in the performance of their duties have a right to demand undivided allegiance from their workers and must always maintain a pronounced esprit de corps or firm discipline among their staff members. It would be highly incompatible with these requirements of the public service, if personnel took orders from union leaders or put solidarity with members of the working class above solidarity with the Government. This would be inimical to the public interest.

Moreover, it is asserted that public employees by joining labor unions may be compelled to support objectives which are political in nature and thus jeopardize the fundamental principle that the governmental machinery must be impartial and non-political in the sense of party politics.' (see: Records of 1971 Constitutional Convention).

Similarly, Delegate Leandro P. Garcia, expressing support for the inclusion of government-owned or controlled corporations in the Civil Service, argued:

It is meretricious to contend that because Govermnent owned or controlled corporations yield profits, their employees are entitled to better wages and fringe benefits than employees of Government other than Government- owned and controlled cor orations which are not making profits. There is no gainsaying the fact that the capital they use is the people's (see Records of the 1971 Constitutional Convention).

Summarizing the deliberations of the 1971 Constitutional Convention on the inclusion of Government owned or controlled corporations, Dean Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ., of the Ateneo de Manila University Professional School of Law, stated that government-owned corporations came under attack as milking cows of a privileged few enjoying salaries far higher than their counterparts in the various branches of government, while the capital of these corporations belongs to the Government and government money is pumped into them whenever on the brink of disaster, and they should therefore come under the strick surveillance of the Civil Service System. (Bernas, The 1973 Philippine Constitution, Notes and Cases, 1974 ed., p. 524).

The Government Corporate Counsel cites the precedent setting decision in Agricultural- Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA v. Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offtces CUGCO et al., 30 SCRA 649) as giving the rationale for coverage of government-owned or controlled corporations by the civil service. We stated ACCFA v. CUGCO that:

... The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions may not be strictly what President Wilson described as "constituent" (as distinguished from 'ministrant'), [Bacani vs. National Coconut Corporation, G.R. No. L-9657, Nov.

29,1956, 53 O.G. p. 2800] such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations. Under this traditional classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people these latter functions being ministrant, the exercise of which is optional on the part of the government.

The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only "because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals," (Malcolm, The Government of the Philippines, pp. 19-20; Bacani vs. National Coconut Corporation, supra) continue to lose their well- defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces, Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social justice.

Chief Justice Fernando, then an Associate Justice of this Court, observed in a concurring opinion that the traditional classification into constituent and ministrant functions reflects the primacy at that time of the now discredited and repudiated laissez faire concept carried over into government. He stated:

The influence exerted by American constitutional doctrines unavoidable when the Philippines was still under American rule notwithstanding, an influence that has not altogether vanished even after independence, the laissez faire principle never found fun acceptance in this jurisdiction, even during the period of its full flowering in the United States. Moreover, to erase any doubts, the Constitutional Convention saw to it that our fundamental law embodies a policy of the responsibility thrust on government to cope with social and economic problems and an earnest and sincere commitment to the promotion of the general welfare through state action. It would thus follow that the force of any legal objection to regulatory measures adversely affecting property rights or to statutes organizing public corporations that may engage in competition with private enterprise has been blunted. Unless there be a clear showing of any invasion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, their validity is a foregone conclusion. No fear need be entertained that thereby spheres hitherto deemed outside government domain have been encroached upon. With our explicit disavowal of the 'constituent-ministrant' test, the ghost of the laissez-faire concept no longer stalks the juridical stage."

Our dismissal of this petiti/n should not, by any means, be interpreted to imply that workers in government-owned and controlled corporations or in state colleges and universities may not enjoy freedom of association. The workers whom the petitioners purport to represent have the right, which may not be abridged, to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. (Constitution, Article IV, Section 7). This is a right which share with all public officers and employees and, in fact, by everybody living in this country. But they may not join associations which impose the obligation to engage in concerted activities in order to get salaries, fringe benefits, and other emoluments higher than or different frm that provided by law and regulation.�

The very Labor Code, P.D. No. 442 as amended,, which governs the registration and provides for the rights of legitimate labor organizations states:

ART. 277. Government employees.— The terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. Their salaries shall be standardized by the National Assembly as provided for in the new constitution. However, there shall be no reduction of existing wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment being enjoyed by them at the time of the adoption of this code.

Section 6, Article XII-B of the Constitution gives added reasons why the government employees represented by the petitioners cannot expect treatment in matters of salaries different from that extended to all others government personnel. The provision states:

SEC. 6. The National Assembly shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, taking into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for the positions concerned.

It is the legislature or, in proper cases, the administrative heads of government and not the collective bargaining process nor the concessions wrung by labor unions from management that determine how much the workers in government-owned or controlled corporations may receive in terms of salaries, 13th month pay, and other conditions or terms of employment. There are government institutions which can afford to pay two weeks, three weeks, or even 13th-month salaries to their personnel from their budgetary appropriations. However, these payments must be pursuant to law or regulation. Presidential Decree No. 985 as amended provides:

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.— It is hereby declared to be the policy, of the national government to provide equal pay for substantially, equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions. In determining rates of pay, due regard shall be given to, among others, prevailing rates in private industry for comparable work. For this purpose, there is hereby established a system of compensation standardization and position classification in the national government for all departments, bureaus, agencies, and officers including government-owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions: Provided, That notwithstanding a standardized salary system established for all employees, additional financial incentives may be established by government corporations and financial institutions for their employees to be supported fully from their corporate funds and for such technical positions as may be approved by the President in critical government agencies.

The Solicitor-General correctly points out that to interpret P.D. No. 851 as including government employees would upset the compensation levels of government employees in violation of those fixed according to P.D. No. 985.

Here as in other countries, government salaries and wages have always been lower than salaries, wages, and bonuses in the private sector. However, civil servants have no cause for despair. Service in the government may at times be a sacrifice but it is also a welcome privilege. Apart from the emotional and psychic satisfactions, there are various material advantages. The security of tenure guaranteed to those in the civil service by the Constitution and statutes, the knowledge that one is working for the most stable of employers and not for private persons, the merit system in appointments and promotions, the scheme of vacation, sick, and maternity leave privileges, and the prestige and dignity associated with public office are only a few of the joys of government employment.

Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 is, therefore, a correct interpretation of the decree. It has been implemented and enforced from December 22, 1975 to the present, The petitioners have shown no valid reason why it should be nullified because of their petition filed six and a half years after the issuance and implementation of the rule.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero Relova, JJ., concur.

Aquino, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur in the result.

 

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring pro hac vice:

The pluralityopinion for the Court of Justice Gutierrez, Jr. and the dissent of Justice Makasiar are to be commended for their scholarship and comprehensiveness.

The approach taken by opinion of the Court is distinguished by its conformity to the prevailing doctrine of statutory construction that unless so specified, the government does not fall within the terms of any legislation or decree. There is an equally compelling force to the reliance by Justice Makasiar on the social justice mandate and the protection to labor provision of the Constitution.

If therefore I cannot sibsribe to such a dissent, it is due to the presence of two other constitutional provisions, which in this case exert a countervailing thrust. The first is found in the first section of Article XIII: This: " Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and shall remain accountable to the people. 1

If, as is correctly pointed out in the opinion of Justice Gutierrez, Jr., the scope of government functions has 'expanded with the emphasis on the state being a welfare or a service agency, petitioner labor unions, insofar as they would assert rights ordinarily enjoyed by workers in private firms, cannot be sustained. It seems clear to me that under the Constitution there can be no right to strike by them nor to take a mass leave which is a way of doing indirectly what is not legally allowable,

This approach to my mind is reinforced by this other constitutional provision: "The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation. " 2 That makes it evident that the personnel of the government, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, can petition for redress of grievances or seek the improvement of their working conditions and increase their wages.

To repeat, though, there can be no reliance on concerted labor activities of employees in private firms. The opinion of the Court speaks with clarity. Thus: "Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers. The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. " 3

The distinction in the situation of government employees and those employed in private firms is emphasized in this manner: "In government employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment. and this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through collective bargaining agreements. " 4

The assumption implicit in the Constitution is that the political branches would not be heedless of legitimate demands of government personnel for measures intended for their welfare. It is manifest that the increase in wages is one of them. At this time, as pointed out in the dissent, "the savages of inflation " are easily discernible. They have not spared those working for the government. 5

If, as held by the Court then, Presidential Decree No. 851 cannot be so construed to include government personnel, that, for me, is not the end of the matter. There is Presidential Decree No. 985, cited in the opinion to fall back on. It affords the appropriate remedy, Nor is there any doubt in my mind that it would be properly implemented.

On matters that where not only by law and practice but also by legitimate expectations, the Administration can act adequately and fairly, there being due responsiveness to the pleas of labor, there is wisdom as well as conformity to law in the ruling that resort to the judiciary be made only after full exhaustion of administrative remedies,

The decision of the Court can be so read. In that light, the just claims of labor to social justice and to government protection would be granted.

I therefore concur pro hac vice.

Teehankee, J., I concur with the dissent of Justice Makasiar.

 

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:

The petition should be granted.

Presidential Decree No. 851 promulgated on December 16, 1975 reads thus:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to further protect the level of real wages from the ravage of world-wide inflation;

WHEREAS, there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970;

WHEREAS, the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses, so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution do hereby decree as follows:

SECTION 1. All employers are hereby required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than 11,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year.

SEC. 2. Employers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree.

SEC. 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately" (italics supplied).

Section 3 of the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Labor implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 states:

Section 3, Employers covered — The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:

a) Distressed employers, such as (1) those which are currently incurring substantial losses or (2) in the case of non-profit institutions and organizations, where their income, whether from donations, contributions, grants and other earnings from any source, has consistently declined by more than forty (40%) percent of their normal income for the last two (2) years, subject to the provision of Section 7 of this issuance;

b) The Government and any of its political subdivisions, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except those corporations operating essentially as private subsidiaries of the Government;

c) Employers already paying their employees 13th month pay or more in a calendar year or its equivalent at the time of this issuance;

d) Employers of household helpers and persons in the personal service of another in relation to such workers; and

e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the workers are i)aid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer shall be covered by this issuance insofar as such workers are concerned..." (Emphasis supplied).

It will be noted that the aforesaid Presidential Decree No. 851 provides only one exception in its Section 2, to wit: "Employers already paying their employees a 13th-month pay or its equivalent... " Hence, all other employers, whether of the private sectors or of government-owned and - controlled corporations and government agencies, are thereunder obligated to pay their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24th of every year.

But the implementing rule added four (4) exempted employers.

Petitioners are correct in challenging the aforesaid implementing rule as ultra vires and therefore void, following the principle established iii Philippine Apparel Workers' Union v. NLRC, et al. (106 SCRA 444), Teoxon v. Members of the Board of Administrators (33 SCRA 585), Santos v. Hon. Estenzo, et al. (109 Phil. 419), Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue (100 Phil. 288), and Olsen & Co., Inc. v. Aldanese and Trinidad (43 Phil. 259). it is patent that the Minister of Labor and Employment assumed the authority to legislate by amending the decree and promulgated Section 3 of the implementing rules, which is not a valid subordinate regulation by any standard.

WE cannot subscribe to the view taken by respondents through their counsel that the intention of the President in promulgating Presidential Decree No. 851 was to favor only employees of the private sector, relying merely on the second "WHEREAS" stating that "there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970" and conveniently omitting the other two "WHEREASES " that " It is necessary to further protect the level of real wages from the ravage of world-wide inflation" and that "the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year" (Emphasis suspplied).

All three "WHEREASES" are the premises of the decree requiring all employers to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, "regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year." All the working masses, without exception-whether of the private sector or government agencies, instrumentalities, including government- owned and -controlled corporations-are also suffering from the ravages of world-wide inflation and are likewise entitled to properly celebrate Christmas and New Year every year.

If the President intended to favor only employees of the private sector, he could have easily inserted the phrase "in the private sector between the words "wages" and "from" in the first WHEREAS, and between the words masses" and "so" in the third WHEREAS; or the President could have included the other four classes of employers in the questioned Section 3 (paragraphs a, b, d and e) of the implementing rule, which the Minister of Labor included with such ease and facility.

Instead of exercising by himself the power to amend Presidential Decree No. 851, the Minister of Labor should and could have drafted the proposed amendments for the signature of the President or for the approval of the Batasang Pambansa.

Moreover, the position taken by public respondents is repugnant to the social justice guarantee lender the new Constitution expressed in Section 6 of Article 11 thereof, which provides:

See. 6. The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people. Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits (Emphasis supplied).

The afore-quoted guarantee commands the State to "promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare and security of all the people..." and to "equitably diffuse... profits. "The laboring masses of the government- owned and -controlled agencies are entitled to such dignity, welfare and security as well as an equitable share in the profits of respondents which will inevitably contribute to enhancing their dignity, welfare and security, as much as those of the workers and employees of the private sector.

The fact that Section 3 of the implementing rules of the Ministry of Labor has been enforced from December 22, 1975 to the present, does not justify the denial of the right of the members of the petitioners to insist on the compliance by respondents with Presidential Decree No. 851.

Neither estoppel nor implied waiver can be interposed against the claim of petitioners. Any waiver of the right of laborers and employees is frowned upon by the law and the requisites of estoppel are not present in the case at bar, even assuming argumenti gratia, that estoppel is a valid defense against a compensation claim of labor.

The basic rule is that all doubts should be interpreted in favor of labor.

Furthermore, to deny the petitioners the right to 13th month pay secured to them by Presidential Decree No. 851, would render the State culpable of failing to "afford protection to labor, promote... equality in employment,..." as well as "just and humane conditions of work." It is not just to deprive them of the right accorded by Presidential Decree No. 851 by limiting the enjoyment thereof only to employees of the private sector. It would be rank and odious discrimination condemned by the equal protection clause of the Constitution as there is no substantial basis therefor. Both the employees of the respondents and the employees of the private sector are similarly situated and have collective bargaining agreements with their respective employers.

To repeat, the employees of the private sector and those of the private respondents are all workers without any essential or material distinction between them insofar as the right to the 13th-month pay is concerned.

I therefore vote to grant the petition.

Aquino, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., in the result.

Abad Santos, J., took no part.

Vasquez, De Castro, J., is on leave.

Escolin, J., reserve my vote.

 

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring pro hac vice:

The pluralityopinion for the Court of Justice Gutierrez, Jr. and the dissent of Justice Makasiar are to be commended for their scholarship and comprehensiveness.

The approach taken by opinion of the Court is distinguished by its conformity to the prevailing doctrine of statutory construction that unless so specified, the government does not fall within the terms of any legislation or decree. There is an equally compelling force to the reliance by Justice Makasiar on the social justice mandate and the protection to labor provision of the Constitution.

If therefore I cannot sibsribe to such a dissent, it is due to the presence of two other constitutional provisions, which in this case exert a countervailing thrust. The first is found in the first section of Article XIII: This: " Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and shall remain accountable to the people. 1

If, as is correctly pointed out in the opinion of Justice Gutierrez, Jr., the scope of government functions has 'expanded with the emphasis on the state being a welfare or a service agency, petitioner labor unions, insofar as they would assert rights ordinarily enjoyed by workers in private firms, cannot be sustained. It seems clear to me that under the Constitution there can be no right to strike by them nor to take a mass leave which is a way of doing indirectly what is not legally allowable,

This approach to my mind is reinforced by this other constitutional provision: "The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the Government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation. " 2 That makes it evident that the personnel of the government, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, can petition for redress of grievances or seek the improvement of their working conditions and increase their wages.

To repeat, though, there can be no reliance on concerted labor activities of employees in private firms. The opinion of the Court speaks with clarity. Thus: "Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their employers. The principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum requirements of wage

laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and conditions of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the process of collective bargaining. " 3

The distinction in the situation of government employees and those employed in private firms is emphasized in this manner: "In government employment, however, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the administrative heads of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment. and this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through collective bargaining agreements. " 4

The assumption implicit in the Constitution is that the political branches would not be heedless of legitimate demands of government personnel for measures intended for their welfare. It is manifest that the increase in wages is one of them. At this time, as pointed out in the dissent, "the savages of inflation " are easily discernible. They have not spared those working for the government. 5

If, as held by the Court then, Presidential Decree No. 851 cannot be so construed to include government personnel, that, for me, is not the end of the matter. There is Presidential Decree No. 985, cited in the opinion to fall back on. It affords the appropriate remedy, Nor is there any doubt in my mind that it would be properly implemented.

On matters that where not only by law and practice but also by legitimate expectations, the Administration can act adequately and fairly, there being due responsiveness to the pleas of labor, there is wisdom as well as conformity to law in the ruling that resort to the judiciary be made only after full exhaustion of administrative remedies,

The decision of the Court can be so read. In that light, the just claims of labor to social justice and to government protection would be granted.

I therefore concur pro hac vice.

Teehankee, J., I concur with the dissent of Justice Makasiar.

 

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:

The petition should be granted.

Presidential Decree No. 851 promulgated on December 16, 1975 reads thus:

WHEREAS, it is necessary to further protect the level of real wages from the ravage of world-wide inflation;

WHEREAS, there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates since 1970;

WHEREAS, the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses, so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution do hereby decree as follows:

SECTION 1. All employers are hereby required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than 11,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year.

SEC. 2. Employers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree.

SEC. 3. This Decree shall take effect immediately" (italics supplied).

Section 3 of the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Labor implementing Presidential Decree No. 851 states:

Section 3, Employers covered — The Decree shall apply to all employers except to:

a) Distressed employers, such as (1) those which are currently incurring substantial losses or (2) in the case of non-profit institutions and organizations, where their income, whether from donations, contributions, grants and other earnings from any source, has consistently declined by more than forty (40%) percent of their normal income for the last two (2) years, subject to the provision of Section 7 of this issuance;

b) The Government and any of its political subdivisions, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except those corporations operating essentially as private subsidiaries of the Government;

c) Employers already paying their employees 13th month pay or more in a calendar year or its equivalent at the time of this issuance;

d) Employers of household helpers and persons in the personal service of another in relation to such workers; and

e) Employers of those who are paid on purely commission, boundary, or task basis and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing a specific work, irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof, except where the workers are i)aid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer shall be covered by this issuance insofar as such workers are concerned..." (Emphasis supplied).

It will be noted that the aforesaid Presidential Decree No. 851 provides only one exception in its Section 2, to wit: "Employers already paying their employees a 13th-month pay or its equivalent... " Hence, all other employers, whether of the private sectors or of government-owned and - controlled corporations and government agencies, are thereunder obligated to pay their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24th of every year.

But the implementing rule added four (4) exempted employers.

Petitioners are correct in challenging the aforesaid implementing rule as ultra vires and therefore void, following the principle established iii Philippine Apparel Workers' Union v. NLRC, et al. (106 SCRA 444), Teoxon v. Members of the Board of Administrators (33 SCRA 585), Santos v. Hon. Estenzo, et al. (109 Phil. 419), Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue (100 Phil. 288), and Olsen & Co., Inc. v. Aldanese and Trinidad (43 Phil. 259). it is patent that the Minister of Labor and Employment assumed the authority to legislate by amending the decree and promulgated Section 3 of the implementing rules, which is not a valid subordinate regulation by any standard.

WE cannot subscribe to the view taken by respondents through their counsel that the intention of the President in promulgating Presidential Decree No. 851 was to favor only employees of the private sector, relying merely on the second "WHEREAS" stating that "there has been no increase in the legal minimum wage rates

since 1970" and conveniently omitting the other two "WHEREASES " that " It is necessary to further protect the level of real wages from the ravage of world-wide inflation" and that "the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year" (Emphasis suspplied).

All three "WHEREASES" are the premises of the decree requiring all employers to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, "regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year." All the working masses, without exception-whether of the private sector or government agencies, instrumentalities, including government- owned and -controlled corporations-are also suffering from the ravages of world-wide inflation and are likewise entitled to properly celebrate Christmas and New Year every year.

If the President intended to favor only employees of the private sector, he could have easily inserted the phrase "in the private sector between the words "wages" and "from" in the first WHEREAS, and between the words masses" and "so" in the third WHEREAS; or the President could have included the other four classes of employers in the questioned Section 3 (paragraphs a, b, d and e) of the implementing rule, which the Minister of Labor included with such ease and facility.

Instead of exercising by himself the power to amend Presidential Decree No. 851, the Minister of Labor should and could have drafted the proposed amendments for the signature of the President or for the approval of the Batasang Pambansa.

Moreover, the position taken by public respondents is repugnant to the social justice guarantee lender the new Constitution expressed in Section 6 of Article 11 thereof, which provides:

See. 6. The State shall promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people. Towards this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment, and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits (Emphasis supplied).

The afore-quoted guarantee commands the State to "promote social justice to ensure the dignity, welfare and security of all the people..." and to "equitably diffuse... profits. "The laboring masses of the government- owned and -controlled agencies are entitled to such dignity, welfare and security as well as an equitable share in the profits of respondents which will inevitably contribute to enhancing their dignity, welfare and security, as much as those of the workers and employees of the private sector.

The fact that Section 3 of the implementing rules of the Ministry of Labor has been enforced from December 22, 1975 to the present, does not justify the denial of the right of the members of the petitioners to insist on the compliance by respondents with Presidential Decree No. 851.

Neither estoppel nor implied waiver can be interposed against the claim of petitioners. Any waiver of the right of laborers and employees is frowned upon by the law and the requisites of estoppel are not present in the case at bar, even assuming argumenti gratia, that estoppel is a valid defense against a compensation claim of labor.

The basic rule is that all doubts should be interpreted in favor of labor.

Furthermore, to deny the petitioners the right to 13th month pay secured to them by Presidential Decree No. 851, would render the State culpable of failing to "afford protection to labor, promote... equality in employment,..." as well as "just and humane conditions of work." It is not just to deprive them of the right accorded by Presidential Decree No. 851 by limiting the enjoyment thereof only to employees of the private sector. It would be rank and odious discrimination

condemned by the equal protection clause of the Constitution as there is no substantial basis therefor. Both the employees of the respondents and the employees of the private sector are similarly situated and have collective bargaining agreements with their respective employers.

To repeat, the employees of the private sector and those of the private respondents are all workers without any essential or material distinction between them insofar as the right to the 13th-month pay is concerned.

I therefore vote to grant the petition.

Aquino, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., in the result.

Abad Santos, J., took no part.

Vasquez, De Castro, J., is on leave.

Escolin, J., reserve my vote.

Footnotes

* For a more complete treatment of the change effected by the constitutional amendment, see Lazaro, "May Employees of Government Corporations Unionize and Strike," 6 Philippine Law, Gazette No. 7, pp. 64-70 and Lazaro, "Legal Restraints On Labor Rights of Civil Servants Are Based On Sound Policy" Bulletin Today-,,, March 16, 1983, p. 7 and succeeding issues.

1 Article XIII, Section l of the Constitution.

2 Article XI I, B, Section 1 (1) of the Constitution.

3 Alliance of Government Workers (AGW) v. Minister of Labor and Employment, G, R. No. 60403, 7.

4 lbid, 7-8.

5 It is precisely such realization that led me as ponente in Marcopper Mining Corporation v. Ople, G.R. No. 51254, June 11, 1981, 105 SCRA 75, that to construe Presidential Decree No. 851 liberally and to dissent in National Federation of Sugar Worker v. Ovejera, G.R. No. 59743, May 31 1982, 114 SCRA 354, when it was overruled.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986]

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES AND/OR OLIVER A. LOZANO VS. PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO, ET AL.

SIRS/MESDAMES:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986

In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al.; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquino is questioned.  It is claimed that her government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution.

As early as April 10, 1986, this Court* had already voted to dismiss the petitions for the reasons to be stated below.  On April 17, 1986, Atty. Lozano as counsel for the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 73748 and 73972 withdrew the petitions and manifested that they would pursue the question by extra-judicial methods.  The withdrawal is functus oficio.

The three petitions obviously are not impressed with merit.  Petitioners have no personality to sue and their petitions state no cause of action.  For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter.  It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge.  And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but is in fact and law a de jure government.  Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.  All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.

In view of the foregoing, the petitions are hereby dismissed.Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) GLORIA C. PARASClerk of Court

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

May 19, 1903

G.R. No. 1051THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,vs.FRED L. DORR, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

F. G. Waite for appellants.Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee.

LADD, J.:

The defendants have been convicted upon a complaint charging them with the offense of writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The complaint is based upon section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Commission, which is as follows:

Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the "Manila Freedom" of April 6, 1902, under the caption of "A few hard facts."

The Attorney-General in his brief indicates the following passages of the article as those upon which he relies to sustain the conviction:

Sidney Adamson, in a late letter in "Leslie's Weekly," has the following to say of the action of the Civil Commission in appointing rascally natives to important Government positions:

"It is a strong thing to say, but nevertheless true, that the Civil Commission, through its ex-insurgent office holders, and by its continual disregard for the records of natives obtained during the military rule of the Islands, has, in its distribution of offices, constituted a protectorate over a set of men who should be in jail or deported. . . . [Reference is then made to the appointment of one Tecson as justice of the peace.] This is the kind of foolish work that the Commission is doing all over the Islands, reinstating insurgents and rogues and turning down the men who have during the struggle, at the risk of their lives, aided the Americans."

xxx xxx xxx

There is no doubt but that the Filipino office holders of the Islands are in a good many instances rascals.

xxx xxx xxx

The commission has exalted to the highest positions in the Islands Filipinos who are alleged to be notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal character.

xxx xxx xxx

Editor Valdez, of "Miau," made serious charges against two of the native Commissioners — charges against Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, which, if true, would brand the man as a coward and a rascal, and with what result? . . . [Reference is then made to the prosecution and conviction of Valdez for libel "under a law which specifies that the greater the truth the greater the libel."] Is it the desire of the people of the United States that the natives against whom these charges have been made (which, if true, absolutely vilify their personal characters) be permitted to retain their seats on the Civil Commission, the executive body of the Philippine Government, without an investigation?

xxx xxx xxx

It is a notorious fact that many branches of the Government organized by the Civil Commission are rotten and corrupt. The fiscal system, upon which life, liberty, and justice depends, is admitted by the Attorney-General himself to be most unsatisfactory. It is a fact that the Philippine judiciary is far from being what it should. Neither fiscals nor judges can be persuaded to convict insurgents when they wish to protect them.

xxx xxx xxx

Now we hear all sorts of reports as to rottenness existing in the province [of Tayabas], and especially the northern end of it; it is said that it is impossible to secure the conviction of lawbreakers and outlaws by the native justices, or a prosecution by the native fiscals.

xxx xxx xxx

The long and short of it is that Americans will not stand for an arbitrary government, especially when evidences of carpetbagging and rumors of graft are too thick to be pleasant.

We do not understand that it is claimed that the defendants succeeded in establishing at the trial the truth of any of the foregoing statements. The only question which we have considered is whether their publication constitutes an offense under section 8 of Act No. 292, above cited.

Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense are defined in that section, viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words or speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, publishing, or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; (5) or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; (6) or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government; (7) knowingly concealing such evil practices.

The complaint appears to be framed upon the theory that a writing, in order to be punishable as a libel under this section, must be of a scurrilous nature and directed against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, and must, in addition, tend to some one of the results enumerated in the section. The article in question is described in the complaint as "a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which tends to obstruct the lawful officers of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands in the execution of their offices, and which tends to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and which disturbs the safety and order of the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." But it is "a well-settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense may be committed in any of several different modes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense" (Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick., Mass., 206, 215), and the defendants may, therefore, be convicted if any one of the substantive charges into which the complaint may be separated has been made out.

We are all, however, agreed upon the proposition that the article in question has no appreciable tendency to "disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office," or to "instigate" any person or class of persons "to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes," or to "suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots," or to "stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government." All these various tendencies, which are described in section 8 of Act No. 292, each one of which is made an element of a certain form of libel, may be characterized in general terms as seditious tendencies. This is recognized in the description of the offenses punished by this section, which is found in the title of the act, where they are defined as the crimes of the "seditious utterances, whether written or spoken."

Excluding from consideration the offense of publishing "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands," which may conceivably stand on a somewhat different footing, the offenses punished by this section all consist in inciting, orally or in writing, to acts of disloyalty or disobedience to the lawfully constituted authorities in these Islands. And while the article in question, which is, in the main, a virulent attack against the policy of the Civil Commission in appointing natives to office, may have had the effect of exciting among certain classes dissatisfaction with the Commission and its measures, we are unable to discover anything in it which can be regarded as having a tendency to produce anything like what may be called disaffection, or, in other words, a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws. There can be no conviction, therefore, for any of the offenses described in the section on which the

complaint is based, unless it is for the offense of publishing a scurrilous libel against the Government of the of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.

Can the article be regarded as embraced within the description of "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands?" In the determination of this question we have encountered great difficulty, by reason of the almost entire lack of American precedents which might serve as a guide in the construction of the law. There are, indeed, numerous English decisions, most of them of the eighteenth century, on the subject of libelous attacks upon the "Government, the constitution, or the law generally," attacks upon the Houses of Parliament, the Cabinet, the Established Church, and other governmental organisms, but these decisions are not now accessible to us, and, if they were, they were made under such different conditions from those which prevail at the present day, and are founded upon theories of government so foreign to those which have inspired the legislation of which the enactment in question forms a part, that they would probably afford but little light in the present inquiry. In England, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, any "written censure upon public men for their conduct as such," as well as any written censure "upon the laws or upon the institutions of the country," would probably have been regarded as a libel upon the Government. (2 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, 348.) This has ceased to be the law in England, and it is doubtful whether it was ever the common law of any American State. "It is true that there are ancient dicta to the effect that any publication tending to "possess the people with an ill opinion of the Government" is a seditious libel ( per Holt, C. J., in R. vs. Tuchin, 1704, 5 St. Tr., 532, and Ellenborough, C. J., in R. vs. Cobbett, 1804, 29 How. St. Tr., 49), but no one would accept that doctrine now. Unless the words used directly tend to foment riot or rebellion or otherwise to disturb the peace and tranquility of the Kingdom, the utmost latitude is allowed in the discussion of all public affairs." (11 Enc. of the Laws of England, 450.) Judge Cooley says (Const. Lim., 528): "The English common law rule which made libels on the constitution or the government indictable, as it was administered by the courts, seems to us unsuited to the condition and circumstances of the people of America, and therefore never to have been adopted in the several States."

We find no decisions construing the Tennessee statute (Code, sec. 6663), which is apparently the only existing American statute of a similar character to that in question, and from which much of the phraseology of then latter appears to have been taken, though with some essential modifications.

The important question is to determine what is meant in section 8 of Act No. 292 by the expression "the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." Does it mean in a general and abstract sense the existing laws and institutions of the Islands, or does it mean the aggregate of the individuals by whom the government of the Islands is, for the time being, administered? Either sense would doubtless be admissible.

We understand, in modern political science, . . . by the term government, that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are unnecessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. By "dministration, again, we understand in modern times, and especially in more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments)." (Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 891.) But the writer adds that the terms "government" and "administration" are not always used in their strictness, and that "government" is often used for "administration."

In the act of Congress of July 14, 1798, commonly known as the "Sedition Act," it is made an offense to "write, print, utter, or published," or to "knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the

Government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said Government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against them or either or any of them the hatred of the good people of the United States," etc. The term "government" would appear to be used here in the abstract sense of the existing political system, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government — the Houses of Congress and the Executive — which are also specially mentioned.

Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that this is the sense in which the term is used in the enactment under consideration.

It may be said that there can be no such thing as a scurrilous libel, or any sort of a libel, upon an abstraction like the Government in the sense of the laws and institutions of a country, but we think an answer to this suggestion is that the expression "scurrilous libel" is not used in section 8 of Act No. 292 in the sense in which it is used in the general libel law (Act No. 277) — that is, in the sense of written defamation of individuals — but in the wider sense, in which it is applied in the common law to blasphemous, obscene, or seditious publications in which there may be no element of defamation whatever. "The word 'libel' as popularly used, seems to mean only defamatory words; but words written, if obscene, blasphemous, or seditious, are technically called libels, and the publication of them is, by the law of England, an indictable offense." (Bradlaugh vs. The Queen, 3 Q. B. D., 607, 627, per Bramwell L. J. See Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick., 206, 211.)

While libels upon forms of government, unconnected with defamation of individuals, must in the nature of things be of uncommon occurrence, the offense is by no means an imaginary one. An instance of a prosecution for an offense essentially of this nature is Republica vs. Dennie, 4 Yeates (Pa.), 267, where the defendant was indicted "as a factious and seditious person of a wicked mind and unquiet and turbulent disposition and conversation, seditiously, maliciously, and willfully intending, as much as in him lay, to bring into contempt and hatred the independence of the United States, the constitution of this Commonwealth and of the United States, to excite popular discontent and dissatisfaction against the scheme of polity instituted, and upon trial in the said United States and in the said Commonwealth, to molest, disturb, and destroy the peace and tranquility of the said United States and of the said Commonwealth, to condemn the principles of the Revolution, and revile, depreciate, and scandalize the characters of the Revolutionary patriots and statesmen, to endanger, subvert, and totally destroy the republican constitutions and free governments of the said United States and this Commonwealth, to involve the said United States and this Commonwealth in civil war, desolation, and anarchy, and to procure by art and force a radical change and alteration in the principles and forms of the said constitutions and governments, without the free will, wish, and concurrence of the people of the said United States and this Commonwealth, respectively," the charge being that "to fulfill, perfect, and bring to effect his wicked, seditious, and detestable intentions aforesaid he . . . falsely, maliciously, factiously, and seditiously did make, compose, write, and publish the following libel, to wit; 'A democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of national history. Its omens are always sinister and its powers are unpropitious. With all the lights or experience blazing before our eyes, it is impossible not to discover the futility of this form of government. It was weak and wicked at Athens, it was bad in Sparta, and worse in Rome. It has been tried in France and terminated in despotism. it was tried in England and rejected with the utmost loathing and abhorrence. It is on its trial here and its issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its imperfections; no good man but shudders at its miseries; no honest man but proclaims its fraud, and no brave man but draws his sword against its force. The institution of a scheme of polity so radically contemptible and vicious is a memorable example of what the villainy of some men can devise, the folly of others receive, and both establish, in despite of reason, reflection, and sensation.'"

An attack upon the lawfully established system of civil government in the Philippine Islands, like that which Dennie was accused of making upon the republican form of government lawfully established in the United States and in the State of Pennsylvania would, we think, if couched in scandalous

language, constitute the precise offense described in section 8 of Act No. 292 as a scurrilous libel against the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.

Defamation of individuals, whether holding official positions or not, and whether directed to their public conduct or to their private life, may always be adequately punished under the general libel law. Defamation of the Civil Commission as an aggregation, it being "a body of persons definite and small enough for its individual members to be recognized as such" (Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, art. 277), as well as defamation of any of the individual members of the Commission or of the Civil Governor, either in his public capacity or as a private individual, may be so punished. The general libel law enacted by the Commission was in force when Act No. 292, was passed. There was no occasion for any further legislation on the subject of libels against the individuals by whom the Insular Government is administered — against the Insular Government in the sense of the aggregate of such individuals. There was occasion for stringent legislation against seditious words or libels, and that is the main if not the sole purpose of the section under consideration. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Commission, in enacting this section, may have conceived of attacks of a malignant or scurrilous nature upon the existing political system of the United States, or the political system established in these Islands by the authority of the United States, as necessarily of a seditious tendency, but it is not so reasonable to suppose that they conceived of attacks upon the personnel of the government as necessarily tending to sedition. Had this been their view it seems probable that they would, like the framers of the Sedition Act of 1798, have expressly and specifically mentioned the various public officials and collegiate governmental bodies defamation of which they meant to punish as sedition.

The article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of the United States, and it is quite apparent that, though grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some of its individual members, it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority of the United States is enforced in these Islands. The form of government by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is not assailed. It is the character of the men who are intrusted with the administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute by impugning the purity of their motives, their public integrity, and their private morals, and the wisdom of their policy. The publication of the article, therefore, no seditious tendency being apparent, constitutes no offense under Act No. 292, section 8.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the defendants are acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Arellano, C.J. Torres, Willard and Mapa, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-409             January 30, 1947

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner, vs.ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.

Claro M. Recto and Querube C. Makalintal for petitioner.First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Hernandez, Jr., for respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

In G.R. No. L-409, Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic:

(1) Considering that a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign; and that this absolute and permanent allegiance should not be confused with the qualified and temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides, so long as he remains there, in return for the protection he receives, and which consists in the obedience to the laws of the government or sovereign. (Carlisle vs. Unite States, 21 Law. ed., 429; Secretary of State Webster Report to the President of the United States in the case of Thraser, 6 Web. Works, 526);

Considering that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier, as we have held in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113) and of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285), and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state) must be distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty

with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; that the subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government in a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during the war, "although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy over them" is one of the "rules of international law of our times"; (II Oppenheim, 6th Lauterpacht ed., 1944, p. 482), recognized, by necessary implication, in articles 23, 44, 45, and 52 of Hague Regulation; and that, as a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance, the basic theory on which the whole fabric of the petitioner's contention rests;

Considering that the conclusion that the sovereignty of the United State was suspended in Castine, set forth in the decision in the case of United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, 253, decided in 1819, and quoted in our decision in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon and Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra, in connection with the question, not of sovereignty, but of the existence of a government de facto therein and its power to promulgate rules and laws in the occupied territory, must have been based, either on the theory adopted subsequently in the Hague Convention of 1907, that the military occupation of an enemy territory does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant; that, in the first case, the word "sovereignty" used therein should be construed to mean the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, because as this remains vested in the legitimate government and is not transferred to the occupier, it cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting said government thereof; and that in the second case, that is, if the said conclusion or doctrine refers to the suspension of the sovereignty itself, it has become obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907, and therefore it can not be applied to the present case;

Considering that even adopting the words "temporarily allegiance," repudiated by Oppenheim and other publicists, as descriptive of the relations borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy toward the military government established over them, such allegiance may, at most, be considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives as above described, and does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign; that just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort; and that if the allegiance of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its laws in return for the protection he receives, it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreign country or state would, on one hand, ipso facto acquire the citizenship thereof since he has enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life, in return for the protection he receives, and would, on the other hand, lose his original citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws of his own government or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign country, the protection he is entitled to in his own;

Considering that, as a corollary of the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government in the territory occupied by the enemy military forces, because the authority of the legitimate power to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant (Article 43, Hague Regulations), the political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and citizens, are suspended or in abeyance during military occupation (Co Kim cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and dizon, supra), for the only reason that as they exclusively bear relation to the ousted legitimate government, they are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant; that the crimes against national security, such as treason and espionage; inciting to war, correspondence with hostile country, flight

to enemy's country, as well as those against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, and disloyalty, illegal possession of firearms, which are of political complexion because they bear relation to, and are penalized by our Revised Penal Code as crimes against the legitimate government, are also suspended or become inapplicable as against the occupant, because they can not be committed against the latter (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra); and that, while the offenses against public order to be preserved by the legitimate government were inapplicable as offenses against the invader for the reason above stated, unless adopted by him, were also inoperative as against the ousted government for the latter was not responsible for the preservation of the public order in the occupied territory, yet article 114 of the said Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimate government, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation;

Considering that, although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances, those laws that enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the country, he has, nevertheless, all the powers of de facto government and may, at his pleasure, either change the existing laws or make new ones when the exigencies of the military service demand such action, that is, when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the country and the protection of his army, subject to the restrictions or limitations imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra; 1940 United States Rules of Land Warfare 76, 77); and that, consequently, all acts of the military occupant dictated within these limitations are obligatory upon the inhabitants of the territory, who are bound to obey them, and the laws of the legitimate government which have not been adopted, as well and those which, though continued in force, are in conflict with such laws and orders of the occupier, shall be considered as suspended or not in force and binding upon said inhabitants;

Considering that, since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason, essential for the preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimate government, or compel them to adhere and give aid and comfort to him; because it is evident that such action is not demanded by the exigencies of the military service or not necessary for the control of the inhabitants and the safety and protection of his army, and because it is tantamount to practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the titular government or sovereign; and that, therefore, if an inhabitant of the occupied territory were compelled illegally by the military occupant, through force, threat or intimidation, to give him aid and comfort, the former may lawfully resist and die if necessary as a hero, or submit thereto without becoming a traitor;

Considering that adoption of the petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance would lead to disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public conscience, for it would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist the Quisling inhabitants of the occupied territory to fight against their own government without the latter incurring the risk of being prosecuted for treason, and even compel those who are not aid them in their military operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and conquer the whole nation, and thus deprive them all of their own independence or sovereignty — such theory would sanction the action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide;

(2) Considering that the crime of treason against the government of the Philippines defined and penalized in article 114 of the Penal Code, though originally intended to be a crime against said government as then organized by authority of the sovereign people of the United States, exercised through their authorized representative, the Congress and the President of the United States, was made, upon the establishment of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, a crime against the Government of the Philippines established by authority of the people of the Philippines, in whom the sovereignty resides according to section 1, Article II, of the Constitution of the Philippines, by virtue of the provision of section 2, Article XVI thereof, which provides that "All laws of the Philippine Islands . . . shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution . . . and all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands, shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this constitution;

Considering that the Commonwealth of the Philippines was a sovereign government, though not absolute but subject to certain limitations imposed in the Independence Act and incorporated as Ordinance appended to our Constitution, was recognized not only by the Legislative Department or Congress of the United States in approving the Independence Law above quoted and the Constitution of the Philippines, which contains the declaration that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them" (section 1, Article II), but also by the Executive Department of the United States; that the late President Roosevelt in one of his messages to Congress said, among others, "As I stated on August 12, 1943, the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as a government of other independent nations — in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood" (Congressional Record, Vol. 29, part 6, page 8173); and that it is a principle upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in many cases, among them in the case of Jones vs. United States (137 U.S., 202; 34 Law. ed., 691, 696) that the question of sovereignty is "a purely political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of the country.

Considering that section I (1) of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution which provides that pending the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States "All citizens of the Philippines shall owe allegiance to the United States", was one of the few limitations of the sovereignty of the Filipino people retained by the United States, but these limitations do not away or are not inconsistent with said sovereignty, in the same way that the people of each State of the Union preserves its own sovereignty although limited by that of the United States conferred upon the latter by the States; that just as to reason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that "The government established by this constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines";

This Court resolves, without prejudice to write later on a more extended opinion, to deny the petitioner's petition, as it is hereby denied, for the reasons above set forth and for others to be stated in the said opinion, without prejudice to concurring opinion therein, if any. Messrs. Justices Paras and Hontiveros dissent in a separate opinion. Mr. justice Perfecto concurs in a separate opinion.

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., concurring:

Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be committed in peace time. While there is peace, there are no traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns. Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace, but there are no traitors until war has started.

As treason is basically a war crime, it is punished by the state as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation. The law of treason is an emergency measure. It remains dormant until the emergency arises. But as soon as war starts, it is relentlessly put into effect. Any lukewarm attitude in its enforcement will only be consistent with national harakiri. All war efforts would be of no avail if they should be allowed to be sabotaged by fifth columnists, by citizens who have sold their country out to the enemy, or any other kind of traitors, and this would certainly be the case if he law cannot be enforced under the theory of suspension.

Petitioner's thesis that allegiance to our government was suspended during enemy occupation is advanced in support of the proposition that, since allegiance is identical with obedience to law, during the enemy occupation, the laws of the Commonwealth were suspended. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, the law punishing treason, under the theory, was one of the laws obedience to which was also suspended.

Allegiance has been defined as the obligation for fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to his government or his sovereign in return for the protection which he receives.

"Allegiance", as the return is generally used, means fealty or fidelity to the government of which the person is either a citizen or subject. Murray vs. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 64, 120; 2 Law. ed., 208.

"Allegiance" was said by Mr. Justice Story to be "nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign, under whose protection he is." United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 18 S. Ct., 461; 169 U.S., 649; 42 Law. ed., 890.

Allegiance is that duty which is due from every citizen to the state, a political duty binding on him who enjoys the protection of the Commonwealth, to render service and fealty to the federal government. It is that duty which is reciprocal to the right of protection, arising from the political relations between the government and the citizen. Wallace vs. Harmstad, 44 Pa. (8 Wright), 492, 501.

By "allegiance" is meant the obligation to fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign, in return for the protection which he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. A citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or sovereign, and an alien while domiciled in a country owes it a temporary allegiance, which is continuous during his residence. Carlisle vs. United States, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.), 147, 154; 21 Law ed., 426.

"Allegiance," as defined by Blackstone, "is the tie or ligament which binds the subject to the King, in return for that protection which the King affords the subject. Allegiance, both expressed and implied, is of two sorts, the one natural, the other local, the former being perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the King's dominions immediately upon their birth, for immediately upon their birth they are under the King's protection. Natural allegiance is perpetual, and for this reason, evidently founded on the nature of government. Allegiance is a debt due from the subject upon an implied contract with the prince that so long as the one affords protection the other will demean himself faithfully. Natural-born subjects have a great variety of rights which they acquire by being born within the King's liegance, which can never be forfeited but by their own misbehaviour; but the rights of aliens are much more circumscribed, being acquired only by residence, and lost whenever they remove. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance equally permanent to the King, which would probably be inconsistent with that which he owes his natural liege lord; besides, that thereby the nation might, in time, be subject to foreign influence and feel many other inconveniences." Indians within the state are not aliens, but citizens owing allegiance to the government of a state, for they receive protection from the government and are subject to its laws. They are born in allegiance to the government of the state. Jackson vs. Goodell, 20 Johns., 188, 911. (3 Words and Phrases, Permanent ed., 226-227.)

Allegiance. — Fealty or fidelity to the government of which the person is either a citizen or subject; the duty which is due from every citizen to the state; a political duty, binding on him who enjoys the protection of the commonwealth, to render service and fealty to the federal government; the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government or to the sovereign under which he lives in return for the protection he receives; that duty is reciprocal to the right of protection he receives; that duty which is reciprocal to the right of protection, arising from the political relations between the government and the citizen.

Classification. — Allegiance is of four kinds, namely: (1) Natural allegiance — that which arises by nature and birth; (2) acquired allegiance — that arising through some circumstance or act other than birth, namely, by denization or naturalization; (3) local allegiance-- that arising from residence simply within the country, for however short a time; and (4) legal allegiance — that arising from oath, taken usually at the town or leet, for, by the common law, the oath of allegiance might be tendered to every one upon attaining the age of twelve years. (3 C.J.S., p.885.)

Allegiance. — the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. 15 R.C.L., 140. (Ballentine Law Dictionary, p. 68.).

"Allegiance," as its etymology indicates, is the name for the tie which binds the citizen to his state — the obligation of obedience and support which he owes to it. The state is the political person to whom this liege fealty is due. Its substance is the aggregate of persons owing this allegiance. The machinery through which it operates is its government. The persons who operate this machinery constitute its magistracy. The rules of conduct which the state utters or enforces are its law, and manifest its will. This will, viewed as legally supreme, is its sovereignty. (W.W. Willoughby, Citizenship and Allegiance in Constitutional and International Law, 1 American Journal of International Law, p. 915.).

The obligations flowing from the relation of a state and its nationals are reciprocal in character. This principle had been aptly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in its opinion in the case of Luria vs. United States:

Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. (3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, 1942 ed., p.6.)

Allegiance. — The tie which binds the citizen to the government, in return for the protection which the government affords him. The duty which the subject owes to the sovereign, correlative with the protection received.

It is a comparatively modern corruption of ligeance (ligeantia), which is derived from liege (ligius), meaning absolute or unqualified. It signified originally liege fealty, i. e., absolute and qualified fealty. 18 L. Q. Rev., 47.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Allegiance may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one; the citizen or subject owes the former to his government or sovereign, until by some act he distinctly renounces it, whilst the alien domiciled in the country owes a temporary and local allegiance continuing during such residence. (Carlisle vs. United States, 16 Wall. [U.S.], 154; 21 Law. ed., 426. (1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 179.).

The above quotations express ideas that do not fit exactly into the Philippine pattern in view of the revolutionary insertion in our Constitution of the fundamental principle that "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." (Section 1, Article II.) The authorities above quoted, judges and juridical publicists define allegiance with the idea that sovereignty resides somewhere else, on symbols or subjects other than the people themselves. Although it is possible that they had already discovered that the people and only the people are the true sovereign, their minds were not yet free from the shackles of the tradition that the powers of sovereignty have been exercised by princes and monarchs, by sultans and emperors, by absolute and tyrannical rules whose ideology was best expressed in the famous words of one of the kings of France: "L'etat c'est moi," or such other persons or group of persons posing as the government, as an entity different and in opposition to the people themselves. Although democracy has been known ever since old Greece, and modern democracies in the people, nowhere is such principle more imperative than in the pronouncement embodied in the fundamental law of our people.

To those who think that sovereignty is an attribute of government, and not of the people, there may be some plausibility in the proposition that sovereignty was suspended during the enemy occupation, with the consequence that allegiance must also have been suspended, because our government stopped to function in the country. But the idea cannot have any place under our Constitution. If sovereignty is an essential attribute of our people, according to the basic philosophy of Philippine democracy, it could not have been suspended during the enemy occupation. Sovereignty is the very life of our people, and there is no such thing as "suspended life." There is no possible middle situation between life and death. Sovereignty is the very essence of the personality and existence of our people. Can anyone imagine the possibility of "suspended personality" or "suspended existence" of a people? In no time during enemy occupation have the Filipino people ceased to be what they are.

The idea of suspended sovereignty or suspended allegiance is incompatible with our Constitution.

There is similarity in characteristics between allegiance to the sovereign and a wife's loyalty to her husband. Because some external and insurmountable force precludes the husband from exercising his marital powers, functions, and duties and the wife is thereby deprived of the benefits

of his protection, may the wife invoke the theory of suspended loyalty and may she freely share her bed with the assailant of their home? After giving aid and comfort to the assailant and allowing him to enjoy her charms during the former's stay in the invaded home, may the wife allege as defense for her adultery the principle of suspended conjugal fidelity?

Petitioner's thesis on change of sovereignty at the advent of independence on July 4, 1946, is unacceptable. We have already decided in Brodett vs. De la Rosa and Vda. de Escaler (p. 752, ante) that the Constitution of the Republic is the same as that of the Commonwealth. The advent of independence had the effect of changing the name of our Government and the withdrawal by the United States of her power to exercise functions of sovereignty in the Philippines. Such facts did not change the sovereignty of the Filipino people. That sovereignty, following our constitutional philosophy, has existed ever since our people began to exist. It has been recognized by the United States of America, at least since 1935, when President Roosevelt approved our Constitution. By such act, President Roosevelt, as spokesman of the American people, accepted and recognized the principle that sovereignty resides in the people that is, that Philippine sovereignty resides in the Filipino people.

The same sovereignty had been internationally recognized long before the proclamation of independence on July 4, 1946. Since the early part of the Pacific war, President Quezon had been sitting as representative of a sovereign people in the Allied War Council, and in June, 1945, the same Filipino people took part — outstanding and brilliant, it may be added — in the drafting and adoption of the charter of the United Nations, the unmistakable forerunner of the future democratic federal constitution of the world government envisioned by all those who adhere to the principle of unity of all mankind, the early realization of which is anxiously desired by all who want to be spared the sufferings, misery and disaster of another war.

Under our Constitution, the power to suspend laws is of legislative nature and is lodged in Congress. Sometimes it is delegated to the Chief Executive, such as the power granted by the Election Code to the President to suspend the election in certain districts and areas for strong reasons, such as when there is rebellion, or a public calamity, but it has never been exercised by tribunals. The Supreme Court has the power to declare null and void all laws violative of the Constitution, but it has no power, authority, or jurisdiction to suspend or declare suspended any valid law, such as the one on treason which petitioner wants to be included among the laws of the Commonwealth which, by his theory of suspended allegiance and suspended sovereignty, he claims have been suspended during the Japanese occupation.

Suppose President Quezon and his government, instead of going from Corregidor to Australia, and later to Washington, had fled to the mountains of Luzon, and a group of Filipino renegades should have killed them to serve the interests of the Japanese imperial forces. By petitioner's theory, those renegades cannot be prosecuted for treason or for rebellion or sedition, as the laws punishing them were suspended. Such absurd result betrays the untenability of the theory.

"The defense of the State is a prime duty of Government, and in the fulfillment of that duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal, military or civil service." Thus, section 2 of Article II of the Constitution provides: That duty of defense becomes more imperative in time of war and when the country is invaded by an aggressor nation. How can it be fulfilled if the allegiance of the citizens to the sovereign people is suspended during enemy occupation? The framers of the Constitution surely did not entertain even for the moment the absurdity that when the allegiance of the citizens to the sovereign people is more needed in the defense of the survival of the state, the same should be suspended, and that upon such suspension those who may be required to render personal, military or civil service may claim exemption from the indispensable duty of serving their country in distress.

Petitioner advances the theory that protection in the consideration of allegiance. He argues that the Commonwealth Government having been incapacitated during enemy occupation to protect the citizens, the latter were relieved of their allegiance to said government. The proposition is untenable. Allegiance to the sovereign is an indispensable bond for the existence of society. If that bond is dissolved, society has to disintegrate. Whether or not the existence of the latter is the result of the social compact mentioned by Roseau, there can be no question that organized society would be dissolved if it is not united by the cohesive power of the citizen's allegiance. Of course, the citizens are entitled to the protection of their government, but whether or not that government fulfills that duty, is immaterial to the need of maintaning the loyalty and fidelity of allegiance, in the same way that the physical forces of attraction should be kept unhampered if the life of an individual should continue, irrespective of the ability or inability of his mind to choose the most effective measures of personal protection.

After declaring that all legislative, executive, and judicial processes had during and under the Japanese regime, whether executed by the Japanese themselves or by Filipino officers of the puppet government they had set up, are null and void, as we have done in our opinions in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113), in Peralta vs. Director of Prison (75, Phil., 285), and in several other cases where the same question has been mentioned, we cannot consistently accept petitioner's theory.

If all laws or legislative acts of the enemy during the occupation were null and void, and as we cannot imagine the existence of organized society, such as the one constituted by the Filipino people, without laws of the Commonwealth were the ones in effect during the occupation and the only ones that could claim obedience from our citizens.

Petitioner would want us to accept the thesis that during the occupation we owed allegiance to the enemy. To give way to that paradoxical and disconcerting allegiance, it is suggested that we accept that our allegiance to our legitimate government was suspended. Petitioner's proposition has to fall by its own weight, because of its glaring absurdities. Allegiance, like its synonyms, loyalty and fidelity, is based on feelings of attraction, love, sympathy, admiration, respect, veneration, gratitude, amity, understanding, friendliness. These are the feelings or some of the feelings that bind us to our own people, and are the natural roots of the duty of allegiance we owe them. The enemy only provokes repelling and repulsive feelings — hate, anger, vexation, chagrin, mortification, resentment, contempt, spitefulness. The natural incompatibility of political, social and ethical ideologies between our people and the Japanese, making impossible the existence of any feeling of attraction between them, aside from the initial fact that the Japanese invaded our country as our enemy, was aggravated by the morbid complexities of haughtiness, braggadocio and beastly brutality of the Nippon soldiers and officers in their dealings with even the most inoffensive of our citizens.

Giving bread to our enemy, and, after slapping one side of our face, offer him the other to be further slapped, may appear to be divinely charitable, but to make them a reality, it is necessary to change human nature. Political actions, legal rules and judicial decisions deal with human relations, taking man as he is, not as he should be. To love the enemy is not natural. As long as human pyschology remains as it is, the enemy shall always be hated. Is it possible to conceive an allegiance based on hatred?

The Japanese, having waged against us an illegal war condemned by prevailing principles of international law, could not have established in our country any government that can be legally recognized as de facto. They came as bandits and ruffians, and it is inconceivable that banditry and ruffianism can claim any duty of allegiance — even a temporary one — from a decent people.

One of the implications of petitioner's theory, as intimated somewhere, is that the citizens, in case of invasion, are free to do anything not forbidden by the Hague Conventions. Anybody will notice immediately that the result will be the doom of small nations and peoples, by whetting the

covetousness of strong powers prone on imperialistic practices. In the imminence of invasion, weak-hearted soldiers of the smaller nations will readily throw away their arms to rally behind the paladium of the invaders.

Two of the three great departments of our Government have already rejected petitioner's theory since September 25, 1945, the day when Commonwealth Act No. 682 took effect. By said act, creating the People's Court to try and decide all cases of crime against national security "committed between December 8, 1941 and September 2, 1945," (section 2), the legislative and executive departments have jointly declared that during the period above mentioned, including the time of Japanese occupation, all laws punishing crimes against national security, including article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing treason, had remained in full effect and should be enforced.

That no one raised a voice in protest against the enactment of said act and that no one, at the time the act was being considered by the Senate and the House of Representatives, ever dared to expose the uselessness of creating a People's Court to try crime which, as claimed by petitioner, could not have been committed as the laws punishing them have been suspended, is a historical fact of which the Supreme Court may take judicial notice. This fact shows universal and unanimous agreement of our people that the laws of the Commonwealth were not suspended and that the theory of suspended allegiance is just an afterthought provoked by a desperate effort to help quash the pending treason cases at any cost.

Among the arguments adduced in favor of petitioner's theory is that it is based on generally accepted principles of international law, although this argument becomes futile by petitioner's admission that the theory is advantageous to strong powers but harmful to small and weak nations, thus hinting that the latter cannot accept it by heart. Suppose we accept at face value the premise that the theories, urged by petitioner, of suspended allegiance and suspended sovereignty are based on generally accepted principles of international law. As the latter forms part of our laws by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of Article II of the Constitution, it seems that there is no alternative but to accept the theory. But the theory has the effect of suspending the laws, especially those political in nature. There is no law more political in nature than the Constitution of the Philippines. The result is an inverted reproduction of the Greek myth of Saturn devouring his own children. Here, under petitioner's theory, the offspring devours its parent.

Can we conceive of an instance in which the Constitution was suspended even for a moment?

There is conclusive evidence that the legislature, as policy-determining agency of government, even since the Pacific war started on December 7, 1941, intimated that it would not accept the idea that our laws should be suspended during enemy occupation. It must be remembered that in the middle of December, 1941, when Manila and other parts of the archipelago were under constant bombing by Japanese aircraft and enemy forces had already set foot somewhere in the Philippines, the Second National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 671, which came into effect on December 16, 1941. When we approved said act, we started from the premise that all our laws shall continue in effect during the emergency, and in said act we even went to the extent of authorizing the President "to continue in force laws and appropriations which would lapse or otherwise become inoperative," (section 2, [d]), and also to "promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the national policy," (section 2), that "the existence of war between the United States and other countries of Europe and Asia, which involves the Philippines, makes it necessary to invest the President with extraordinary powers in order to meet the resulting emergency." (Section 1.) To give emphasis to the intimation, we provided that the rules and regulations provided "shall be in force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall otherwise provide," foreseeing the possibility that Congress may not meet as scheduled as a result of the emergency, including invasion and occupation by the enemy. Everybody was then convinced that we did not have available the necessary means of repelling effectivity the enemy invasion.

Maybe it is not out of place to consider that the acceptance of petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance will cause a great injustice to those who, although innocent, are now under indictment for treason and other crimes involving disloyalty to their country, because their cases will be dismissed without the opportunity for them to revindicate themselves. Having been acquitted upon a mere legal technicality which appears to us to be wrong, history will indiscriminality classify them with the other accused who were really traitors to their country. Our conscience revolts against the idea of allowing the innocent ones to go down in the memory of future generations with the infamous stigma of having betrayed their own people. They should not be deprived of the opportunity to show through the due process of law that they are free from all blame and that, if they were really patriots, they acted as such during the critical period of test.

HILADO, J., concurring:

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion to the effect that during the so-called Japanese occupation of the Philippines (which was nothing more than the occupation of Manila and certain other specific regions of the Islands which constituted the minor area of the Archipelago) the allegiance of the citizens of this country to their legitimate government and to the United States was not suspended, as well as the ruling that during the same period there was no change of sovereignty here; but my reasons are different and I proceed to set them forth:

I. SUSPENDED ALLEGIANCE.

(a) Before the horror and atrocities of World War I, which were multiplied more than a hundred-fold in World War II, the nations had evolved certain rules and principles which came to be known as International Law, governing their conduct with each other and toward their respective citizens and inhabitants, in the armed forces or civilian life, in time of peace or in time of war. During the ages which preceded that first world conflict the civilized governments had no realization of the potential excesses of which "men's inhumanity to man" could be capable. Up to that time war was, at least under certain conditions, considered as sufficiently justified, and the nations had not on that account, proscribed nor renounced it as an instrument of national policy, or as a means of settling international disputes. It is not for us now to dwell upon the reasons accounting for this historical fact. Suffice it to recognize its existence in history.

But when in World War I civilized humanity saw that war could be, as it actually was, employed for entirely different reasons and from entirely different motives, compared to previous wars, and the instruments and methods of warfare had been so materially changed as not only to involve the contending armed forces on well defined battlefields or areas, on land, in the sea, and in the air, but to spread death and destruction to the innocent civilian populations and to their properties, not only in the countries engaged in the conflict but also in neutral ones, no less than 61 civilized nations and governments, among them Japan, had to formulate and solemnly subscribe to the now famous Briand-Kellogg Pact in the year 1928. As said by Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court, as chief counsel for the United States in the prosecution of "Axis war criminals," in his report to President Truman of June 7, 1945:

International law is not capable of development by legislation, for there is no continuously sitting international legislature. Innovations and revisions in international law are brought about by the action of governments designed to meet a change circumstances. It grows, as did the common law, through decisions reached from time to time in adopting settled principles to new situations.

x x x           x x x           x x x

After the shock to civilization of the war of 1914-1918, however, a marked reversion to the earlier and sounder doctrines of international law took place. By the time the Nazis came to power it was thoroughly established that launching an aggressive war or the institution of war by treachery was illegal and that the defense of legitimate warfare was no longer available to those who engaged in such an enterprise. It is high time that we act on the juridical principle that aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal.

The re-establishment of the principle of justifiable war is traceable in many steps. One of the most significant is the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928 by which Germany, Italy, and Japan, in common with the United States and practically all the nations of the world, renounced war as an instrument of national policy, bound themselves to seek the settlement of disputes only by pacific means, and condemned recourse to war for the solution of international controversies.

Unless this Pact altered the legal status of wars of aggression, it has no meaning at all and comes close to being an act of deception. In 1932 Mr. Henry L. Stimson, as United States Secretary of State, gave voice to the American concept of its effect. He said, "war between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty. This means that it has become illegal throughout practically the entire world. It is no longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no longer to be the principle around which the duties, the conduct, and the rights of nations revolve. It is an illegal thing. . . . By that very act we have made obsolete many legal precedents and have given the legal profession the task of re-examining many of its Codes and treaties.

This Pact constitutes only one reversal of the viewpoint that all war is legal and has brought international law into harmony with the common sense of mankind — that unjustifiable war is a crime.

Without attempting an exhaustive catalogue, we may mention the Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed by the representatives of forty-eight governments, which declared that "a war of aggression constitutes .. an International crime. . . .

The Eight Assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, on unanimous resolution of the representatives of forty-eight member-nations, including Germany, declared that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime. At the Sixth Pan-American Conference of 1928, the twenty-one American Republics unanimously adopted a resolution stating that "war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species."

x x x           x x x           x x x

We therefore propose to change that a war of aggression is a crime, and that modern international law has abolished the defense that those who incite or wage it are engaged in legitimate business. Thus may the forces of the law be mobilized on the side of peace. ("U.S.A. — An American Review," published by the United States Office of War Information, Vol. 2, No. 10; emphasis supplied.).

When Justice Jackson speaks of "a marked reversion to the earlier and sounder doctrines of international law" and "the re-establishment of the principle of justifiable war," he has in mind no other than "the doctrine taught by Grotius, the father of international law, that there is a distinction between the just and the unjust war — the war of defense and the war of aggression" to which he alludes in an earlier paragraph of the same report.

In the paragraph of said report immediately preceding the one last above mentioned Justice Jackson says that "international law as taught in the 19th and the early part of the 20th century generally declared that war-making was not illegal and no crime at law." But, as he says in one of the paragraphs hereinabove quoted from that report, the Briand-Kellogg Pact constitutes a reversal of the view-point that all war is legal and has brought international law into harmony with the common sense of mankind — that unjustifiable war is a crime. Then he mentions as other reversals of the same viewpoint, the Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, declaring that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime; the 8th assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, declaring that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime; and the 6th Pan-American conference of 1928, which unanimously adopted a resolution stating that war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species: which enumeration, he says, is not an attempt at an exhaustive catalogue.

It is not disputed that the war started by Japan in the Pacific, first, against the United States, and later, in rapid succession, against other allied nations, was a war of aggression and utterly unjustifiable. More aggressive still, and more unjustifiable, as admitted on all sides, was its attack against the Philippines and its consequent invasion and occupation of certain areas thereof.

Some of the rules and principles of international law which have been cited for petitioner herein in support of his theory of suspended allegiance, have been evolved and accepted during those periods of the history of nations when all war was considered legal, as stated by Justice Jackson, and the others have reference to military occupation in the course of really justifiable war.

Japan in subscribing the Briand-Kellogg Pact thirteen years before she started the aggressive war which threw the entire Pacific area into a seething cauldron from the last month of 1941 of the first week of September, 1945, expressly agreed to outlaw, proscribe and renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and bound herself to seek the settlement of her disputes with other nations only by pacific means. Thus she expressly gave her consent to that modification of the then existing rules and principles of international law governing the matter. With the modification, all the signatories to the pact necessarily accepted and bound themselves to abide by all its implications, among them the outlawing, prescription and renunciation of military occupation of another nation's territory in the course of a war thus outlawed, proscribed and renounced. This is only one way of saving that the rules and principles of international law therefore existing on the subject of military occupation were automatically abrogated and rendered ineffective in all future cases of war coming under the ban and condemnation of the pact.

If an unjustifiable war is a crime; if a war of aggression constitutes an international crime; if such a war is an international crime against the human species: a nation which occupies a foreign territory in the course of such a war cannot possibly, under any principle of natural or positive law, acquire or posses any legitimate power or right growing out or incident to such occupation. Concretely, Japan in criminally invading the Philippines and occupying certain portions of its territory during the Pacific war, could not have nor exercise, in the legal sense — and only this sense should we speak here — with respect to this country and its citizens, any more than could a burglar breaking through a man's house pretends to have or to exercise any legal power or right within that house with respect either to the person of the owner or to his property. To recognize in the first instance any legal power or right on the part of the invader, and in the second any legal power or right on the part of the burglar, the same as in case of a military occupant in the course of a justifiable war, would be nothing short of legalizing the crime itself. It would be the most monstrous and unpardonable contradiction to prosecute, condemn and hang the appropriately called war criminals of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and at the same

time recognize any lawfulness in their occupation invaded. And let it not be forgotten that the Philippines is a member of the United Nations who have instituted and conducted the so-called war crimes trials. Neither should we lose sight of the further fact that this government has a representative in the international commission currently trying the Japanese war criminals in Tokyo. These facts leave no room for doubt that this government is in entire accord with the other United Nations in considering the Pacific war started by Japan as a crime. Not only this, but this country had six years before the outbreak of the Pacific war already renounced war as an instrument of national policy (Constitution, Article II, section 2), thus in consequence adopting the doctrine of the Briand-Kellogg Pact.

Consequently, it is submitted that it would be absolutely wrong and improper for this Court to apply to the occupation by Japan of certain areas of the Philippines during that war the rules and principles of international law which might be applicable to a military occupation occurring in the course of a justifiable war. How can this Court recognize any lawfulness or validity in that occupation when our own government has sent a representative to said international commission in Tokyo trying the Japanese "war criminals" precisely for the "crimes against humanity and peace" committed by them during World War II of which said occupation was but part and parcel? In such circumstances how could such occupation produce no less an effect than the suspension of the allegiance of our people to their country and government?

(b) But even in the hypothesis — and not more than a mere hypothesis — that when Japan occupied the City of Manila and certain other areas of the Philippines she was engaged in a justifiable war, still the theory of suspended allegiance would not hold good. The continuance of the allegiance owed to a notion by its citizens is one of those high privileges of citizenship which the law of nations denies to the occupant the power to interfere with.

. . . His (of occupant) rights are not, however, commensurate with his power. He is thus forbidden to take certain measures which he may be able to apply, and that irrespective of their efficacy. The restrictions imposed upon him are in theory designed to protect the individual in the enjoyment of some highly important privileges. These concern his allegiance to the de jure sovereign, his family honor and domestic relations, religious convictions, personal service, and connection with or residence in the occupied territory.

The Hague Regulations declare that the occupant is forbidden to compel the inhabitants to swear allegiance to the hostile power. . . . (III Hyde, International Law, 2d revised ed., pp. 1898-1899.)

. . . Nor may he (occupant) compel them (inhabitants) to take an oath of allegiance. Since the authority of the occupant is not sovereignty, the inhabitants owe no temporary allegiance to him. . . . (II Oppenheim, International Law, pp. 341-344.)

The occupant's lack of the authority to exact an oath of allegiance from the inhabitants of the occupied territory is but a corollary of the continuance of their allegiance to their own lawful sovereign. This allegiance does not consist merely in obedience to the laws of the lawful sovereign, but more essentially consists in loyalty or fealty to him. In the same volume and pages of Oppenheim's work above cited, after the passage to the effect that the inhabitants of the occupied territory owe no temporary allegiance to the occupant it is said that "On the other hand, he may compel them to take an oath — sometimes called an 'oath of neutrality' — . . . willingly to submit to his 'legitimate commands.' Since, naturally, such "legitimate commands" include the occupant's laws, it follows that said occupant, where the rule is applicable, has the right to compel the inhabitants to take an oath of obedience to his laws; and since according to the same rule, he cannot exact from the inhabitants an oath of obedience to his laws; and since, according to the same rule, he cannot exact from the inhabitants an oath of allegiance, it follows that obedience to his laws, which he can exact from them, does not constitute allegiance.

(c) The theory of suspended allegiance is unpatriotic to the last degree. To say that when the one's country is unable to afford him in its protection, he ceases to be bound to it by the sacred ties of allegiance, is to advocate the doctrine that precisely when his country is in such distress, and therefore most needs his loyalty, he is absolved from the loyalty. Love of country should be something permanent and lasting, ending only in death; loyalty should be its worth offspring. The outward manifestation of one or the other may for a time be prevented or thwarted by the irresistible action of the occupant; but this should not in the least extinguish nor obliterate the invisible feelings, and promptings of the spirit. And beyond the unavoidable consequences of the enemy's irresistible pressure, those invisible feelings and promptings of the spirit of the people should never allow them to act, to speak, nor even to think a whit contrary to their love and loyalty to the Fatherland. For them, indicted, to face their country and say to it that, because when it was overrun and vanquished by the barbarous invader and, in consequence was disabled from affording them protection, they were released from their sacred obligation of allegiance and loyalty, and could therefore freely adhere to its enemy, giving him aid and comfort, incurring no criminal responsibility therefor, would only tend to aggravate their crime.

II. CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY

Article II, section 1, of the Constitution provides that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." The Filipino people are the self-same people before and after Philippine Independence, proclaimed on July 4, 1946. During the life of the Commonwealth sovereignty resided in them under the Constitution; after the proclamation of independence that sovereignty remained with them under the very same fundamental law. Article XVIII of the said Constitution stipulates that the government established thereby shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, "The Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." Under this provision the Government of the Philippines immediately prior to independence was essentially to be the identical government thereafter — only the name of that government was to be changed.

Both before and after the adoption of the Philippine Constitution the people of the Philippines were and are always the plaintiff in all criminal prosecutions, the case being entitled: "The People of the Philippines vs. (the defendant or defendants)." This was already true in prosecutions under the Revised Penal Code containing the law of treason. "The Government of the Philippines" spoken of in article 114 of said Code merely represents the people of the Philippines. Said code was continued, along with the other laws, by Article XVI, section 2, of the Constitution which constitutional provision further directs that "all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this Constitution" — of course, meaning the Commonwealth of the Philippines before, and the Republic of the Philippines after, independence (Article XVIII). Under both governments sovereignty resided and resides in the people (Article II, section 1). Said sovereignty was never transferred from that people — they are the same people who preserve it to this day. There has never been any change in its respect.

If one committed treason againsts the People of the Philippines before July 4, 1946, he continues to be criminally liable for the crime to the same people now. And if, following the literal wording of the Revised Penal Code, as continued by the Constitution, that accused owed allegiance upon the commission of the crime to the "Government of the Philippines," in the textual words of the Constitution (Article XVI, section 2, and XVIII) that was the same government which after independence became known as the "Republic of the Philippines." The most that can be said is that the sovereignty of the people became complete and absolute after independence — that they became, politically, fully of age, to use a metaphor. But if the responsibility for a crime against a minor is not extinguished by the mere fact of his becoming of age, why should the responsibility for the crime of

treason committed against the Filipino people when they were not fully politically independent be extinguished after they acquire this status? The offended party continues to be the same — only his status has changed.

PARAS, J., dissenting:

During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were suspended. This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international law adopted by our Constitution(Article II, section 3) as a part of the law of the Nation. Accordingly, we have on more than one occasion already stated that "laws of a political nature or affecting political relations, . . . are considered as suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation" (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil., 113, 124), and that the rule "that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory." (Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, Philippine Army, 75, Phil., 875, 881.)

The principle is recognized by the United States of America, which admits that the occupant will naturally suspends all laws of a political nature and all laws which affect the welfare and safety of his command, such action to be made known to the inhabitants.(United States Rules of Land Welfare, 1940, Article 287.) As allegiance to the United States is an essential element in the crime of treason under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, and in view of its position in our political structure prior to the independence of the Philippines, the rule as interpreted and practiced in the United States necessarily has a binding force and effect in the Philippines, to the exclusion of any other construction followed elsewhere, such as may be inferred, rightly or wrongly, from the isolated cases 1 brought to our attention, which, moreover, have entirely different factual bases.

Corresponding notice was given by the Japanese occupying army, first, in the proclamation of its Commander in chief of January 2, 1942, to the effect that as a "result of the Japanese Military operations, the sovereignty of the United States of America over the Philippines has completely disappeared and the Army hereby proclaims the Military Administration under martial law over the district occupied by the Army;" secondly, in Order No. 3 of the said Commander in Chief of February 20, 1942, providing that "activities of the administrative organs and judicial courts in the Philippines shall be based upon the existing statutes, orders, ordinances and customs until further orders provided that they are not inconsistent with the present circumstances under the Japanese Military Administration;" and, thirdly, in the explanation to Order No. 3 reminding that "all laws and regulations of the Philippines has been suspended since Japanese occupation," and excepting the application of "laws and regulations which are not proper act under the present situation of the Japanese Military Administration," especially those "provided with some political purposes."

The suspension of the political law during enemy occupation is logical, wise and humane. The latter phase outweighs all other aspects of the principle aimed more or less at promoting the necessarily selfish motives and purposes of a military occupant. It thus consoling to note that the powers instrumental in the crystallization of the Hague Conventions of 1907 did not forget to declare that they were "animated by the desire to serve . . . the interest of the humanity and the over progressive needs of civilization," and that "in case not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience." These saving statements come to the aid of the inhabitants in the occupied territory in a situation wherein, even before the belligerent occupant "takes a further step and by appropriate affirmative action undertakes to acquire the right of sovereignty for himself, . . . the occupant is likely to regard to himself as clothed with freedom to endeavor to impregnate the people who inhabit the area concerned with his own political ideology, and to make that endeavor successful by various

forms of pressure exerted upon enemy officials who are permitted to retain the exercise of normal governmental functions." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition, 1945, p. 1879.)

The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of the invading power, whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of the displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from the inhabitants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the maintenance of law and order, and for the proper administration of the country (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 297), and to demand all kinds of services "of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country" (Hague Regulations, article 52);and if, as we have in effect said, by the surrender the inhabitants pass under a temporary allegiance to the government of the occupant and are bound by such laws, and such only, as it chooses to recognize and impose, and the belligerent occupant `is totally independent of the constitution and the laws of the territory, since occupation is an aim of warfare, and the maintenance and safety of his forces, and the purpose of war, stand in the foreground of his interest and must be promoted under all circumstances or conditions." (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 285, 295), citing United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, and quoting Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. II. Sixth Edition, Revised, 1944,p. 432.)

He would be a bigot who cannot or would refuse to see the cruel result if the people in an occupied territory were required to obey two antagonistic and opposite powers. To emphasize our point, we would adopt the argument, in a reverse order, of Mr. Justice Hilado in Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285, 358), contained in the following passage:

To have bound those of our people who constituted the great majority who never submitted to the Japanese oppressors, by the laws, regulations, processes and other acts of those two puppet governments, would not only have been utterly unjust and downright illegal, but would have placed them in the absurd and impossible condition of being simultaneously submitted to two mutually hostile governments, with their respective constitutional and legislative enactments and institutions — on the one hand bound to continue owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth Government, and, on the other, to owe allegiance, if only temporary, to Japan.

The only sensible purpose of the treason law — which is of political complexion and taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offense committed against the belligerent occupant, incident to a state of war and necessary for the control of the occupant (Alcantara vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 494), — must be the preservation of the nation, certainly not its destruction or extermination. And yet the latter is unwittingly wished by those who are fond of the theory that what is suspended is merely the exercise of sovereignty by the de jure government or the latter's authority to impose penal sanctions or that, otherwise stated, the suspension refers only to the military occupant. If this were to be the only effect, the rule would be a meaningless and superfluous optical illusion, since it is obvious that the fleeing or displaced government cannot, even if it should want, physically assert its authority in a territory actually beyond its reach, and that the occupant, on the other hand, will not take the absurd step of prosecuting and punishing the inhabitants for adhering to and aiding it. If we were to believe the opponents of the rule in question, we have to accept the absurd proposition that the guerrillas can all be prosecuted with illegal possession of firearms. It should be borne in the mind that "the possession by the belligerent occupant of the right to control, maintain or modify the laws that are to obtain within the occupied area is an exclusive one. The territorial sovereign driven therefrom, can not compete with it on an even plane. Thus, if the latter attempt interference, its action is a mere manifestation of belligerent effort to weaken the enemy. It has no bearing upon the legal quality of what the occupant exacts, while it retains control. Thus, if the absent territorial sovereign, through some quasi-legislative decree, forbids its nationals to comply with what the occupant has ordained obedience to such command within the occupied territory would not safeguard the individual from the prosecution by the occupant." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition, 1945, p. 1886.)

As long as we have not outlawed the right of the belligerent occupant to prosecute and punish the inhabitants for "war treason" or "war crimes," as an incident of the state of war and necessity for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupant, against which prosecution and punishment such inhabitants cannot obviously be protected by their native sovereign, it is hard to understand how we can justly rule that they may at the same time be prosecuted and punished for an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code, but already taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offense committed against the belligerent occupant.

In Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 285, 296), we held that "the Constitution of the Commonwealth Government was suspended during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese forces or the belligerent occupant at regular war with the United States," and the meaning of the term "suspended" is very plainly expressed in the following passage (page 298):

No objection can be set up to the legality of its provisions in the light of the precepts of our Commonwealth Constitution relating to the rights of the accused under that Constitution, because the latter was not in force during the period of the Japanese military occupation, as we have already stated. Nor may said Constitution be applied upon its revival at the time of the re-occupation of the Philippines by the virtue of the priciple of postliminium, because "a constitution should operate prospectively only, unless the words employed show a clear intention that it should have a retrospective effect," (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, seventh edition, page 97, and a case quoted and cited in the foot-note), especially as regards laws of procedure applied to cases already terminated completely.

In much the same way, we should hold that no treason could have been committed during the Japanese military occupation against the United States or the Commonwealth Government, because article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was not then in force. Nor may this penal provision be applied upon its revival at the time of the reoccupation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminium, because of the constitutional inhibition against any ex post facto law and because, under article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal laws shall have a retroactive effect only in so far as they favor the accused. Why did we refuse to enforce the Constitution, more essential to sovereignty than article 114 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforesaid of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons if, as alleged by the majority, the suspension was good only as to the military occupant?

The decision in the United States vs. Rice (4 Wheaton, 246), conclusively supports our position. As analyzed and described in United States vs. Reiter (27 Fed. Cas., 773), that case "was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States — the court of highest human authority on that subject — and as the decision was against the United States, and in favor of the authority of Great Britain, its enemy in the war, and was made shortly after the occurrence of the war out of which it grew; and while no department of this Government was inclined to magnify the rights of Great Britain or disparage those of its own government, there can be no suspicion of bias in the mind of the court in favor of the conclusion at which it arrived, and no doubt that the law seemed to the court to warrant and demand such a decision. That case grew out of the war of 1812, between the United States and Great Britain. It appeared that in September, 1814, the British forces had taken the port of Castine, in the State of Maine, and held it in military occupation; and that while it was so held, foreign goods, by the laws of the United States subject to duty, had been introduced into that port without paying duties to the United States. At the close of the war the place by treaty restored to the United States, and after that was done Government of the United States sought to recover from the persons so introducing the goods there while in possession of the British, the duties to which by the laws of the United States, they would have been liable. The claim of the United States was that its laws were properly in force there, although the place was at the time held by the British forces in hostility to the United States, and the laws, therefore, could not at the time be enforced there; and that a court of the United States (the power of that government there having since been restored) was bound so to decide. But this illusion of the prosecuting officer there was dispelled by the court in the most summary manner. Mr. Justice Story, that great luminary of the American bench, being the organ of the court in delivering its opinion, said: 'The single question is whether goods imported into Castine during its occupation by the enemy are liable

to the duties imposed by the revenue laws upon goods imported into the United States.. We are all of opinion that the claim for duties cannot be sustained. . . . The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance of the British Government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case no other laws could be obligatory upon them. . . . Castine was therefore, during this period, as far as respected our revenue laws, to be deemed a foreign port, and goods imported into it by the inhabitants were subjects to such duties only as the British Government chose to require. Such goods were in no correct sense imported into the Unites States.' The court then proceeded to say, that the case is the same as if the port of Castine had been foreign territory, ceded by treaty to the United States, and the goods had been imported there previous to its cession. In this case they say there would be no pretense to say that American duties could be demanded; and upon principles of public or municipal law, the cases are not distinguishable. They add at the conclusion of the opinion: 'The authorities cited at the bar would, if there were any doubt, be decisive of the question. But we think it too clear to require any aid from authority.' Does this case leave room for a doubt whether a country held as this was in armed belligerents occupation, is to be governed by him who holds it, and by him alone? Does it not so decide in terms as plain as can be stated? It is asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States with entire unanimity, the great and venerated Marshall presiding, and the erudite and accomplished Story delivering the opinion of the court, that such is the law, and it is so adjudged in this case. Nay, more: it is even adjudged that no other laws could be obligatory; that such country, so held, is for the purpose of the application of the law off its former government to be deemed foreign territory, and that goods imported there (and by parity of reasoning other acts done there) are in no correct sense done within the territory of its former sovereign, the United States."

But it is alleged by the majority that the sovereignty spoken of in the decision of the United States vs. Rice should be construed to refer to the exercise of sovereignty, and that, if sovereignty itself was meant, the doctrine has become obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907. In answer, we may state that sovereignty can have any important significance only when it may be exercised; and, to our way of thinking, it is immaterial whether the thing held in abeyance is the sovereignty itself or its exercise, because the point cannot nullify, vary, or otherwise vitiate the plain meaning of the doctrinal words "the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors." We cannot accept the theory of the majority, without in effect violating the rule of international law, hereinabove adverted to, that the possession by the belligerent occupant of the right to control, maintain or modify the laws that are to obtain within the occupied area is an exclusive one, and that the territorial sovereign driven therefrom cannot compete with it on an even plane. Neither may the doctrine in the United States vs. Rice be said to have become obsolete, without repudiating the actual rule prescribed and followed by the United States, allowing the military occupant to suspend all laws of a political nature and even require public officials and inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 309). In fact, it is a recognized doctrine of American Constitutional Law that mere conquest or military occupation of a territory of another State does not operate to annex such territory to occupying State, but that the inhabitants of the occupied district, no longer receiving the protection of their native State, for the time being owe no allegiance to it, and, being under the control and protection of the victorious power, owe to that power fealty and obedience. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p.364.)

The majority have resorted to distinctions, more apparent than real, if not immaterial, in trying to argue that the law of treason was obligatory on the Filipinos during the Japanese occupation. Thus it is insisted that a citizen or subject owes not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, and that "temporary allegiance" to the military occupant may be likened to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign to the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives therefrom. The comparison is most unfortunate. Said foreigner is in the territory of a power not hostile to or in actual war with his own government; he is in the territory of a power

which has not suspended, under the rules of international law, the laws of political nature of his own government; and the protections received by him from that friendly or neutral power is real, not the kind of protection which the inhabitants of an occupied territory can expect from a belligerent army. "It is but reasonable that States, when they concede to other States the right to exercise jurisdiction over such of their own nationals as are within the territorial limits of such other States, should insist that States should provide system of law and of courts, and in actual practice, so administer them, as to furnish substantial legal justice to alien residents. This does not mean that a State must or should extend to aliens within its borders all the civil, or much less, all the political rights or privileges which it grants to its own citizens; but it does mean that aliens must or should be given adequate opportunity to have such legal rights as are granted to them by the local law impartially and judicially determined, and, when thus determined, protected." (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p. 360.)

When it is therefore said that a citizen of a sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country or, in the language of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, "elsewhere," a territory other than one under belligerent occupation must have been contemplated. This would make sense, because treason is a crime "the direct or indirect purpose of which is the delivery, in whole or in part, of the country to a foreign power, or to pave the way for the enemy to obtain dominion over the national territory" (Albert, The Revised Penal Code, citing 3 Groizard, 14); and, very evidently, a territory already under occupation can no longer be "delivered."

The majority likewise argue that the theory of suspended sovereignty or allegiance will enable the military occupant to legally recruit the inhabitants to fight against their own government, without said inhabitants being liable for treason. This argument is not correct, because the suspension does not exempt the occupant from complying with the Hague Regulations (article 52) that allows it to demand all kinds of services provided that they do not involve the population "in the obligation of taking part military operations against their own country." Neither does the suspension prevent the inhabitants from assuming a passive attitude, much less from dying and becoming heroes if compelled by the occupant to fight against their own country. Any imperfection in the present state of international law should be corrected by such world agency as the United Nations organizations.

It is of common knowledge that even with the alleged cooperation imputed to the collaborators, an alarming number of Filipinos were killed or otherwise tortured by the ruthless, or we may say savage, Japanese Army. Which leads to the conclusion that if the Filipinos did not obey the Japanese commands and feign cooperation, there would not be any Filipino nation that could have been liberated. Assuming that the entire population could go to and live in the mountains, or otherwise fight as guerrillas — after the formal surrender of our and the American regular fighting forces, — they would have faced certain annihilation by the Japanese, considering that the latter's military strength at the time and the long period during which they were left military unmolested by America. In this connection, we hate to make reference to the atomic bomb as a possible means of destruction.

If a substantial number of guerrillas were able to survive and ultimately help in the liberation of the Philippines, it was because the feigned cooperation of their countrymen enabled them to get food and other aid necessary in the resistance movement. If they were able to survive, it was because they could camouflage themselves in the midst of the civilian population in cities and towns. It is easy to argue now that the people could have merely followed their ordinary pursuits of life or otherwise be indifferent to the occupant. The fundamental defect of this line of thought is that the Japanese assumed to be so stupid and dumb as not to notice any such attitude. During belligerent occupation, "the outstanding fact to be reckoned with is the sharp opposition between the inhabitants of the occupied areas and the hostile military force exercising control over them. At heart they remain at war with each other. Fear for their own safety may not serve to deter the inhabitants from taking advantage of opportunities to interfere with the safety and success of the occupant, and in so doing they may arouse its passions and cause to take vengeance in cruel fashion. Again, even when it is untainted by such conduct, the occupant as a means of attaining ultimate success in its major conflict may, under plea of military necessity,

and regardless of conventional or customary prohibitions, proceed to utilize the inhabitants within its grip as a convenient means of military achievement." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition [1945], p. 1912.) It should be stressed that the Japanese occupation was not a matter of a few months; it extended over a little more than three years. Said occupation was a fact, in spite of the "presence of guerrilla bands in barrios and mountains, and even in towns of the Philippines whenever these towns were left by Japanese garrisons or by the detachments of troops sent on patrol to those places." (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil., 371, 373.) The law of nations accepts belligerent occupation as a fact to be reckoned with, regardless of the merits of the occupant's cause. (Hyde, International Law, Second Revised Edition [1945], Vol. III, p. 1879.)

Those who contend or fear that the doctrine herein adhere to will lead to an over-production of traitors, have a wrong and low conception of the psychology and patriotism of their countrymen. Patriots are such after their birth in the first place, and no amount of laws or judicial decisions can make or unmake them. On the other hand, the Filipinos are not so base as to be insensitive to the thought that the real traitor is cursed everywhere and in all ages. Our patriots who fought and died during the last war, and the brave guerrillas who have survived, were undoubtedly motivated by their inborn love of country, and not by such a thing as the treason law. The Filipino people as a whole, passively opposed the Japanese regime, not out of fear of a treason statute but because they preferred and will prefer the democratic and civilized way of life and American altruism to Japanese barbaric and totalitarian designs. Of course, there are those who might at heart have been pro-Japanese; but they met and will unavoidably meet the necessary consequences. The regular soldiers faced the risks of warfare; the spies and informers subjected themselves to the perils of military operations, likely received summary liquidation or punishments from the guerrillas and the parties injured by their acts, and may be prosecuted as war spies by the military authorities of the returning sovereign; those who committed other common crimes, directly or through the Japanese army, may be prosecuted under the municipal law, and under this group even the spies and informers, Makapili or otherwise, are included, for they can be made answerable for any act offensive to person or property; the buy-and-sell opportunists have the war profits tax to reckon with. We cannot close our eyes to the conspicuous fact that, in the majority of cases, those responsible for the death of, or injury to, any Filipino or American at the hands of the Japanese, were prompted more by personal motives than by a desire to levy war against the United States or to adhere to the occupant. The alleged spies and informers found in the Japanese occupation the royal road to vengeance against personal or political enemies. The recent amnesty granted to the guerrillas for acts, otherwise criminal, committed in the furtherance of their resistance movement has in a way legalized the penal sanctions imposed by them upon the real traitors.

It is only from a realistic, practical and common-sense point of view, and by remembering that the obedience and cooperation of the Filipinos were effected while the Japanese were in complete control and occupation of the Philippines, when their mere physical presence implied force and pressure — and not after the American forces of liberation had restored the Philippine Government — that we will come to realize that, apart from any rule of international law, it was necessary to release the Filipinos temporarily from the old political tie in the sense indicated herein. Otherwise, one is prone to dismiss the reason for such cooperation and obedience. If there were those who did not in any wise cooperate or obey, they can be counted by the fingers, and let their names adorn the pages of Philippine history. Essentially, however, everybody who took advantage, to any extent and degree, of the peace and order prevailing during the occupation, for the safety and survival of himself and his family, gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Our great liberator himself, General Douglas MacArthur, had considered the laws of the Philippines ineffective during the occupation, and restored to their full vigor and force only after the liberation. Thus, in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, he ordained that "the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines . . . are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control," and that "all laws . . . of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null

and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control." Repeating what we have said in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113, 133), "it is to be presumed that General Douglas MacArthur, who was acting as an agent or a representative of the Government and the President of the United States, constitutional Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army, did not intend to act against the principles of the law of nations asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States from the early period of its existence, applied by the President of the United States, and later embodied in the Hague Conventions of 1907."

The prohibition in the Hague Conventions (Article 45) against "any pressure on the population to take oath to the hostile power," was inserted for the moral protection and benefit of the inhabitants, and does not necessarily carry the implication that the latter continue to be bound to the political laws of the displaced government. The United States, a signatory to the Hague Conventions, has made the point clear, by admitting that the military occupant can suspend all the laws of a political nature and even require public officials and the inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 309), and as already stated, it is a doctrine of American Constitutional Law that the inhabitants, no longer receiving the protection of their native state, for the time being owe no allegiance to it, and, being under the control and protection of the victorious power, owe to that power fealty and obedience. Indeed, what is prohibited is the application of force by the occupant, from which it is fair to deduce that the Conventions do not altogether outlaw voluntary submission by the population. The only strong reason for this is undoubtedly the desire of the authors of the Conventions to give as much freedom and allowance to the inhabitants as are necessary for their survival. This is wise and humane, because the people should be in a better position to know what will save them during the military occupation than any exile government.

"Before he was appointed prosecutor, Justice Jackson made a speech in which he warned against the use of judicial process for non judicial ends, and attacked cynics who "see no reason why courts, just like other agencies, should not be policy weapons. If we want to shoot Germans as a matter of policy, let it be done as such, said he, but don't hide the deed behind a court. If you are determined to execute a man in any case there is no occasion for a trial; the word yields no respect for courts that are merely organized to convict." Mussoloni may have got his just desserts, but nobody supposes he got a fair trial. . . . Let us bear that in mind as we go about punishing criminals. There are enough laws on the books to convict guilty Nazis without risking the prestige of our legal system. It is far, far better that some guilty men escape than that the idea of law be endangered. In the long run the idea of law is our best defense against Nazism in all its forms." These passages were taken from the editorial appearing in the Life, May 28, 1945, page 34, and convey ideas worthy of some reflection.

If the Filipinos in fact committed any errors in feigning cooperation and obedience during the Japanese military occupation, they were at most — borrowing the famous and significant words of President Roxas — errors of the mind and not of the heart. We advisedly said "feigning" not as an admission of the fallacy of the theory of suspended allegiance or sovereignty, but as an affirmation that the Filipinos, contrary to their outward attitude, had always remained loyal by feeling and conscience to their country.

Assuming that article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was in force during the Japanese military occupation, the present Republic of the Philippines has no right to prosecute treason committed against the former sovereignty existing during the Commonwealth Government which was none other than the sovereignty of the United States. This court has already held that, upon a change of sovereignty, the provisions of the Penal Code having to do with such subjects as treason, rebellion and sedition are no longer in force (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil., 887). It is true that, as contended by the majority, section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines provides that "sovereignty resides in the people," but this did not make the Commonwealth Government or the Filipino people sovereign, because said declaration of principle, prior to the independence of the Philippines, was subervient to and controlled by the Ordinance appended to the Constitution under which, in addition to its many provisions essentially destructive of the concept of sovereignty, it is expressly made clear that the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines had not then been withdrawn. The

framers of the Constitution had to make said declaration of principle because the document was ultimately intended for the independent Philippines. Otherwise, the Preamble should not have announced that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to secure to the Filipino people and their posterity the "blessings of independence." No one, we suppose, will dare allege that the Philippines was an independent country under the Commonwealth Government.

The Commonwealth Government might have been more autonomous than that existing under the Jones Law, but its non-sovereign status nevertheless remained unaltered; and what was enjoyed was the exercise of sovereignty over the Philippines continued to be complete.

The exercise of Sovereignty May be Delegated. — It has already been seen that the exercise of sovereignty is conceived of as delegated by a State to the various organs which, collectively, constitute the Government. For practical political reasons which can be easily appreciated, it is desirable that the public policies of a State should be formulated and executed by governmental agencies of its own creation and which are not subject to the control of other States. There is, however, nothing in a nature of sovereignty or of State life which prevents one State from entrusting the exercise of certain powers to the governmental agencies of another State. Theoretically, indeed, a sovereign State may go to any extent in the delegation of the exercise of its power to the governmental agencies of other States, those governmental agencies thus becoming quoad hoc parts of the governmental machinery of the State whose sovereignty is exercised. At the same time these agencies do not cease to be Instrumentalities for the expression of the will of the State by which they were originally created.

By this allegation the agent State is authorized to express the will of the delegating State, and the legal hypothesis is that this State possesses the legal competence again to draw to itself the exercise, through organs of its own creation, of the powers it has granted. Thus, States may concede to colonies almost complete autonomy of government and reserve to themselves a right of control of so slight and so negative a character as to make its exercise a rare and improbable occurence; yet, so long as such right of control is recognized to exist, and the autonomy of the colonies is conceded to be founded upon a grant and the continuing consent of the mother countries the sovereignty of those mother countries over them is complete and they are to be considered as possessing only administrative autonomy and not political independence. Again, as will be more fully discussed in a later chapter, in the so-called Confederate or Composite State, the cooperating States may yield to the central Government the exercise of almost all of their powers of Government and yet retain their several sovereignties. Or, on the other hand, a State may, without parting with its sovereignty of lessening its territorial application, yield to the governing organs of particular areas such an amplitude of powers as to create of them bodies-politic endowed with almost all of the characteristics of independent States. In all States, indeed, when of any considerable size, efficiency of administration demands that certain autonomous powers of local self-government be granted to particular districts. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 74, 75.).

The majority have drawn an analogy between the Commonwealth Government and the States of the American Union which, it is alleged, preserve their own sovereignty although limited by the United States. This is not true for it has been authoritatively stated that the Constituent States have no sovereignty of their own, that such autonomous powers as they now possess are had and exercised by the express will or by the constitutional forbearance of the national sovereignty, and that the sovereignty of the United States and the non-sovereign status of the individual States is no longer contested.

It is therefore plain that the constituent States have no sovereignty of their own, and that such autonomous powers as they now possess are had and exercised by the express will or by the constitutional forbearance of the national sovereignty. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, even when selecting members for the national legislature, or electing the President, or ratifying proposed amendments to the

federal constitution, the States act, ad hoc, as agents of the National Government. (Willoughby, the Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p.250.)

This is the situation at the present time. The sovereignty of the United States and the non-sovereign status of the individual States is no longer contested. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 251, 252.)

Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that "The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." From this, the deduction is made that the Government under the Republic of the Philippines and under the Commonwealth is the same. We cannot agree. While the Commonwealth Government possessed administrative autonomy and exercised the sovereignty delegated by the United States and did not cease to be an instrumentality of the latter (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 74, 75), the Republic of the Philippines is an independent State not receiving its power or sovereignty from the United States. Treason committed against the United States or against its instrumentality, the Commonwealth Government, which exercised, but did not possess, sovereignty (id., p. 49), is therefore not treason against the sovereign and independent Republic of the Philippines. Article XVIII was inserted in order, merely, to make the Constitution applicable to the Republic.

Reliance is also placed on section 2 of the Constitution which provides that all laws of the Philippines Islands shall remain operative, unless inconsistent therewith, until amended, altered, modified or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines, and on section 3 which is to the effect that all cases pending in courts shall be heard, tried, and determined under the laws then in force, thereby insinuating that these constitutional provisions authorize the Republic of the Philippines to enforce article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The error is obvious. The latter article can remain operative under the present regime if it is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The fact remains, however, that said penal provision is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, in that those liable for treason thereunder should owe allegiance to the United States or the government of the Philippines, the latter being, as we have already pointed out, a mere instrumentality of the former, whereas under the Constitution of the present Republic, the citizens of the Philippines do not and are not required to owe allegiance to the United States. To contend that article 114 must be deemed to have been modified in the sense that allegiance to the United States is deleted, and, as thus modified, should be applied to prior acts, would be to sanction the enactment and application of an ex post facto law.

In reply to the contention of the respondent that the Supreme Court of the United States has held in the case of Bradford vs. Chase National Bank (24 Fed. Supp., 38), that the Philippines had a sovereign status, though with restrictions, it is sufficient to state that said case must be taken in the light of a subsequent decision of the same court in Cincinnati Soap Co. vs. United States (301 U.S., 308), rendered in May, 1937, wherein it was affirmed that the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines had not been withdrawn, with the result that the earlier case only be interpreted to refer to the exercise of sovereignty by the Philippines as delegated by the mother country, the United States.

No conclusiveness may be conceded to the statement of President Roosevelt on August 12, 1943, that "the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as a government of other independent nations--in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood," since said statement was not meant as having accelerated the date, much less as a formal proclamation of, the Philippine Independence as contemplated in the Tydings-McDuffie Law, it appearing that (1) no less also than the President of the United States had to issue the proclamation of July 4, 1946, withdrawing the sovereignty of the United States and recognizing Philippine Independence; (2) it was General MacArthur, and not

President Osmeña who was with him, that proclaimed on October 23, 1944, the restoration of the Commonwealth Government; (3) the Philippines was not given official participation in the signing of the Japanese surrender; (4) the United States Congress, and not the Commonwealth Government, extended the tenure of office of the President and Vice-President of the Philippines.

The suggestion that as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treason may have been committed against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth, is immaterial because, as we have already explained, treason against either is not and cannot be treason against the new and different sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.

Footnotes

PARAS, J., dissenting:

1 English case of De Jager vs. Attorney General of Naval; Belgian case of Auditeur Militaires vs. Van Dieren; cases of Petain, Laval and Quisling.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-409             January 30, 1947

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner, vs.ERIBERTO MISA, respondent.

Claro M. Recto and Querube C. Makalintal for petitioner.First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Hernandez, Jr., for respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

In G.R. No. L-409, Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc., the Court, acting on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic:

(1) Considering that a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign; and that this absolute and permanent allegiance should not be confused with the qualified and temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides, so long as he remains there, in return for the protection he receives, and which consists in the obedience to the laws of the government or sovereign. (Carlisle vs. Unite States, 21 Law. ed., 429; Secretary of State Webster Report to the President of the United States in the case of Thraser, 6 Web. Works, 526);

Considering that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier, as we have held in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113) and of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285), and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state) must be distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty

with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; that the subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government in a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during the war, "although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy over them" is one of the "rules of international law of our times"; (II Oppenheim, 6th Lauterpacht ed., 1944, p. 482), recognized, by necessary implication, in articles 23, 44, 45, and 52 of Hague Regulation; and that, as a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance, the basic theory on which the whole fabric of the petitioner's contention rests;

Considering that the conclusion that the sovereignty of the United State was suspended in Castine, set forth in the decision in the case of United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, 253, decided in 1819, and quoted in our decision in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon and Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra, in connection with the question, not of sovereignty, but of the existence of a government de facto therein and its power to promulgate rules and laws in the occupied territory, must have been based, either on the theory adopted subsequently in the Hague Convention of 1907, that the military occupation of an enemy territory does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant; that, in the first case, the word "sovereignty" used therein should be construed to mean the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, because as this remains vested in the legitimate government and is not transferred to the occupier, it cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting said government thereof; and that in the second case, that is, if the said conclusion or doctrine refers to the suspension of the sovereignty itself, it has become obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907, and therefore it can not be applied to the present case;

Considering that even adopting the words "temporarily allegiance," repudiated by Oppenheim and other publicists, as descriptive of the relations borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy toward the military government established over them, such allegiance may, at most, be considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives as above described, and does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign; that just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort; and that if the allegiance of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its laws in return for the protection he receives, it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreign country or state would, on one hand, ipso facto acquire the citizenship thereof since he has enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life, in return for the protection he receives, and would, on the other hand, lose his original citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws of his own government or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign country, the protection he is entitled to in his own;

Considering that, as a corollary of the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government in the territory occupied by the enemy military forces, because the authority of the legitimate power to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant (Article 43, Hague Regulations), the political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and citizens, are suspended or in abeyance during military occupation (Co Kim cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and dizon, supra), for the only reason that as they exclusively bear relation to the ousted legitimate government, they are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant; that the crimes against national security, such as treason and espionage; inciting to war, correspondence with hostile country, flight

to enemy's country, as well as those against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, and disloyalty, illegal possession of firearms, which are of political complexion because they bear relation to, and are penalized by our Revised Penal Code as crimes against the legitimate government, are also suspended or become inapplicable as against the occupant, because they can not be committed against the latter (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra); and that, while the offenses against public order to be preserved by the legitimate government were inapplicable as offenses against the invader for the reason above stated, unless adopted by him, were also inoperative as against the ousted government for the latter was not responsible for the preservation of the public order in the occupied territory, yet article 114 of the said Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimate government, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation;

Considering that, although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances, those laws that enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the country, he has, nevertheless, all the powers of de facto government and may, at his pleasure, either change the existing laws or make new ones when the exigencies of the military service demand such action, that is, when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the country and the protection of his army, subject to the restrictions or limitations imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra; 1940 United States Rules of Land Warfare 76, 77); and that, consequently, all acts of the military occupant dictated within these limitations are obligatory upon the inhabitants of the territory, who are bound to obey them, and the laws of the legitimate government which have not been adopted, as well and those which, though continued in force, are in conflict with such laws and orders of the occupier, shall be considered as suspended or not in force and binding upon said inhabitants;

Considering that, since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason, essential for the preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimate government, or compel them to adhere and give aid and comfort to him; because it is evident that such action is not demanded by the exigencies of the military service or not necessary for the control of the inhabitants and the safety and protection of his army, and because it is tantamount to practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the titular government or sovereign; and that, therefore, if an inhabitant of the occupied territory were compelled illegally by the military occupant, through force, threat or intimidation, to give him aid and comfort, the former may lawfully resist and die if necessary as a hero, or submit thereto without becoming a traitor;

Considering that adoption of the petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance would lead to disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public conscience, for it would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist the Quisling inhabitants of the occupied territory to fight against their own government without the latter incurring the risk of being prosecuted for treason, and even compel those who are not aid them in their military operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and conquer the whole nation, and thus deprive them all of their own independence or sovereignty — such theory would sanction the action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide;

(2) Considering that the crime of treason against the government of the Philippines defined and penalized in article 114 of the Penal Code, though originally intended to be a crime against said government as then organized by authority of the sovereign people of the United States, exercised through their authorized representative, the Congress and the President of the United States, was made, upon the establishment of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, a crime against the Government of the Philippines established by authority of the people of the Philippines, in whom the sovereignty resides according to section 1, Article II, of the Constitution of the Philippines, by virtue of the provision of section 2, Article XVI thereof, which provides that "All laws of the Philippine Islands . . . shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution . . . and all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands, shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this constitution;

Considering that the Commonwealth of the Philippines was a sovereign government, though not absolute but subject to certain limitations imposed in the Independence Act and incorporated as Ordinance appended to our Constitution, was recognized not only by the Legislative Department or Congress of the United States in approving the Independence Law above quoted and the Constitution of the Philippines, which contains the declaration that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them" (section 1, Article II), but also by the Executive Department of the United States; that the late President Roosevelt in one of his messages to Congress said, among others, "As I stated on August 12, 1943, the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as a government of other independent nations — in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood" (Congressional Record, Vol. 29, part 6, page 8173); and that it is a principle upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in many cases, among them in the case of Jones vs. United States (137 U.S., 202; 34 Law. ed., 691, 696) that the question of sovereignty is "a purely political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of the country.

Considering that section I (1) of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution which provides that pending the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States "All citizens of the Philippines shall owe allegiance to the United States", was one of the few limitations of the sovereignty of the Filipino people retained by the United States, but these limitations do not away or are not inconsistent with said sovereignty, in the same way that the people of each State of the Union preserves its own sovereignty although limited by that of the United States conferred upon the latter by the States; that just as to reason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that "The government established by this constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines";

This Court resolves, without prejudice to write later on a more extended opinion, to deny the petitioner's petition, as it is hereby denied, for the reasons above set forth and for others to be stated in the said opinion, without prejudice to concurring opinion therein, if any. Messrs. Justices Paras and Hontiveros dissent in a separate opinion. Mr. justice Perfecto concurs in a separate opinion.

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., concurring:

Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be committed in peace time. While there is peace, there are no traitors. Treason may be incubated when peace reigns. Treasonable acts may actually be perpetrated during peace, but there are no traitors until war has started.

As treason is basically a war crime, it is punished by the state as a measure of self-defense and self-preservation. The law of treason is an emergency measure. It remains dormant until the emergency arises. But as soon as war starts, it is relentlessly put into effect. Any lukewarm attitude in its enforcement will only be consistent with national harakiri. All war efforts would be of no avail if they should be allowed to be sabotaged by fifth columnists, by citizens who have sold their country out to the enemy, or any other kind of traitors, and this would certainly be the case if he law cannot be enforced under the theory of suspension.

Petitioner's thesis that allegiance to our government was suspended during enemy occupation is advanced in support of the proposition that, since allegiance is identical with obedience to law, during the enemy occupation, the laws of the Commonwealth were suspended. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, the law punishing treason, under the theory, was one of the laws obedience to which was also suspended.

Allegiance has been defined as the obligation for fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to his government or his sovereign in return for the protection which he receives.

"Allegiance", as the return is generally used, means fealty or fidelity to the government of which the person is either a citizen or subject. Murray vs. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 64, 120; 2 Law. ed., 208.

"Allegiance" was said by Mr. Justice Story to be "nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign, under whose protection he is." United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 18 S. Ct., 461; 169 U.S., 649; 42 Law. ed., 890.

Allegiance is that duty which is due from every citizen to the state, a political duty binding on him who enjoys the protection of the Commonwealth, to render service and fealty to the federal government. It is that duty which is reciprocal to the right of protection, arising from the political relations between the government and the citizen. Wallace vs. Harmstad, 44 Pa. (8 Wright), 492, 501.

By "allegiance" is meant the obligation to fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign, in return for the protection which he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. A citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or sovereign, and an alien while domiciled in a country owes it a temporary allegiance, which is continuous during his residence. Carlisle vs. United States, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.), 147, 154; 21 Law ed., 426.

"Allegiance," as defined by Blackstone, "is the tie or ligament which binds the subject to the King, in return for that protection which the King affords the subject. Allegiance, both expressed and implied, is of two sorts, the one natural, the other local, the former being perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the King's dominions immediately upon their birth, for immediately upon their birth they are under the King's protection. Natural allegiance is perpetual, and for this reason, evidently founded on the nature of government. Allegiance is a debt due from the subject upon an implied contract with the prince that so long as the one affords protection the other will demean himself faithfully. Natural-born subjects have a great variety of rights which they acquire by being born within the King's liegance, which can never be forfeited but by their own misbehaviour; but the rights of aliens are much more circumscribed, being acquired only by residence, and lost whenever they remove. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance equally permanent to the King, which would probably be inconsistent with that which he owes his natural liege lord; besides, that thereby the nation might, in time, be subject to foreign influence and feel many other inconveniences." Indians within the state are not aliens, but citizens owing allegiance to the government of a state, for they receive protection from the government and are subject to its laws. They are born in allegiance to the government of the state. Jackson vs. Goodell, 20 Johns., 188, 911. (3 Words and Phrases, Permanent ed., 226-227.)

Allegiance. — Fealty or fidelity to the government of which the person is either a citizen or subject; the duty which is due from every citizen to the state; a political duty, binding on him who enjoys the protection of the commonwealth, to render service and fealty to the federal government; the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government or to the sovereign under which he lives in return for the protection he receives; that duty is reciprocal to the right of protection he receives; that duty which is reciprocal to the right of protection, arising from the political relations between the government and the citizen.

Classification. — Allegiance is of four kinds, namely: (1) Natural allegiance — that which arises by nature and birth; (2) acquired allegiance — that arising through some circumstance or act other than birth, namely, by denization or naturalization; (3) local allegiance-- that arising from residence simply within the country, for however short a time; and (4) legal allegiance — that arising from oath, taken usually at the town or leet, for, by the common law, the oath of allegiance might be tendered to every one upon attaining the age of twelve years. (3 C.J.S., p.885.)

Allegiance. — the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. 15 R.C.L., 140. (Ballentine Law Dictionary, p. 68.).

"Allegiance," as its etymology indicates, is the name for the tie which binds the citizen to his state — the obligation of obedience and support which he owes to it. The state is the political person to whom this liege fealty is due. Its substance is the aggregate of persons owing this allegiance. The machinery through which it operates is its government. The persons who operate this machinery constitute its magistracy. The rules of conduct which the state utters or enforces are its law, and manifest its will. This will, viewed as legally supreme, is its sovereignty. (W.W. Willoughby, Citizenship and Allegiance in Constitutional and International Law, 1 American Journal of International Law, p. 915.).

The obligations flowing from the relation of a state and its nationals are reciprocal in character. This principle had been aptly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in its opinion in the case of Luria vs. United States:

Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. (3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, 1942 ed., p.6.)

Allegiance. — The tie which binds the citizen to the government, in return for the protection which the government affords him. The duty which the subject owes to the sovereign, correlative with the protection received.

It is a comparatively modern corruption of ligeance (ligeantia), which is derived from liege (ligius), meaning absolute or unqualified. It signified originally liege fealty, i. e., absolute and qualified fealty. 18 L. Q. Rev., 47.

x x x           x x x           x x x

Allegiance may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one; the citizen or subject owes the former to his government or sovereign, until by some act he distinctly renounces it, whilst the alien domiciled in the country owes a temporary and local allegiance continuing during such residence. (Carlisle vs. United States, 16 Wall. [U.S.], 154; 21 Law. ed., 426. (1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 179.).

The above quotations express ideas that do not fit exactly into the Philippine pattern in view of the revolutionary insertion in our Constitution of the fundamental principle that "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." (Section 1, Article II.) The authorities above quoted, judges and juridical publicists define allegiance with the idea that sovereignty resides somewhere else, on symbols or subjects other than the people themselves. Although it is possible that they had already discovered that the people and only the people are the true sovereign, their minds were not yet free from the shackles of the tradition that the powers of sovereignty have been exercised by princes and monarchs, by sultans and emperors, by absolute and tyrannical rules whose ideology was best expressed in the famous words of one of the kings of France: "L'etat c'est moi," or such other persons or group of persons posing as the government, as an entity different and in opposition to the people themselves. Although democracy has been known ever since old Greece, and modern democracies in the people, nowhere is such principle more imperative than in the pronouncement embodied in the fundamental law of our people.

To those who think that sovereignty is an attribute of government, and not of the people, there may be some plausibility in the proposition that sovereignty was suspended during the enemy occupation, with the consequence that allegiance must also have been suspended, because our government stopped to function in the country. But the idea cannot have any place under our Constitution. If sovereignty is an essential attribute of our people, according to the basic philosophy of Philippine democracy, it could not have been suspended during the enemy occupation. Sovereignty is the very life of our people, and there is no such thing as "suspended life." There is no possible middle situation between life and death. Sovereignty is the very essence of the personality and existence of our people. Can anyone imagine the possibility of "suspended personality" or "suspended existence" of a people? In no time during enemy occupation have the Filipino people ceased to be what they are.

The idea of suspended sovereignty or suspended allegiance is incompatible with our Constitution.

There is similarity in characteristics between allegiance to the sovereign and a wife's loyalty to her husband. Because some external and insurmountable force precludes the husband from exercising his marital powers, functions, and duties and the wife is thereby deprived of the benefits

of his protection, may the wife invoke the theory of suspended loyalty and may she freely share her bed with the assailant of their home? After giving aid and comfort to the assailant and allowing him to enjoy her charms during the former's stay in the invaded home, may the wife allege as defense for her adultery the principle of suspended conjugal fidelity?

Petitioner's thesis on change of sovereignty at the advent of independence on July 4, 1946, is unacceptable. We have already decided in Brodett vs. De la Rosa and Vda. de Escaler (p. 752, ante) that the Constitution of the Republic is the same as that of the Commonwealth. The advent of independence had the effect of changing the name of our Government and the withdrawal by the United States of her power to exercise functions of sovereignty in the Philippines. Such facts did not change the sovereignty of the Filipino people. That sovereignty, following our constitutional philosophy, has existed ever since our people began to exist. It has been recognized by the United States of America, at least since 1935, when President Roosevelt approved our Constitution. By such act, President Roosevelt, as spokesman of the American people, accepted and recognized the principle that sovereignty resides in the people that is, that Philippine sovereignty resides in the Filipino people.

The same sovereignty had been internationally recognized long before the proclamation of independence on July 4, 1946. Since the early part of the Pacific war, President Quezon had been sitting as representative of a sovereign people in the Allied War Council, and in June, 1945, the same Filipino people took part — outstanding and brilliant, it may be added — in the drafting and adoption of the charter of the United Nations, the unmistakable forerunner of the future democratic federal constitution of the world government envisioned by all those who adhere to the principle of unity of all mankind, the early realization of which is anxiously desired by all who want to be spared the sufferings, misery and disaster of another war.

Under our Constitution, the power to suspend laws is of legislative nature and is lodged in Congress. Sometimes it is delegated to the Chief Executive, such as the power granted by the Election Code to the President to suspend the election in certain districts and areas for strong reasons, such as when there is rebellion, or a public calamity, but it has never been exercised by tribunals. The Supreme Court has the power to declare null and void all laws violative of the Constitution, but it has no power, authority, or jurisdiction to suspend or declare suspended any valid law, such as the one on treason which petitioner wants to be included among the laws of the Commonwealth which, by his theory of suspended allegiance and suspended sovereignty, he claims have been suspended during the Japanese occupation.

Suppose President Quezon and his government, instead of going from Corregidor to Australia, and later to Washington, had fled to the mountains of Luzon, and a group of Filipino renegades should have killed them to serve the interests of the Japanese imperial forces. By petitioner's theory, those renegades cannot be prosecuted for treason or for rebellion or sedition, as the laws punishing them were suspended. Such absurd result betrays the untenability of the theory.

"The defense of the State is a prime duty of Government, and in the fulfillment of that duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal, military or civil service." Thus, section 2 of Article II of the Constitution provides: That duty of defense becomes more imperative in time of war and when the country is invaded by an aggressor nation. How can it be fulfilled if the allegiance of the citizens to the sovereign people is suspended during enemy occupation? The framers of the Constitution surely did not entertain even for the moment the absurdity that when the allegiance of the citizens to the sovereign people is more needed in the defense of the survival of the state, the same should be suspended, and that upon such suspension those who may be required to render personal, military or civil service may claim exemption from the indispensable duty of serving their country in distress.

Petitioner advances the theory that protection in the consideration of allegiance. He argues that the Commonwealth Government having been incapacitated during enemy occupation to protect the citizens, the latter were relieved of their allegiance to said government. The proposition is untenable. Allegiance to the sovereign is an indispensable bond for the existence of society. If that bond is dissolved, society has to disintegrate. Whether or not the existence of the latter is the result of the social compact mentioned by Roseau, there can be no question that organized society would be dissolved if it is not united by the cohesive power of the citizen's allegiance. Of course, the citizens are entitled to the protection of their government, but whether or not that government fulfills that duty, is immaterial to the need of maintaning the loyalty and fidelity of allegiance, in the same way that the physical forces of attraction should be kept unhampered if the life of an individual should continue, irrespective of the ability or inability of his mind to choose the most effective measures of personal protection.

After declaring that all legislative, executive, and judicial processes had during and under the Japanese regime, whether executed by the Japanese themselves or by Filipino officers of the puppet government they had set up, are null and void, as we have done in our opinions in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113), in Peralta vs. Director of Prison (75, Phil., 285), and in several other cases where the same question has been mentioned, we cannot consistently accept petitioner's theory.

If all laws or legislative acts of the enemy during the occupation were null and void, and as we cannot imagine the existence of organized society, such as the one constituted by the Filipino people, without laws of the Commonwealth were the ones in effect during the occupation and the only ones that could claim obedience from our citizens.

Petitioner would want us to accept the thesis that during the occupation we owed allegiance to the enemy. To give way to that paradoxical and disconcerting allegiance, it is suggested that we accept that our allegiance to our legitimate government was suspended. Petitioner's proposition has to fall by its own weight, because of its glaring absurdities. Allegiance, like its synonyms, loyalty and fidelity, is based on feelings of attraction, love, sympathy, admiration, respect, veneration, gratitude, amity, understanding, friendliness. These are the feelings or some of the feelings that bind us to our own people, and are the natural roots of the duty of allegiance we owe them. The enemy only provokes repelling and repulsive feelings — hate, anger, vexation, chagrin, mortification, resentment, contempt, spitefulness. The natural incompatibility of political, social and ethical ideologies between our people and the Japanese, making impossible the existence of any feeling of attraction between them, aside from the initial fact that the Japanese invaded our country as our enemy, was aggravated by the morbid complexities of haughtiness, braggadocio and beastly brutality of the Nippon soldiers and officers in their dealings with even the most inoffensive of our citizens.

Giving bread to our enemy, and, after slapping one side of our face, offer him the other to be further slapped, may appear to be divinely charitable, but to make them a reality, it is necessary to change human nature. Political actions, legal rules and judicial decisions deal with human relations, taking man as he is, not as he should be. To love the enemy is not natural. As long as human pyschology remains as it is, the enemy shall always be hated. Is it possible to conceive an allegiance based on hatred?

The Japanese, having waged against us an illegal war condemned by prevailing principles of international law, could not have established in our country any government that can be legally recognized as de facto. They came as bandits and ruffians, and it is inconceivable that banditry and ruffianism can claim any duty of allegiance — even a temporary one — from a decent people.

One of the implications of petitioner's theory, as intimated somewhere, is that the citizens, in case of invasion, are free to do anything not forbidden by the Hague Conventions. Anybody will notice immediately that the result will be the doom of small nations and peoples, by whetting the

covetousness of strong powers prone on imperialistic practices. In the imminence of invasion, weak-hearted soldiers of the smaller nations will readily throw away their arms to rally behind the paladium of the invaders.

Two of the three great departments of our Government have already rejected petitioner's theory since September 25, 1945, the day when Commonwealth Act No. 682 took effect. By said act, creating the People's Court to try and decide all cases of crime against national security "committed between December 8, 1941 and September 2, 1945," (section 2), the legislative and executive departments have jointly declared that during the period above mentioned, including the time of Japanese occupation, all laws punishing crimes against national security, including article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing treason, had remained in full effect and should be enforced.

That no one raised a voice in protest against the enactment of said act and that no one, at the time the act was being considered by the Senate and the House of Representatives, ever dared to expose the uselessness of creating a People's Court to try crime which, as claimed by petitioner, could not have been committed as the laws punishing them have been suspended, is a historical fact of which the Supreme Court may take judicial notice. This fact shows universal and unanimous agreement of our people that the laws of the Commonwealth were not suspended and that the theory of suspended allegiance is just an afterthought provoked by a desperate effort to help quash the pending treason cases at any cost.

Among the arguments adduced in favor of petitioner's theory is that it is based on generally accepted principles of international law, although this argument becomes futile by petitioner's admission that the theory is advantageous to strong powers but harmful to small and weak nations, thus hinting that the latter cannot accept it by heart. Suppose we accept at face value the premise that the theories, urged by petitioner, of suspended allegiance and suspended sovereignty are based on generally accepted principles of international law. As the latter forms part of our laws by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of Article II of the Constitution, it seems that there is no alternative but to accept the theory. But the theory has the effect of suspending the laws, especially those political in nature. There is no law more political in nature than the Constitution of the Philippines. The result is an inverted reproduction of the Greek myth of Saturn devouring his own children. Here, under petitioner's theory, the offspring devours its parent.

Can we conceive of an instance in which the Constitution was suspended even for a moment?

There is conclusive evidence that the legislature, as policy-determining agency of government, even since the Pacific war started on December 7, 1941, intimated that it would not accept the idea that our laws should be suspended during enemy occupation. It must be remembered that in the middle of December, 1941, when Manila and other parts of the archipelago were under constant bombing by Japanese aircraft and enemy forces had already set foot somewhere in the Philippines, the Second National Assembly passed Commonwealth Act No. 671, which came into effect on December 16, 1941. When we approved said act, we started from the premise that all our laws shall continue in effect during the emergency, and in said act we even went to the extent of authorizing the President "to continue in force laws and appropriations which would lapse or otherwise become inoperative," (section 2, [d]), and also to "promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the national policy," (section 2), that "the existence of war between the United States and other countries of Europe and Asia, which involves the Philippines, makes it necessary to invest the President with extraordinary powers in order to meet the resulting emergency." (Section 1.) To give emphasis to the intimation, we provided that the rules and regulations provided "shall be in force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall otherwise provide," foreseeing the possibility that Congress may not meet as scheduled as a result of the emergency, including invasion and occupation by the enemy. Everybody was then convinced that we did not have available the necessary means of repelling effectivity the enemy invasion.

Maybe it is not out of place to consider that the acceptance of petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance will cause a great injustice to those who, although innocent, are now under indictment for treason and other crimes involving disloyalty to their country, because their cases will be dismissed without the opportunity for them to revindicate themselves. Having been acquitted upon a mere legal technicality which appears to us to be wrong, history will indiscriminality classify them with the other accused who were really traitors to their country. Our conscience revolts against the idea of allowing the innocent ones to go down in the memory of future generations with the infamous stigma of having betrayed their own people. They should not be deprived of the opportunity to show through the due process of law that they are free from all blame and that, if they were really patriots, they acted as such during the critical period of test.

HILADO, J., concurring:

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion to the effect that during the so-called Japanese occupation of the Philippines (which was nothing more than the occupation of Manila and certain other specific regions of the Islands which constituted the minor area of the Archipelago) the allegiance of the citizens of this country to their legitimate government and to the United States was not suspended, as well as the ruling that during the same period there was no change of sovereignty here; but my reasons are different and I proceed to set them forth:

I. SUSPENDED ALLEGIANCE.

(a) Before the horror and atrocities of World War I, which were multiplied more than a hundred-fold in World War II, the nations had evolved certain rules and principles which came to be known as International Law, governing their conduct with each other and toward their respective citizens and inhabitants, in the armed forces or civilian life, in time of peace or in time of war. During the ages which preceded that first world conflict the civilized governments had no realization of the potential excesses of which "men's inhumanity to man" could be capable. Up to that time war was, at least under certain conditions, considered as sufficiently justified, and the nations had not on that account, proscribed nor renounced it as an instrument of national policy, or as a means of settling international disputes. It is not for us now to dwell upon the reasons accounting for this historical fact. Suffice it to recognize its existence in history.

But when in World War I civilized humanity saw that war could be, as it actually was, employed for entirely different reasons and from entirely different motives, compared to previous wars, and the instruments and methods of warfare had been so materially changed as not only to involve the contending armed forces on well defined battlefields or areas, on land, in the sea, and in the air, but to spread death and destruction to the innocent civilian populations and to their properties, not only in the countries engaged in the conflict but also in neutral ones, no less than 61 civilized nations and governments, among them Japan, had to formulate and solemnly subscribe to the now famous Briand-Kellogg Pact in the year 1928. As said by Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court, as chief counsel for the United States in the prosecution of "Axis war criminals," in his report to President Truman of June 7, 1945:

International law is not capable of development by legislation, for there is no continuously sitting international legislature. Innovations and revisions in international law are brought about by the action of governments designed to meet a change circumstances. It grows, as did the common law, through decisions reached from time to time in adopting settled principles to new situations.

x x x           x x x           x x x

After the shock to civilization of the war of 1914-1918, however, a marked reversion to the earlier and sounder doctrines of international law took place. By the time the Nazis came to power it was thoroughly established that launching an aggressive war or the institution of war by treachery was illegal and that the defense of legitimate warfare was no longer available to those who engaged in such an enterprise. It is high time that we act on the juridical principle that aggressive war-making is illegal and criminal.

The re-establishment of the principle of justifiable war is traceable in many steps. One of the most significant is the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928 by which Germany, Italy, and Japan, in common with the United States and practically all the nations of the world, renounced war as an instrument of national policy, bound themselves to seek the settlement of disputes only by pacific means, and condemned recourse to war for the solution of international controversies.

Unless this Pact altered the legal status of wars of aggression, it has no meaning at all and comes close to being an act of deception. In 1932 Mr. Henry L. Stimson, as United States Secretary of State, gave voice to the American concept of its effect. He said, "war between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty. This means that it has become illegal throughout practically the entire world. It is no longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no longer to be the principle around which the duties, the conduct, and the rights of nations revolve. It is an illegal thing. . . . By that very act we have made obsolete many legal precedents and have given the legal profession the task of re-examining many of its Codes and treaties.

This Pact constitutes only one reversal of the viewpoint that all war is legal and has brought international law into harmony with the common sense of mankind — that unjustifiable war is a crime.

Without attempting an exhaustive catalogue, we may mention the Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed by the representatives of forty-eight governments, which declared that "a war of aggression constitutes .. an International crime. . . .

The Eight Assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, on unanimous resolution of the representatives of forty-eight member-nations, including Germany, declared that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime. At the Sixth Pan-American Conference of 1928, the twenty-one American Republics unanimously adopted a resolution stating that "war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species."

x x x           x x x           x x x

We therefore propose to change that a war of aggression is a crime, and that modern international law has abolished the defense that those who incite or wage it are engaged in legitimate business. Thus may the forces of the law be mobilized on the side of peace. ("U.S.A. — An American Review," published by the United States Office of War Information, Vol. 2, No. 10; emphasis supplied.).

When Justice Jackson speaks of "a marked reversion to the earlier and sounder doctrines of international law" and "the re-establishment of the principle of justifiable war," he has in mind no other than "the doctrine taught by Grotius, the father of international law, that there is a distinction between the just and the unjust war — the war of defense and the war of aggression" to which he alludes in an earlier paragraph of the same report.

In the paragraph of said report immediately preceding the one last above mentioned Justice Jackson says that "international law as taught in the 19th and the early part of the 20th century generally declared that war-making was not illegal and no crime at law." But, as he says in one of the paragraphs hereinabove quoted from that report, the Briand-Kellogg Pact constitutes a reversal of the view-point that all war is legal and has brought international law into harmony with the common sense of mankind — that unjustifiable war is a crime. Then he mentions as other reversals of the same viewpoint, the Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, declaring that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime; the 8th assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, declaring that a war of aggression constitutes an international crime; and the 6th Pan-American conference of 1928, which unanimously adopted a resolution stating that war of aggression constitutes an international crime against the human species: which enumeration, he says, is not an attempt at an exhaustive catalogue.

It is not disputed that the war started by Japan in the Pacific, first, against the United States, and later, in rapid succession, against other allied nations, was a war of aggression and utterly unjustifiable. More aggressive still, and more unjustifiable, as admitted on all sides, was its attack against the Philippines and its consequent invasion and occupation of certain areas thereof.

Some of the rules and principles of international law which have been cited for petitioner herein in support of his theory of suspended allegiance, have been evolved and accepted during those periods of the history of nations when all war was considered legal, as stated by Justice Jackson, and the others have reference to military occupation in the course of really justifiable war.

Japan in subscribing the Briand-Kellogg Pact thirteen years before she started the aggressive war which threw the entire Pacific area into a seething cauldron from the last month of 1941 of the first week of September, 1945, expressly agreed to outlaw, proscribe and renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and bound herself to seek the settlement of her disputes with other nations only by pacific means. Thus she expressly gave her consent to that modification of the then existing rules and principles of international law governing the matter. With the modification, all the signatories to the pact necessarily accepted and bound themselves to abide by all its implications, among them the outlawing, prescription and renunciation of military occupation of another nation's territory in the course of a war thus outlawed, proscribed and renounced. This is only one way of saving that the rules and principles of international law therefore existing on the subject of military occupation were automatically abrogated and rendered ineffective in all future cases of war coming under the ban and condemnation of the pact.

If an unjustifiable war is a crime; if a war of aggression constitutes an international crime; if such a war is an international crime against the human species: a nation which occupies a foreign territory in the course of such a war cannot possibly, under any principle of natural or positive law, acquire or posses any legitimate power or right growing out or incident to such occupation. Concretely, Japan in criminally invading the Philippines and occupying certain portions of its territory during the Pacific war, could not have nor exercise, in the legal sense — and only this sense should we speak here — with respect to this country and its citizens, any more than could a burglar breaking through a man's house pretends to have or to exercise any legal power or right within that house with respect either to the person of the owner or to his property. To recognize in the first instance any legal power or right on the part of the invader, and in the second any legal power or right on the part of the burglar, the same as in case of a military occupant in the course of a justifiable war, would be nothing short of legalizing the crime itself. It would be the most monstrous and unpardonable contradiction to prosecute, condemn and hang the appropriately called war criminals of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and at the same

time recognize any lawfulness in their occupation invaded. And let it not be forgotten that the Philippines is a member of the United Nations who have instituted and conducted the so-called war crimes trials. Neither should we lose sight of the further fact that this government has a representative in the international commission currently trying the Japanese war criminals in Tokyo. These facts leave no room for doubt that this government is in entire accord with the other United Nations in considering the Pacific war started by Japan as a crime. Not only this, but this country had six years before the outbreak of the Pacific war already renounced war as an instrument of national policy (Constitution, Article II, section 2), thus in consequence adopting the doctrine of the Briand-Kellogg Pact.

Consequently, it is submitted that it would be absolutely wrong and improper for this Court to apply to the occupation by Japan of certain areas of the Philippines during that war the rules and principles of international law which might be applicable to a military occupation occurring in the course of a justifiable war. How can this Court recognize any lawfulness or validity in that occupation when our own government has sent a representative to said international commission in Tokyo trying the Japanese "war criminals" precisely for the "crimes against humanity and peace" committed by them during World War II of which said occupation was but part and parcel? In such circumstances how could such occupation produce no less an effect than the suspension of the allegiance of our people to their country and government?

(b) But even in the hypothesis — and not more than a mere hypothesis — that when Japan occupied the City of Manila and certain other areas of the Philippines she was engaged in a justifiable war, still the theory of suspended allegiance would not hold good. The continuance of the allegiance owed to a notion by its citizens is one of those high privileges of citizenship which the law of nations denies to the occupant the power to interfere with.

. . . His (of occupant) rights are not, however, commensurate with his power. He is thus forbidden to take certain measures which he may be able to apply, and that irrespective of their efficacy. The restrictions imposed upon him are in theory designed to protect the individual in the enjoyment of some highly important privileges. These concern his allegiance to the de jure sovereign, his family honor and domestic relations, religious convictions, personal service, and connection with or residence in the occupied territory.

The Hague Regulations declare that the occupant is forbidden to compel the inhabitants to swear allegiance to the hostile power. . . . (III Hyde, International Law, 2d revised ed., pp. 1898-1899.)

. . . Nor may he (occupant) compel them (inhabitants) to take an oath of allegiance. Since the authority of the occupant is not sovereignty, the inhabitants owe no temporary allegiance to him. . . . (II Oppenheim, International Law, pp. 341-344.)

The occupant's lack of the authority to exact an oath of allegiance from the inhabitants of the occupied territory is but a corollary of the continuance of their allegiance to their own lawful sovereign. This allegiance does not consist merely in obedience to the laws of the lawful sovereign, but more essentially consists in loyalty or fealty to him. In the same volume and pages of Oppenheim's work above cited, after the passage to the effect that the inhabitants of the occupied territory owe no temporary allegiance to the occupant it is said that "On the other hand, he may compel them to take an oath — sometimes called an 'oath of neutrality' — . . . willingly to submit to his 'legitimate commands.' Since, naturally, such "legitimate commands" include the occupant's laws, it follows that said occupant, where the rule is applicable, has the right to compel the inhabitants to take an oath of obedience to his laws; and since according to the same rule, he cannot exact from the inhabitants an oath of obedience to his laws; and since, according to the same rule, he cannot exact from the inhabitants an oath of allegiance, it follows that obedience to his laws, which he can exact from them, does not constitute allegiance.

(c) The theory of suspended allegiance is unpatriotic to the last degree. To say that when the one's country is unable to afford him in its protection, he ceases to be bound to it by the sacred ties of allegiance, is to advocate the doctrine that precisely when his country is in such distress, and therefore most needs his loyalty, he is absolved from the loyalty. Love of country should be something permanent and lasting, ending only in death; loyalty should be its worth offspring. The outward manifestation of one or the other may for a time be prevented or thwarted by the irresistible action of the occupant; but this should not in the least extinguish nor obliterate the invisible feelings, and promptings of the spirit. And beyond the unavoidable consequences of the enemy's irresistible pressure, those invisible feelings and promptings of the spirit of the people should never allow them to act, to speak, nor even to think a whit contrary to their love and loyalty to the Fatherland. For them, indicted, to face their country and say to it that, because when it was overrun and vanquished by the barbarous invader and, in consequence was disabled from affording them protection, they were released from their sacred obligation of allegiance and loyalty, and could therefore freely adhere to its enemy, giving him aid and comfort, incurring no criminal responsibility therefor, would only tend to aggravate their crime.

II. CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY

Article II, section 1, of the Constitution provides that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." The Filipino people are the self-same people before and after Philippine Independence, proclaimed on July 4, 1946. During the life of the Commonwealth sovereignty resided in them under the Constitution; after the proclamation of independence that sovereignty remained with them under the very same fundamental law. Article XVIII of the said Constitution stipulates that the government established thereby shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, "The Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." Under this provision the Government of the Philippines immediately prior to independence was essentially to be the identical government thereafter — only the name of that government was to be changed.

Both before and after the adoption of the Philippine Constitution the people of the Philippines were and are always the plaintiff in all criminal prosecutions, the case being entitled: "The People of the Philippines vs. (the defendant or defendants)." This was already true in prosecutions under the Revised Penal Code containing the law of treason. "The Government of the Philippines" spoken of in article 114 of said Code merely represents the people of the Philippines. Said code was continued, along with the other laws, by Article XVI, section 2, of the Constitution which constitutional provision further directs that "all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this Constitution" — of course, meaning the Commonwealth of the Philippines before, and the Republic of the Philippines after, independence (Article XVIII). Under both governments sovereignty resided and resides in the people (Article II, section 1). Said sovereignty was never transferred from that people — they are the same people who preserve it to this day. There has never been any change in its respect.

If one committed treason againsts the People of the Philippines before July 4, 1946, he continues to be criminally liable for the crime to the same people now. And if, following the literal wording of the Revised Penal Code, as continued by the Constitution, that accused owed allegiance upon the commission of the crime to the "Government of the Philippines," in the textual words of the Constitution (Article XVI, section 2, and XVIII) that was the same government which after independence became known as the "Republic of the Philippines." The most that can be said is that the sovereignty of the people became complete and absolute after independence — that they became, politically, fully of age, to use a metaphor. But if the responsibility for a crime against a minor is not extinguished by the mere fact of his becoming of age, why should the responsibility for the crime of

treason committed against the Filipino people when they were not fully politically independent be extinguished after they acquire this status? The offended party continues to be the same — only his status has changed.

PARAS, J., dissenting:

During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were suspended. This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international law adopted by our Constitution(Article II, section 3) as a part of the law of the Nation. Accordingly, we have on more than one occasion already stated that "laws of a political nature or affecting political relations, . . . are considered as suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation" (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil., 113, 124), and that the rule "that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory." (Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, Philippine Army, 75, Phil., 875, 881.)

The principle is recognized by the United States of America, which admits that the occupant will naturally suspends all laws of a political nature and all laws which affect the welfare and safety of his command, such action to be made known to the inhabitants.(United States Rules of Land Welfare, 1940, Article 287.) As allegiance to the United States is an essential element in the crime of treason under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, and in view of its position in our political structure prior to the independence of the Philippines, the rule as interpreted and practiced in the United States necessarily has a binding force and effect in the Philippines, to the exclusion of any other construction followed elsewhere, such as may be inferred, rightly or wrongly, from the isolated cases 1 brought to our attention, which, moreover, have entirely different factual bases.

Corresponding notice was given by the Japanese occupying army, first, in the proclamation of its Commander in chief of January 2, 1942, to the effect that as a "result of the Japanese Military operations, the sovereignty of the United States of America over the Philippines has completely disappeared and the Army hereby proclaims the Military Administration under martial law over the district occupied by the Army;" secondly, in Order No. 3 of the said Commander in Chief of February 20, 1942, providing that "activities of the administrative organs and judicial courts in the Philippines shall be based upon the existing statutes, orders, ordinances and customs until further orders provided that they are not inconsistent with the present circumstances under the Japanese Military Administration;" and, thirdly, in the explanation to Order No. 3 reminding that "all laws and regulations of the Philippines has been suspended since Japanese occupation," and excepting the application of "laws and regulations which are not proper act under the present situation of the Japanese Military Administration," especially those "provided with some political purposes."

The suspension of the political law during enemy occupation is logical, wise and humane. The latter phase outweighs all other aspects of the principle aimed more or less at promoting the necessarily selfish motives and purposes of a military occupant. It thus consoling to note that the powers instrumental in the crystallization of the Hague Conventions of 1907 did not forget to declare that they were "animated by the desire to serve . . . the interest of the humanity and the over progressive needs of civilization," and that "in case not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience." These saving statements come to the aid of the inhabitants in the occupied territory in a situation wherein, even before the belligerent occupant "takes a further step and by appropriate affirmative action undertakes to acquire the right of sovereignty for himself, . . . the occupant is likely to regard to himself as clothed with freedom to endeavor to impregnate the people who inhabit the area concerned with his own political ideology, and to make that endeavor successful by various

forms of pressure exerted upon enemy officials who are permitted to retain the exercise of normal governmental functions." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition, 1945, p. 1879.)

The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of the invading power, whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of the displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from the inhabitants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the maintenance of law and order, and for the proper administration of the country (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 297), and to demand all kinds of services "of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country" (Hague Regulations, article 52);and if, as we have in effect said, by the surrender the inhabitants pass under a temporary allegiance to the government of the occupant and are bound by such laws, and such only, as it chooses to recognize and impose, and the belligerent occupant `is totally independent of the constitution and the laws of the territory, since occupation is an aim of warfare, and the maintenance and safety of his forces, and the purpose of war, stand in the foreground of his interest and must be promoted under all circumstances or conditions." (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 285, 295), citing United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, and quoting Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. II. Sixth Edition, Revised, 1944,p. 432.)

He would be a bigot who cannot or would refuse to see the cruel result if the people in an occupied territory were required to obey two antagonistic and opposite powers. To emphasize our point, we would adopt the argument, in a reverse order, of Mr. Justice Hilado in Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285, 358), contained in the following passage:

To have bound those of our people who constituted the great majority who never submitted to the Japanese oppressors, by the laws, regulations, processes and other acts of those two puppet governments, would not only have been utterly unjust and downright illegal, but would have placed them in the absurd and impossible condition of being simultaneously submitted to two mutually hostile governments, with their respective constitutional and legislative enactments and institutions — on the one hand bound to continue owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth Government, and, on the other, to owe allegiance, if only temporary, to Japan.

The only sensible purpose of the treason law — which is of political complexion and taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offense committed against the belligerent occupant, incident to a state of war and necessary for the control of the occupant (Alcantara vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 494), — must be the preservation of the nation, certainly not its destruction or extermination. And yet the latter is unwittingly wished by those who are fond of the theory that what is suspended is merely the exercise of sovereignty by the de jure government or the latter's authority to impose penal sanctions or that, otherwise stated, the suspension refers only to the military occupant. If this were to be the only effect, the rule would be a meaningless and superfluous optical illusion, since it is obvious that the fleeing or displaced government cannot, even if it should want, physically assert its authority in a territory actually beyond its reach, and that the occupant, on the other hand, will not take the absurd step of prosecuting and punishing the inhabitants for adhering to and aiding it. If we were to believe the opponents of the rule in question, we have to accept the absurd proposition that the guerrillas can all be prosecuted with illegal possession of firearms. It should be borne in the mind that "the possession by the belligerent occupant of the right to control, maintain or modify the laws that are to obtain within the occupied area is an exclusive one. The territorial sovereign driven therefrom, can not compete with it on an even plane. Thus, if the latter attempt interference, its action is a mere manifestation of belligerent effort to weaken the enemy. It has no bearing upon the legal quality of what the occupant exacts, while it retains control. Thus, if the absent territorial sovereign, through some quasi-legislative decree, forbids its nationals to comply with what the occupant has ordained obedience to such command within the occupied territory would not safeguard the individual from the prosecution by the occupant." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition, 1945, p. 1886.)

As long as we have not outlawed the right of the belligerent occupant to prosecute and punish the inhabitants for "war treason" or "war crimes," as an incident of the state of war and necessity for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupant, against which prosecution and punishment such inhabitants cannot obviously be protected by their native sovereign, it is hard to understand how we can justly rule that they may at the same time be prosecuted and punished for an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code, but already taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offense committed against the belligerent occupant.

In Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 285, 296), we held that "the Constitution of the Commonwealth Government was suspended during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese forces or the belligerent occupant at regular war with the United States," and the meaning of the term "suspended" is very plainly expressed in the following passage (page 298):

No objection can be set up to the legality of its provisions in the light of the precepts of our Commonwealth Constitution relating to the rights of the accused under that Constitution, because the latter was not in force during the period of the Japanese military occupation, as we have already stated. Nor may said Constitution be applied upon its revival at the time of the re-occupation of the Philippines by the virtue of the priciple of postliminium, because "a constitution should operate prospectively only, unless the words employed show a clear intention that it should have a retrospective effect," (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, seventh edition, page 97, and a case quoted and cited in the foot-note), especially as regards laws of procedure applied to cases already terminated completely.

In much the same way, we should hold that no treason could have been committed during the Japanese military occupation against the United States or the Commonwealth Government, because article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was not then in force. Nor may this penal provision be applied upon its revival at the time of the reoccupation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminium, because of the constitutional inhibition against any ex post facto law and because, under article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal laws shall have a retroactive effect only in so far as they favor the accused. Why did we refuse to enforce the Constitution, more essential to sovereignty than article 114 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforesaid of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons if, as alleged by the majority, the suspension was good only as to the military occupant?

The decision in the United States vs. Rice (4 Wheaton, 246), conclusively supports our position. As analyzed and described in United States vs. Reiter (27 Fed. Cas., 773), that case "was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States — the court of highest human authority on that subject — and as the decision was against the United States, and in favor of the authority of Great Britain, its enemy in the war, and was made shortly after the occurrence of the war out of which it grew; and while no department of this Government was inclined to magnify the rights of Great Britain or disparage those of its own government, there can be no suspicion of bias in the mind of the court in favor of the conclusion at which it arrived, and no doubt that the law seemed to the court to warrant and demand such a decision. That case grew out of the war of 1812, between the United States and Great Britain. It appeared that in September, 1814, the British forces had taken the port of Castine, in the State of Maine, and held it in military occupation; and that while it was so held, foreign goods, by the laws of the United States subject to duty, had been introduced into that port without paying duties to the United States. At the close of the war the place by treaty restored to the United States, and after that was done Government of the United States sought to recover from the persons so introducing the goods there while in possession of the British, the duties to which by the laws of the United States, they would have been liable. The claim of the United States was that its laws were properly in force there, although the place was at the time held by the British forces in hostility to the United States, and the laws, therefore, could not at the time be enforced there; and that a court of the United States (the power of that government there having since been restored) was bound so to decide. But this illusion of the prosecuting officer there was dispelled by the court in the most summary manner. Mr. Justice Story, that great luminary of the American bench, being the organ of the court in delivering its opinion, said: 'The single question is whether goods imported into Castine during its occupation by the enemy are liable

to the duties imposed by the revenue laws upon goods imported into the United States.. We are all of opinion that the claim for duties cannot be sustained. . . . The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance of the British Government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case no other laws could be obligatory upon them. . . . Castine was therefore, during this period, as far as respected our revenue laws, to be deemed a foreign port, and goods imported into it by the inhabitants were subjects to such duties only as the British Government chose to require. Such goods were in no correct sense imported into the Unites States.' The court then proceeded to say, that the case is the same as if the port of Castine had been foreign territory, ceded by treaty to the United States, and the goods had been imported there previous to its cession. In this case they say there would be no pretense to say that American duties could be demanded; and upon principles of public or municipal law, the cases are not distinguishable. They add at the conclusion of the opinion: 'The authorities cited at the bar would, if there were any doubt, be decisive of the question. But we think it too clear to require any aid from authority.' Does this case leave room for a doubt whether a country held as this was in armed belligerents occupation, is to be governed by him who holds it, and by him alone? Does it not so decide in terms as plain as can be stated? It is asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States with entire unanimity, the great and venerated Marshall presiding, and the erudite and accomplished Story delivering the opinion of the court, that such is the law, and it is so adjudged in this case. Nay, more: it is even adjudged that no other laws could be obligatory; that such country, so held, is for the purpose of the application of the law off its former government to be deemed foreign territory, and that goods imported there (and by parity of reasoning other acts done there) are in no correct sense done within the territory of its former sovereign, the United States."

But it is alleged by the majority that the sovereignty spoken of in the decision of the United States vs. Rice should be construed to refer to the exercise of sovereignty, and that, if sovereignty itself was meant, the doctrine has become obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907. In answer, we may state that sovereignty can have any important significance only when it may be exercised; and, to our way of thinking, it is immaterial whether the thing held in abeyance is the sovereignty itself or its exercise, because the point cannot nullify, vary, or otherwise vitiate the plain meaning of the doctrinal words "the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors." We cannot accept the theory of the majority, without in effect violating the rule of international law, hereinabove adverted to, that the possession by the belligerent occupant of the right to control, maintain or modify the laws that are to obtain within the occupied area is an exclusive one, and that the territorial sovereign driven therefrom cannot compete with it on an even plane. Neither may the doctrine in the United States vs. Rice be said to have become obsolete, without repudiating the actual rule prescribed and followed by the United States, allowing the military occupant to suspend all laws of a political nature and even require public officials and inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 309). In fact, it is a recognized doctrine of American Constitutional Law that mere conquest or military occupation of a territory of another State does not operate to annex such territory to occupying State, but that the inhabitants of the occupied district, no longer receiving the protection of their native State, for the time being owe no allegiance to it, and, being under the control and protection of the victorious power, owe to that power fealty and obedience. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p.364.)

The majority have resorted to distinctions, more apparent than real, if not immaterial, in trying to argue that the law of treason was obligatory on the Filipinos during the Japanese occupation. Thus it is insisted that a citizen or subject owes not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, and that "temporary allegiance" to the military occupant may be likened to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign to the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives therefrom. The comparison is most unfortunate. Said foreigner is in the territory of a power not hostile to or in actual war with his own government; he is in the territory of a power

which has not suspended, under the rules of international law, the laws of political nature of his own government; and the protections received by him from that friendly or neutral power is real, not the kind of protection which the inhabitants of an occupied territory can expect from a belligerent army. "It is but reasonable that States, when they concede to other States the right to exercise jurisdiction over such of their own nationals as are within the territorial limits of such other States, should insist that States should provide system of law and of courts, and in actual practice, so administer them, as to furnish substantial legal justice to alien residents. This does not mean that a State must or should extend to aliens within its borders all the civil, or much less, all the political rights or privileges which it grants to its own citizens; but it does mean that aliens must or should be given adequate opportunity to have such legal rights as are granted to them by the local law impartially and judicially determined, and, when thus determined, protected." (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p. 360.)

When it is therefore said that a citizen of a sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country or, in the language of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, "elsewhere," a territory other than one under belligerent occupation must have been contemplated. This would make sense, because treason is a crime "the direct or indirect purpose of which is the delivery, in whole or in part, of the country to a foreign power, or to pave the way for the enemy to obtain dominion over the national territory" (Albert, The Revised Penal Code, citing 3 Groizard, 14); and, very evidently, a territory already under occupation can no longer be "delivered."

The majority likewise argue that the theory of suspended sovereignty or allegiance will enable the military occupant to legally recruit the inhabitants to fight against their own government, without said inhabitants being liable for treason. This argument is not correct, because the suspension does not exempt the occupant from complying with the Hague Regulations (article 52) that allows it to demand all kinds of services provided that they do not involve the population "in the obligation of taking part military operations against their own country." Neither does the suspension prevent the inhabitants from assuming a passive attitude, much less from dying and becoming heroes if compelled by the occupant to fight against their own country. Any imperfection in the present state of international law should be corrected by such world agency as the United Nations organizations.

It is of common knowledge that even with the alleged cooperation imputed to the collaborators, an alarming number of Filipinos were killed or otherwise tortured by the ruthless, or we may say savage, Japanese Army. Which leads to the conclusion that if the Filipinos did not obey the Japanese commands and feign cooperation, there would not be any Filipino nation that could have been liberated. Assuming that the entire population could go to and live in the mountains, or otherwise fight as guerrillas — after the formal surrender of our and the American regular fighting forces, — they would have faced certain annihilation by the Japanese, considering that the latter's military strength at the time and the long period during which they were left military unmolested by America. In this connection, we hate to make reference to the atomic bomb as a possible means of destruction.

If a substantial number of guerrillas were able to survive and ultimately help in the liberation of the Philippines, it was because the feigned cooperation of their countrymen enabled them to get food and other aid necessary in the resistance movement. If they were able to survive, it was because they could camouflage themselves in the midst of the civilian population in cities and towns. It is easy to argue now that the people could have merely followed their ordinary pursuits of life or otherwise be indifferent to the occupant. The fundamental defect of this line of thought is that the Japanese assumed to be so stupid and dumb as not to notice any such attitude. During belligerent occupation, "the outstanding fact to be reckoned with is the sharp opposition between the inhabitants of the occupied areas and the hostile military force exercising control over them. At heart they remain at war with each other. Fear for their own safety may not serve to deter the inhabitants from taking advantage of opportunities to interfere with the safety and success of the occupant, and in so doing they may arouse its passions and cause to take vengeance in cruel fashion. Again, even when it is untainted by such conduct, the occupant as a means of attaining ultimate success in its major conflict may, under plea of military necessity,

and regardless of conventional or customary prohibitions, proceed to utilize the inhabitants within its grip as a convenient means of military achievement." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition [1945], p. 1912.) It should be stressed that the Japanese occupation was not a matter of a few months; it extended over a little more than three years. Said occupation was a fact, in spite of the "presence of guerrilla bands in barrios and mountains, and even in towns of the Philippines whenever these towns were left by Japanese garrisons or by the detachments of troops sent on patrol to those places." (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil., 371, 373.) The law of nations accepts belligerent occupation as a fact to be reckoned with, regardless of the merits of the occupant's cause. (Hyde, International Law, Second Revised Edition [1945], Vol. III, p. 1879.)

Those who contend or fear that the doctrine herein adhere to will lead to an over-production of traitors, have a wrong and low conception of the psychology and patriotism of their countrymen. Patriots are such after their birth in the first place, and no amount of laws or judicial decisions can make or unmake them. On the other hand, the Filipinos are not so base as to be insensitive to the thought that the real traitor is cursed everywhere and in all ages. Our patriots who fought and died during the last war, and the brave guerrillas who have survived, were undoubtedly motivated by their inborn love of country, and not by such a thing as the treason law. The Filipino people as a whole, passively opposed the Japanese regime, not out of fear of a treason statute but because they preferred and will prefer the democratic and civilized way of life and American altruism to Japanese barbaric and totalitarian designs. Of course, there are those who might at heart have been pro-Japanese; but they met and will unavoidably meet the necessary consequences. The regular soldiers faced the risks of warfare; the spies and informers subjected themselves to the perils of military operations, likely received summary liquidation or punishments from the guerrillas and the parties injured by their acts, and may be prosecuted as war spies by the military authorities of the returning sovereign; those who committed other common crimes, directly or through the Japanese army, may be prosecuted under the municipal law, and under this group even the spies and informers, Makapili or otherwise, are included, for they can be made answerable for any act offensive to person or property; the buy-and-sell opportunists have the war profits tax to reckon with. We cannot close our eyes to the conspicuous fact that, in the majority of cases, those responsible for the death of, or injury to, any Filipino or American at the hands of the Japanese, were prompted more by personal motives than by a desire to levy war against the United States or to adhere to the occupant. The alleged spies and informers found in the Japanese occupation the royal road to vengeance against personal or political enemies. The recent amnesty granted to the guerrillas for acts, otherwise criminal, committed in the furtherance of their resistance movement has in a way legalized the penal sanctions imposed by them upon the real traitors.

It is only from a realistic, practical and common-sense point of view, and by remembering that the obedience and cooperation of the Filipinos were effected while the Japanese were in complete control and occupation of the Philippines, when their mere physical presence implied force and pressure — and not after the American forces of liberation had restored the Philippine Government — that we will come to realize that, apart from any rule of international law, it was necessary to release the Filipinos temporarily from the old political tie in the sense indicated herein. Otherwise, one is prone to dismiss the reason for such cooperation and obedience. If there were those who did not in any wise cooperate or obey, they can be counted by the fingers, and let their names adorn the pages of Philippine history. Essentially, however, everybody who took advantage, to any extent and degree, of the peace and order prevailing during the occupation, for the safety and survival of himself and his family, gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Our great liberator himself, General Douglas MacArthur, had considered the laws of the Philippines ineffective during the occupation, and restored to their full vigor and force only after the liberation. Thus, in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, he ordained that "the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines . . . are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control," and that "all laws . . . of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null

and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control." Repeating what we have said in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113, 133), "it is to be presumed that General Douglas MacArthur, who was acting as an agent or a representative of the Government and the President of the United States, constitutional Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army, did not intend to act against the principles of the law of nations asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States from the early period of its existence, applied by the President of the United States, and later embodied in the Hague Conventions of 1907."

The prohibition in the Hague Conventions (Article 45) against "any pressure on the population to take oath to the hostile power," was inserted for the moral protection and benefit of the inhabitants, and does not necessarily carry the implication that the latter continue to be bound to the political laws of the displaced government. The United States, a signatory to the Hague Conventions, has made the point clear, by admitting that the military occupant can suspend all the laws of a political nature and even require public officials and the inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 309), and as already stated, it is a doctrine of American Constitutional Law that the inhabitants, no longer receiving the protection of their native state, for the time being owe no allegiance to it, and, being under the control and protection of the victorious power, owe to that power fealty and obedience. Indeed, what is prohibited is the application of force by the occupant, from which it is fair to deduce that the Conventions do not altogether outlaw voluntary submission by the population. The only strong reason for this is undoubtedly the desire of the authors of the Conventions to give as much freedom and allowance to the inhabitants as are necessary for their survival. This is wise and humane, because the people should be in a better position to know what will save them during the military occupation than any exile government.

"Before he was appointed prosecutor, Justice Jackson made a speech in which he warned against the use of judicial process for non judicial ends, and attacked cynics who "see no reason why courts, just like other agencies, should not be policy weapons. If we want to shoot Germans as a matter of policy, let it be done as such, said he, but don't hide the deed behind a court. If you are determined to execute a man in any case there is no occasion for a trial; the word yields no respect for courts that are merely organized to convict." Mussoloni may have got his just desserts, but nobody supposes he got a fair trial. . . . Let us bear that in mind as we go about punishing criminals. There are enough laws on the books to convict guilty Nazis without risking the prestige of our legal system. It is far, far better that some guilty men escape than that the idea of law be endangered. In the long run the idea of law is our best defense against Nazism in all its forms." These passages were taken from the editorial appearing in the Life, May 28, 1945, page 34, and convey ideas worthy of some reflection.

If the Filipinos in fact committed any errors in feigning cooperation and obedience during the Japanese military occupation, they were at most — borrowing the famous and significant words of President Roxas — errors of the mind and not of the heart. We advisedly said "feigning" not as an admission of the fallacy of the theory of suspended allegiance or sovereignty, but as an affirmation that the Filipinos, contrary to their outward attitude, had always remained loyal by feeling and conscience to their country.

Assuming that article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was in force during the Japanese military occupation, the present Republic of the Philippines has no right to prosecute treason committed against the former sovereignty existing during the Commonwealth Government which was none other than the sovereignty of the United States. This court has already held that, upon a change of sovereignty, the provisions of the Penal Code having to do with such subjects as treason, rebellion and sedition are no longer in force (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil., 887). It is true that, as contended by the majority, section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines provides that "sovereignty resides in the people," but this did not make the Commonwealth Government or the Filipino people sovereign, because said declaration of principle, prior to the independence of the Philippines, was subervient to and controlled by the Ordinance appended to the Constitution under which, in addition to its many provisions essentially destructive of the concept of sovereignty, it is expressly made clear that the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines had not then been withdrawn. The

framers of the Constitution had to make said declaration of principle because the document was ultimately intended for the independent Philippines. Otherwise, the Preamble should not have announced that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to secure to the Filipino people and their posterity the "blessings of independence." No one, we suppose, will dare allege that the Philippines was an independent country under the Commonwealth Government.

The Commonwealth Government might have been more autonomous than that existing under the Jones Law, but its non-sovereign status nevertheless remained unaltered; and what was enjoyed was the exercise of sovereignty over the Philippines continued to be complete.

The exercise of Sovereignty May be Delegated. — It has already been seen that the exercise of sovereignty is conceived of as delegated by a State to the various organs which, collectively, constitute the Government. For practical political reasons which can be easily appreciated, it is desirable that the public policies of a State should be formulated and executed by governmental agencies of its own creation and which are not subject to the control of other States. There is, however, nothing in a nature of sovereignty or of State life which prevents one State from entrusting the exercise of certain powers to the governmental agencies of another State. Theoretically, indeed, a sovereign State may go to any extent in the delegation of the exercise of its power to the governmental agencies of other States, those governmental agencies thus becoming quoad hoc parts of the governmental machinery of the State whose sovereignty is exercised. At the same time these agencies do not cease to be Instrumentalities for the expression of the will of the State by which they were originally created.

By this allegation the agent State is authorized to express the will of the delegating State, and the legal hypothesis is that this State possesses the legal competence again to draw to itself the exercise, through organs of its own creation, of the powers it has granted. Thus, States may concede to colonies almost complete autonomy of government and reserve to themselves a right of control of so slight and so negative a character as to make its exercise a rare and improbable occurence; yet, so long as such right of control is recognized to exist, and the autonomy of the colonies is conceded to be founded upon a grant and the continuing consent of the mother countries the sovereignty of those mother countries over them is complete and they are to be considered as possessing only administrative autonomy and not political independence. Again, as will be more fully discussed in a later chapter, in the so-called Confederate or Composite State, the cooperating States may yield to the central Government the exercise of almost all of their powers of Government and yet retain their several sovereignties. Or, on the other hand, a State may, without parting with its sovereignty of lessening its territorial application, yield to the governing organs of particular areas such an amplitude of powers as to create of them bodies-politic endowed with almost all of the characteristics of independent States. In all States, indeed, when of any considerable size, efficiency of administration demands that certain autonomous powers of local self-government be granted to particular districts. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 74, 75.).

The majority have drawn an analogy between the Commonwealth Government and the States of the American Union which, it is alleged, preserve their own sovereignty although limited by the United States. This is not true for it has been authoritatively stated that the Constituent States have no sovereignty of their own, that such autonomous powers as they now possess are had and exercised by the express will or by the constitutional forbearance of the national sovereignty, and that the sovereignty of the United States and the non-sovereign status of the individual States is no longer contested.

It is therefore plain that the constituent States have no sovereignty of their own, and that such autonomous powers as they now possess are had and exercised by the express will or by the constitutional forbearance of the national sovereignty. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, even when selecting members for the national legislature, or electing the President, or ratifying proposed amendments to the

federal constitution, the States act, ad hoc, as agents of the National Government. (Willoughby, the Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p.250.)

This is the situation at the present time. The sovereignty of the United States and the non-sovereign status of the individual States is no longer contested. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 251, 252.)

Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that "The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." From this, the deduction is made that the Government under the Republic of the Philippines and under the Commonwealth is the same. We cannot agree. While the Commonwealth Government possessed administrative autonomy and exercised the sovereignty delegated by the United States and did not cease to be an instrumentality of the latter (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 74, 75), the Republic of the Philippines is an independent State not receiving its power or sovereignty from the United States. Treason committed against the United States or against its instrumentality, the Commonwealth Government, which exercised, but did not possess, sovereignty (id., p. 49), is therefore not treason against the sovereign and independent Republic of the Philippines. Article XVIII was inserted in order, merely, to make the Constitution applicable to the Republic.

Reliance is also placed on section 2 of the Constitution which provides that all laws of the Philippines Islands shall remain operative, unless inconsistent therewith, until amended, altered, modified or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines, and on section 3 which is to the effect that all cases pending in courts shall be heard, tried, and determined under the laws then in force, thereby insinuating that these constitutional provisions authorize the Republic of the Philippines to enforce article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The error is obvious. The latter article can remain operative under the present regime if it is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The fact remains, however, that said penal provision is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, in that those liable for treason thereunder should owe allegiance to the United States or the government of the Philippines, the latter being, as we have already pointed out, a mere instrumentality of the former, whereas under the Constitution of the present Republic, the citizens of the Philippines do not and are not required to owe allegiance to the United States. To contend that article 114 must be deemed to have been modified in the sense that allegiance to the United States is deleted, and, as thus modified, should be applied to prior acts, would be to sanction the enactment and application of an ex post facto law.

In reply to the contention of the respondent that the Supreme Court of the United States has held in the case of Bradford vs. Chase National Bank (24 Fed. Supp., 38), that the Philippines had a sovereign status, though with restrictions, it is sufficient to state that said case must be taken in the light of a subsequent decision of the same court in Cincinnati Soap Co. vs. United States (301 U.S., 308), rendered in May, 1937, wherein it was affirmed that the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines had not been withdrawn, with the result that the earlier case only be interpreted to refer to the exercise of sovereignty by the Philippines as delegated by the mother country, the United States.

No conclusiveness may be conceded to the statement of President Roosevelt on August 12, 1943, that "the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as a government of other independent nations--in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood," since said statement was not meant as having accelerated the date, much less as a formal proclamation of, the Philippine Independence as contemplated in the Tydings-McDuffie Law, it appearing that (1) no less also than the President of the United States had to issue the proclamation of July 4, 1946, withdrawing the sovereignty of the United States and recognizing Philippine Independence; (2) it was General MacArthur, and not

President Osmeña who was with him, that proclaimed on October 23, 1944, the restoration of the Commonwealth Government; (3) the Philippines was not given official participation in the signing of the Japanese surrender; (4) the United States Congress, and not the Commonwealth Government, extended the tenure of office of the President and Vice-President of the Philippines.

The suggestion that as treason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treason may have been committed against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth, is immaterial because, as we have already explained, treason against either is not and cannot be treason against the new and different sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines.

Footnotes

PARAS, J., dissenting:

1 English case of De Jager vs. Attorney General of Naval; Belgian case of Auditeur Militaires vs. Van Dieren; cases of Petain, Laval and Quisling.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-49            November 12, 1945

WILLIAM F. PERALTA, petitioner, vs.THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

William F. Peralta in his own behalf.Office of the Solicitor General Tañada for respondent.City Fiscal Mabanag as amicus curiae.

FERIA, J.:

Petitioner-defendant, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila charged with the supervision and control of the production, procurement and distribution of goods and other necessaries as defined in section 1 of Act No. 9 of the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the

Philippines, was prosecuted for the crime of robbery as defined and penalized by section 2 (a) of Act No. 65 of the same Assembly. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, which he commenced to serve on August 21, 1944, by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, created in section 1 of Ordinance No. 7 promulgated by the President of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by the Constitution and laws of the said Republic. And the procedure followed in the trial was the summary one established in Chapter II of Executive Order No. 157 of the Chairman of the Executive Commission, made applicable to the trial violations of said Act No. 65 by section 9 thereof and section 5 of said Ordinance No. 7.

The petition for habeas corpus is based on the ground that the Court of Special and Executive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 "was a political instrumentality of the military forces of the Japanese Imperial Army, the aims and purposes of which are repugnant to those aims and political purposes of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as well as those of the United States of America, and therefore, null and void ab initio," that the provisions of said Ordinance No. 7 are violative of the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and "the petitioner has been deprived of his constitutional rights"; that the petitioner herein is being punished by a law created to serve the political purpose of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines, and "that the penalties provided for are much (more) severe than the penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code."

The Solicitor General, in his answer in behalf of the respondent, states that, in his own opinion, for the reasons expressed in his brief in the case of People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Benedicto Jose y Santos, defendant-appellee, G. R. No. L-22 (p. 612, post), the acts and proceedings taken and had before the said Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the herein petitioner, should now be denied force and efficacy, and therefore the petition for habeas corpus should be granted. The reasons advanced by the Solicitor General in said brief and in his reply memorandum in support of his contention are, that the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created, and the summary procedure prescribed therefor, by said Ordinance No. 7 in connection with Executive Order No. 157 of the Chairman of the Executive Commission are tinged with political complexion; that the procedure prescribed in Ordinance No. 7 does not afford a fair trial, violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and impairs the Constitutional rights of accused persons under their legitimate Constitution. And he cites, in support of this last proposition, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Texas vs. White (7 Wall., 700, 743); Horn vs. Lockart (17 Wall., 570, 581); United States vs. Home Insurance Co. (22 Wall., 99, 104); Sprott vs. United States (20 Wall., 459).

The City Fiscal of Manila appeared before this Court as amicus curiae. In his memorandum he submits that the petition for habeas corpus be denied on the following grounds: That the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction and the Acts, Ordinances and Executive Orders, creating it are not of a political complexion, for said Court was created, and the crimes and offenses placed under its jurisdiction were penalized heavily, in response to an urgent necessity, according to the preamble of Ordinance No. 7; that the right to appeal in a criminal case is not a constitutional right; and that the summary procedure established in said Ordinance No. 7 is not violative of the provision of Article III, section 1 (18) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, to the effect that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, nor of the provision of section 1 (1) of the same Article that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The features of the summary procedure adopted by Ordinance No. 7, assailed by the petitioner and the Solicitor General as impairing the constitutional rights of an accused are: that court may interrogate the accused and witnesses before trial in order to clarify the points in dispute; that the refusal of the accused to answer the questions may be considered unfavorable to him; that if from the facts admitted at the preliminary interrogatory it appears that the defendant is guilty, he may be immediately convicted; and that the sentence of the sentence of the court is not

appealable, except in case of death penalty which cannot be executed unless and until reviewed and affirmed by a special division of the Supreme Court composed of three Justices.

Before proceeding further, and in order to determine the law applicable to the questions involved in the present case, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature and status of the government established in these Islands by the Japanese forces of occupation under the designation of Republic of the Philippines.

In the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (G. R. No. L-5, pp. 113, 127, ante), recently decided, this Court, speaking through the Justice who pens this decision, held:

In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Philippines Executive Commission, which was organized by Order No. 1, issued on January 23, 1942, by the Commander of the Japanese forces, was a civil government established by the military forces of occupation and therefore a de facto government of the second kind. It was not different from the government established by the British in Castine, Maine, or by the United States in Tanpico, Mexico. As Halleck says, "the government established over an enemy's territory during the military occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws of war to the conqueror over the conquered, and is subject to all restrictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether such government be called a military or civil government. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. In either case it is a government imposed by the laws of war and so far as it concerns the inhabitants of such territory or the rest of the world those laws alone determine the legality or illegality of its acts." (vol. 2 p. 466.) The fact that the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil and not a military government and was run by Filipinos and not by Japanese nationals is of no consequence.

And speaking of the so-called Republic of the Philippines in the same decision, this Court said:

The so-called Republic of the Philippines, apparently established and organized as a sovereign state independent from any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth and reality, a government established by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese forces of occupation. It was of the same character as the Philippine Executive Commission, and the ultimate source of its authority was the same — the Japanese military authority and government. As General MacArthur stated in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, a portion of which has been already quoted, "under enemy duress, a so-called government styled as the 'Republic of the Philippines' was established on October 14, 1943, based upon neither the free expression of the peoples" will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States.' Japan had no legal power to grant independence to the Philippines or transfer the sovereignty of the United States to, or recognize the latent sovereignty of the Filipino people, before its military occupation and possession of the Islands had matured into an absolute and permanent dominion or sovereignty by a treaty of peace or other means recognized in the law of nations.

As the so-called Republic of the Philippines was a de facto government of the second kind (of paramount force), as the government established in Castine, Maine, during its occupation by the British forces and as that of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with that the country by the United State Army, the question involved in the present case cannot be decided in the light of the Constitution of the Commonwealth Government; because the belligerent occupant was totally independent of the constitution of the occupied territory in carrying out the administration over said territory; and the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases involving the validity of judicial and legislative acts of the Confederate States, considered as de facto governments of the third kind, does not apply to the acts of the so-called Republic of the Philippines which is a de facto government of paramount force. The Constitution of the so-called Republic of the Philippines can neither be applied, since the

validity of an act of a belligerent occupant cannot be tested in the light of another act of the same occupant, whose criminal jurisdiction is drawn entirely from the law martial as defined in the usages of nations.

In the case of United States vs. Rice (4 Wheaton, 246), the Supreme Court of the United States held that, by the military occupation of Castine, Maine, the sovereignty of the United States in the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the belligerent occupant. By the surrender the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. And Oppenheim, in his Treatise on International Law, says that, in carrying out the administration over the occupied territory and its inhabitants, "the (belligerent) occupant is totally independent of the constitution and the laws of the territory, since occupation is an aim of warfare, and the maintenance and safety of his forces, and the purpose of war, stand in the foreground of his interest and must be promoted under all circumstances or conditions. (Vol. II, Sixth Edition, Revised, 1944, p. 342.)

The doctrine laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (in the cases of Texas vs. White, 7 Wall., 700; Horn vs. Lockart, 17 Wall., 570; Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U. S., 176 United States vs. Home Insurance Co., 20 Wall., 249; Sprott vs. United States, 20 Wall., 459, and others) that the judicial and legislative acts of the Confederate States which impaired the rights of the citizens under the Constitution of the United States or of the States, or were in conflict with those constitutions, were null and void, is not applicable to the present case. Because that doctrine rests on the propositions that "the concession (of belligerency) made to the Confederate Government . . . sanctioned no hostile legislation . . . and it impaired in no respect the rights of loyal and citizens as they existed at the commencement of hostilities" (Williams vs. Bruffy, supra);that the Union is perpetual and indissoluble, and the obligation of allegiance to the to the estate and obedience to her laws and the estate constitution, subject to the Constitution of the United States, remained unimpaired during the War of Secession (Texas vs. White, supra) and that the Confederate States "in most, if not in all instances, merely transferred the existing state organizations to the support of a new and different national head. the same constitution, the same laws for the protection of the property and personal rights remained and were administered by the same officers." (Sprott vs. United States, supra). In fine, because in the case of the Confederate States, the constitution of each state and that of the United States or the Union continued in force in those states during the War of Secession; while the Constitution of the Commonwealth Government was suspended during the occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese forces of the belligerent occupant at regular war with the United States.

The question which we have to resolve in the present case in the light of the law of nations are, first, the validity of the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, and of the summary procedure adopted for that court; secondly, the validity of the sentence which imprisonment during the Japanese military occupation; and thirdly, if they were then valid, the effect on said punitive sentence of the reoccupation of the Philippines and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth Government.

(1) As to the validity of the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction by Ordinance No. 7, the only factor to be considered is the authority of the legislative power which promulgated said law or ordinance. It is well established in International Law that "The criminal jurisdiction established by the invader in the occupied territory finds its source neither in the laws of the conquering or conquered state, — it is drawn entirely form the law martial as defined in the usages of nations. The authority thus derived can be asserted either through special tribunals, whose authority and procedure is defined in the military code of the conquering state, or through the ordinary courts and authorities of the occupied district." (Taylor, International Public Law, p. 598.) The so-called Republic of the Philippines, being a governmental instrumentality of the belligerent occupant, had therefore the power or was competent to create the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction. No question may arise as to whether or not a court is of political complexion, for it is mere a governmental agency charged with the duty of applying the law to cases falling

within its jurisdiction. Its judgments and sentences may be of political complexion, or not depending upon the nature or character of the law so applied. There is no room for doubt, therefore, as to the validity of the creation of the court in question.

With respect to the Summary procedure adopted by Ordinance No. 7, and followed in the trial of the case which resulted in the conviction of the herein petitioner, there is also no question as to the power or competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate the law providing for such procedure. For "the invader deals freely with the relations of the inhabitants of the occupied territory towards himself . . . for his security also, he declares certain acts, not forbidden by the ordinary laws of the country, to be punishable; and he so far suspends the laws which guard personal liberty as is required for the summary punishment of any one doing such acts." (Hall's International Law, seventh ed., p. 5000). A belligerent "occupant may where necessary, set up military courts instead of the ordinary courts; and in case, and in so far as, he admits the administration of justice by the ordinary courts, he may nevertheless, so far as is necessary for military purposes, or for the maintenance of public order and safety temporarily alter the laws, especially the Criminal Law, on the basis of which justice is administered as well as the laws regarding procedure." (Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. II, sixth edition, 1944, p.349.)

No objection can be set up to the legality of its provisions in the light of the precepts of our Commonwealth Constitution relating to the rights of accused under that Constitution, because the latter was not in force during the period of the Japanese military occupation, as we have already stated. Nor may said Constitution be applied upon its revival at the time of the re-occupation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminium because "a constitution should operate prospectively only, unless the words employed show a clear intention that it should have a retrospective effect" (Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, seventh edition, page 97, and cases quoted and cited in the footnote), especially as regards laws of procedure applied to cases already terminated completely.

The only restrictions or limitations imposed upon the power of a belligerent occupant to alter the laws or promulgate new ones, especially the criminal law as well as the laws regarding procedure, so far as it is necessary for military purposes, that is, for his control of the territory and the safety and protection of his army, are those imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience. It is obvious that the summary procedure under consideration does not violate those precepts. It cannot be considered as violating the laws of humanity and public conscience, for it is less objectionable, even from the point of view of those who are used to the accusatory system of criminal procedure than the procedural laws based on the semi-inquisitorial or mixed system prevailing in France and other countries in continental Europe.

(2) The validity of the sentence rendered by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which imposes life imprisonment upon the herein petitioner, depends upon the competence or power of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act No. 65 which punishes the crime of which said petitioner was convicted.

Westlake says that Article XLIII, Section III, of the Hague Conventions of 1907 "indicates that the laws to be enforced by the occupant consist of, first, the territorial law in general, as that which stands to the public order and social and commercial life of the district in a relation of mutual adaptation, so that any needless displacement of it would defeat the object which the invader is enjoined to have in view, and secondly, such variations of the territorial law as may be required by real necessity and are not expressly prohibited by any of the rules which will come before us. Such variations will naturally be greatest in what concerns the relation of the communities and individuals within the district to the invading army and its followers, it being necessary for the protection of the latter, and for the unhindered prosecution of the war by them, that acts committed to their detriment shall not only lose what justification the territorial law might give them as committed against enemies, but shall be repressed more

severely than the territorial law would repress acts committed against fellow subjects. Indeed the entire relation between the invaders and the invaded, so far as it may fall within the criminal department whether by the intrinsic nature of the acts done or in consequence of the regulations made by the invaders, may be considered as taken out of the territorial law and referred to what is called martial law." (Westlake, International Law, Part II, War, p. 96.)

According to Hyde (International Law, Vol. II, p. 386), the term "martial law," in so far as it is used to describe any fact in relation to belligerent occupation, does not refer to a particular code or system of law, or to a special agency entrusted with its administration. The term merely signifies that the body of law actually applied, having the sanction of military authority, is essentially martial. All law, by whomsoever administered, in an occupied district martial law; and it is none the less so when applied by civil courts in matters devoid of special interest to the occupant. The words "martial law" are doubtless suggestive of the power of the occupant to share the law as he sees fit; that is, to determine what shall be deemed lawful or unlawful acts, to establish tests for ascertaining the guilt of offenders, to fix penalties, and generally to administer justice through such agencies as the found expedient.

And the United States Rules of Land Warfare provide that the belligerent occupant may promulgate such new laws and regulations as military necessity demands, and in this class will be included those laws which come into being as a result of military rule; that is, those which establish new crimes and offenses incident to a state of war and are necessary for the control of the country and the protection of the army, for the principal object of the occupant is to provide for the security of the invading army and to contribute to its support and efficiency and the success of its operations. (Pub. 1940, pp. 76, 77.)

From the above it appears clear that it was within the power and competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate, through the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, Act No. 65 of the said Assembly, which penalizes the crimes of robbery and other offenses by imprisonment ranging from the maximum period of the imprisonment prescribed by the laws and ordinances promulgated by the President of the so-called Republic as minimum, to life imprisonment or death as maximum. Although these crimes are defined in the Revised Penal Code, they were altered and penalized by said Act No. 65 with different and heavier penalties, as new crimes and offenses demanded by military necessity, incident to a state of war, and necessary for the control of the country by the belligerent occupant, the protection and safety of the army of occupation, its support and efficiency, and the success of its operations.

They are not the same ordinary offenses penalized by the Revised Penal Code. — The criminal acts penalized by said Act No. 65 are those committed by persons charged or connected with the supervision and control of the production, procurement and distribution of foods and other necessaries; and the penalties imposed upon the violators are different from and much heavier than those provided by the Revised Penal Code for the same ordinary crimes. The acts penalized by said Act were taken out of the territorial law or Revised Penal Code, and referred to what is called martial law by international jurists, defined above by Hyde, in order, not only to prevent food and other necessaries from reaching the "guerrillas" which were harassing the belligerent occupant from every nook and corner of the country, but also to preserve the food supply and other necessaries in order that, in case of necessity, the Imperial Japanese forces could easily requisition them, as they did, and as they had the right to do in accordance with the law of nations for their maintenance and subsistence (Art. LII, Sec. III, Hague Conventions of 1907). Especially taking into consideration the fact, of which this court may take judicial notice, that the Imperial Japanese Army had depended mostly for their supply upon the produce of this country.

The crimes penalized by Act No. 65 — as well as the crimes against national security and the law of nations, to wit: treason, espionage, inciting war, violation of neutrality, correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy's country, piracy; and the crimes against public order, such as rebellion, sedition and disloyalty, illegal possession of firearms and other, penalized by Ordinance No. 7 and placed under jurisdiction of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction — are all of a political complexion, because the acts constituting those offenses were punished, as are all political offenses, for public rather than private reasons, and were acts in aid or favor of the enemy and against the welfare, safety and security of the belligerent occupant. While it is true that these offenses, when committed against the Commonwealth or United States Government, are defined and also penalized by the territorial law Revised Penal Code, they became inapplicable as crimes against the occupier upon the occupation of the Islands by the Japanese forces. And they had to be taken out of the territorial law and made punishable by said Ordinance No. 7, for they were not penalized before under the Revised Penal Code when committed against the belligerent occupant or the government established by him in these Island. They are also considered by some writers as war crimes in a broad sense. In this connection Wheaton observes the following:

"Of 'war crimes' the number is naturally indefinite, depending as they do on the acts from time to time ordered to be done or forbidden to be done in the martial law proclamation or regulations of the invading or occupying commander. Thus, in the Anglo-Boer war, the British military authorities proclaimed the following to be offenses against their martial law; — Being in possession of arms, ammunition, etc.; traveling without a permit; sending prohibited goods; holding meetings other than those allowed; using seditious language; spreading alarmist reports; overcharging for goods; wearing uniforms without due authority; going out of doors between certain hours; injuring military animals or stores; being in possession, without a permit, of horses, vehicles, cycles, etc.; hindering those in execution of military orders; trespassing on defense works. Such offenses, together with several others, were specified in the Japanese regulations made in the Russo-Japanese war." (Wheaton's International Law, War, seventh edition, 1944, p. 242.)

It is, therefore, evident that the sentence rendered by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction against the petitioner, imposing upon him the penalty of life imprisonment, was good and valid, since it was within the admitted power or competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate the law penalizing the crime of which petitioner was convicted.

(3) The last question is the legal effect of the reoccupation of the Philippines and restoration of the Commonwealth Government; that is whether or not, by the principle of postliminy, the punitive sentence which petitioner is now serving fell through or ceased to be valid from that time.

In order to resolve this last question, it is not necessary to enter into an elaborate discussion on the matter. It is sufficient to quote the opinion on the subject of several international jurists and our recent decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, supra.

Hall, commenting on the effect of the principle of postliminy upon sentences of the tribunals continued or created by the belligerent occupant, opines "that judicial acts done under this control, when they are not of a political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take effect during the continuance of his control, and the various acts done during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain good. . . . Political acts on the other hand fall through as of course, whether they introduce any positive change into the organization of the country, or whether they only suspend the working of that already in existence. The execution also of punitive sentences ceases as of course when they have had reference to acts not criminal by the municipal law of the state, such for example as acts directed against the security or control of the invader." (Hall's International Law, seventh edition, p. 518.)

Westlake, speaking of the duration of the validity of punitive sentences for offenses such as the one in question, which is within the admitted power or competence of the belligerent occupant to punish, says that: "To the extent to which the legal power of the occupant is admitted he can make law for the duration of his occupation. Like any other legislator he is morally subject to the duty of giving sufficient notice of his enactments or regulations, not indeed so as to be debarred from carrying out his will without notice, when required by military necessity and so far as practically carrying out his will can be distinguished from punishment, but always remembering that to punish for breach of a regulation a person who was justifiably ignorant of it would be outrageous. But the law made by the occupant within his admitted power, whether morally justifiable or not, will bind any member of the occupied population as against any other member of it, and will bind as between them all and their national government, so far as it produces an effect during the occupation. When the occupation comes to an end the authority of the national government is restored, either by the progress of operations during the war or by the conclusion of a peace, no redress can be had for what has been actually carried out but nothing further can follow from the occupant's legislation. A prisoner detained under it must be released, and no civil right conferred by it can be further enforced. The enemy's law depends on him for enforcement as well as for enactment. The invaded state is not subject to the indignity of being obliged to execute his commands. (Westlake, International Law, Part II, War, pp. 97, 98.)

And Wheaton, who, as above stated, considers as war crimes such offenses as those penalized in Ordinance No. 7 and Act No. 65, says: "In general, the cast of the occupant possess legal validity, and under international law should not be abrogated by the subsequent government. But this rule does not necessarily apply to acts that exceed the occupant's power (e.g., alienation of the domains of the State or the sovereign), to sentences for 'war treason' and 'war crimes,' to acts of a political character, and to those that beyond the period of occupation. When occupation ceases, no reparation is legally due for what has already been carried out." (Wheaton's International Law, supra, p. 245.)

We have already held in our recent decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, supra, that all judgments of political complexion of the courts during the Japanese regime, ceased to be valid upon the reoccupation of the islands by virtue of the principle or right of postliminium. Applying that doctrine to the present case, the sentence which convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid ipso facto upon the reoccupation or liberation of the Philippines by General Douglas MacArthur.

It may not be amiss to say in this connection that it is not necessary and proper to invoke the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur declaring null and void all laws, among them Act No. 65, of the so-called Republic of the Philippines under which petitioner was convicted, in order to give retroactive effect to the nullification of said penal act and invalidate sentence rendered against petitioner under said law, a sentence which, before the proclamation, had already become null and of no effect.

We therefore hold that the punitive sentence under consideration, although good and valid during the military occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese forces, ceased to be good and valid ipso facto upon the reoccupation of these Island and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth Government.

In view of all the foregoing, the writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby granted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Jaranilla, Pablo and Bengzon, JJ., concur.Moran, C.J., concurs in the result.

Separate Opinions

OZAETA, J., concurring:

Amidst the forest of opinions that have cropped up in this case it would seem unnecessary to plant an additional tree. To justify our effort — lest we seem intent to bring coal to Newcastle — we ought to state that the following opinion had been prepared before the others were tendered. It has been impossible for the Court to reconcile and consolidate the divergent views of its members although they arrive at practically the same result.

Accused of robbery in the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction of Manila, the petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. He commenced to serve the sentence on August 21, 1944. He now petitions this Court for the writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Ordinance No. 7, by which the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction was created and which was promulgated on March 8, 1944, by the President of the "Republic of the Philippines," was null and void ab initio. The Solicitor General, answering the petition on behalf of the respondent Director of Prisons, expressed the opinion that "the acts and proceedings taken and before the said Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the herein prisoner should now be denied force and efficacy," and recommended "that the writ of habeas corpus prayed for be granted and that the City Fiscal be instructed to prepare and file the corresponding information for robbery against the petitioner herein in the Court of First Instance of Manila."

The case was argued before us on September 21 and 22, 1945, by the First Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent and the City Fiscal as amicus curiae — the former impugning and the latter sustaining the validity of said Ordinance No. 7. Section 1 of the ordinance in question reads as follows:

SECTION 1. There is hereby created in every province and city throughout the Philippines one or more courts of special criminal jurisdiction as the President of the Republic of the Philippines may determine upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice, which courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try and determine crimes and offenses penalized by Act No. 65 entitled "An Act imposing heavier penalties for crimes involving robbery, bribery, falsification, frauds, illegal exactions and transactions, malversation of public funds and infidelity as defined in the Revised Penal Code and violations of food control laws, when committed by public officers and employees, and for similar offenses when committed by private individuals or entities, and providing for a summary procedure for the trial of such offenders."

Section 2 confers upon the court mentioned in section 1 exclusive jurisdiction also to try the following crimes as defined in the Revised Penal Code: crimes against national security and the law of nations, crimes against public order, brigandage, arson and other crimes involving destruction, illegal detention committed by private individuals and kidnapping of minors; and illegal possession of firearms, as defined in an executive order. Section 3 provides for the appointment of one judge of first instance to preside over the court above mentioned and of a special prosecutor in each special court. Section 4 authorizes the court to impose a longer term of imprisonment than that fixed by law, or imprisonment for life or death where not already fixed by law, for the crimes and offenses mentioned in section 2. The remaining sections read as follows:

SEC. 5. The trial of the cases arising sections 1 and 2 hereof shall be started within two days after the filing of the corresponding information, shall be summary in procedure, and shall aim at their expeditious and prompt disposition. Technicalities shall be avoided and all measures

calculated to serve this end shall be taken by the trial judge. Said cases shall be decided within four days after the same are submitted for decision. The summary procedure provided in Act No. 65 insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, shall govern the trial of the cases enumerated in said sections 1 and 2 hereof.

SEC. 6. The decisions of the special courts herein created shall be final except where the penalty imposed is death, in which case the records of the particular case shall be elevated en consulta to a special division of the Supreme Court composed of the three members to be designated by the President of the Republic of the Philippines. The clerk of each special court, upon the promulgation of a decision imposing the death penalty, shall immediately forward the records of the case to the special division of the Supreme Court herein created, which shall decide the case within fifteen days from the receipt of the records thereof.

SEC. 7. The interest of public safety so requiring it, the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus are hereby suspended with respect to persons accused of, or under investigations for, any of the crimes and offenses enumerated in sections 1 and 2 hereof.

SEC. 8. All laws, rules or orders, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions hereof, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 9. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its promulgation.

The summary procedure provided in Act No. 65 of the "Republic," as referred to in section 5 above quoted, is in turn that established by Chapter II of Executive Order No. 157 of the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission, dated May 18, 1943. Under said procedure (section 17) "search warrants may be issued by the court or by any prosecuting officer, authorizing peace officers to search for and seize any articles or objects described in the warrant, including those which may be regarded as evidence of an offense under this Order even if such articles or objects are not included among those described in section 2, Rule 122, of the Rules of Court." Section 18 reads as follows:

SEC. 18. The accused or his representative may be examined by the court, and with the permission of the court, by the fiscal or other prosecuting officer as to any matters favorable or unfavorable to him or his principal; and either may apply to the judge for the examination of the co-accused or the representative of the latter in matters related to the defense of the accused. Statements made by the accused, his co-accused, or the representative of the accused or a person acting in a similar capacity, irrespective of the circumstances under which they were made, shall be admissible in evidence if material to the issue.

Section 21 provides for the summary trial in the following manner:

Such trials shall be conducted according to the following rules:

(a) After arraignment and plea, the court shall immediately cause to be explained to the accused the facts constituting the offenses with which he is charged, and the judge shall interrogate the accused and the witnesses as to the facts and circumstances of the case in order to clarify the points in dispute and those which are admitted.

(b) Refusal of the accused to answer any questions made or allowed by the court may be considered unfavorable to him.

(c) Except for justifiable reasons, the accused shall not be allowed to plead and assert defenses that are inconsistent with each other.

(d) If from the facts admitted at the preliminary interrogation, it should appear that the accused is guilty of the crime charged in the information, or in any other information, or in any other information, or in any other information subsequently filed by the prosecuting officer, a sentence of conviction may be immediately rendered against the accused. Otherwise, the judge shall dictate an order distinctly specifying the facts admitted by the accused and those which are in dispute, and the trial shall be limited to the latter, unless the judge, for special reasons, otherwise directs.

(e) Unjustified absence of an accused who has been released on bail, or of his representative shall not be a ground for interrupting the proceedings or attacking the validity of the judgment.

The provisions of Rules 115 to 117 of the Rules of Court shall be suppletory to the foregoing insofar as they are not in conflict therewith.

The records shows that during their existence the courts of special and exclusive criminal jurisdiction created by the ordinance in question convicted and sentenced a total of 94 individuals, 55 of whom had been prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and 15 for robbery; and that of the 94 convicts only 3, including the herein petitioner, remain in confinement, 21 having escaped, 37 having been released, and 33 having died.

In synthesis, the argument of the Solicitor General is as follows: Acts of the military occupant which exceed his power tested by the criterion set forth in article 43 of the Hague Regulations, are null and without effect as against the legitimate government. (Wheaton's International Law, 7th ed., p. 245.) Acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other Acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void. (Texas vs. White, 74 U. S., 733; 19 Law. ed., 240.) Judicial or legislative acts in the insurrectionary states were valid where they were not hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the national government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the Constitution. (Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570-581; 21 Law. ed., 660.) All the enactment of the de facto legislatures in the insurrectionary states during the war, which were not hostile to the Union or to the authority of the General Government and which were not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, or of the states, have the same validity as if they had been enactments of legitimate legislatures. (United States vs. The Home Insurance Co., 22 Wall., 99-104; 22 Law. ed., 818.) Tested by these principles of international law, Ordinance No. 7 must be declared void (1) because it favored the forces of occupation and the civilian Japanese inasmuch as it provided an excessively heavy penalty for the summary trial of possession of firearms and violations of food control regulations and (2) because it impaired the rights of citizens under the Constitution inasmuch as the procedure therein prescribed withdrew the privilege of the accused against self-incrimination and his right to appeal to the Supreme Court even where the penalty imposed was life imprisonment or death.

In substance, the City Fiscal argues that the heavier penalty for the illegal possession of firearms than that fixed by the Administrative Code was not directed toward the suppression of underground activities against the Japanese army, and the rigid enforcement of the food control measures was not intended to insure the procurement of supplies by said army, because in any event the Japanese military occupant freely exercised the power to go after and punish his enemies directly without recurring to the agencies of the "Republic," for there were even cases where the offenders were already in the hands of the police or courts of the "Republic" but they were unceremoniously taken from said agencies by the Japanese military police and punished or liquidated by it at Fort Santiago or elsewhere; and as regards food control, the Japanese forces did not have any need of the measures or agencies established by the "Republic" because the Japanese forces themselves commandeered what they needed or sent out their own agents to purchase it for them at prices even much higher than those fixed by the "Republic"; that the procedure prescribed afforded a fair trial and did not

violate any fundamental rights; that the military occupant was not in duty bound to respect the constitution and the laws of the occupied territory; that he could abrogate all of them and promulgate new ones if he so chose; that the cases cited by the Solicitor General are not applicable because they deal with the validity of acts and processes of the governments of the rebel states during the Civil War and are based upon the indissolubility of the Union; that the validity or nullity of the ordinance in question should be judged in the light of the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the "Republic" and of generally accepted principles of international law; that even assuming that it should be judged by the standard or the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the ordinance satisfies all the requirements of said Constitution; that the right to appeal in a criminal case is not a constitutional but a purely statutory right which may be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the state; and, finally, that the supposed invalidity of the sentence imposed against the petitioner cannot be raised by habeas corpus.

There is no question that in virtue of that of the proclamation of General MacArthur of October 23, 1944 (41 Off. Gaz., 147, 148), Ordinance No. 7 is no longer of any force and effect since the restoration of the Government of the Common wealth of the Philippines. The question before us is whether said ordinance ever acquired any force and effect or was null and void ab initio.

Invoking decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in cases involving the validity of Acts of the Confederacy and of a rebel state as a de facto government during the Civil War, the Solicitor General maintains that the ordinance in question was null and void because it impaired the rights of citizens under the Constitution and because it was hostile in its purpose to the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

The decisions invoked would be applicable if the so-called Republic of the Philippines should be considered as a government established by the Filipino people in rebellion against the Commonwealth and the Sovereignty of the United States. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring invalid Acts of a rebel state or of the Confederacy which were in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States or which impaired the rights of citizens under the Constitution, rest on the proposition that the Union is perpetual and indissoluble and that the obligations of allegiance to the state, and obedience to her laws, subject to the Constitution of the United States, remained unimpaired during the War of Secession. (See Texas vs. White, 74 U.S., 700; 19 Law. ed., 227, 237; William vs. Bruffy, 96 U.S., 176; 24 Law. ed. 716.) Obviously, that proposition does not hold true with respect to a de facto government established by the enemy in an invaded and occupied territory in the course of a war between two independent nations. Such territory is possessed temporarily so possessed temporarily by lawful government at war with the country of which the territory so possessed is a part, and during that possession the obligations of the inhabitants to their country are suspended, although not abrogated (United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheat., 253; Fleming vs. Page 9 How., 614; Baldy vs. Hunter, 171 U.S., 388; 43 Law. ed., 208, 210.) In the case of Williams vs. Bruffy, supra, the court, speaking though Mr. Justice Field, observed: "The rule stated by Vattel, that the justice of the cause between two enemies being by law of nations reputed to be equal, whatsoever is permitted to the one in virtue of war is also permitted to the other, applies only to cases of regular war between independent nations. It has no application to the case of a war between an established government and insurgents seeking to withdraw themselves from its jurisdiction or to overthrow its authority. The court further stated that the concession of belligerent rights made to the Confederate Government sanctioned no hostile legislation and impaired in no respect the rights loyal citizens as they had existed at the commencement of hostilities.

On the other hand, in a war between independent nations "the rights of the occupant as a law-giver have broad scope." He many "suspend the existing laws and promulgate new ones when the exigencies of the military service demand such action. According to the Rules of Land Warfare he will naturally alter or suspend all laws of a political nature as well as a political privileges, and laws which affect the welfare and safety of his command." (Hyde on International Law, vol. 2, p. 367.) It will be seen then that in a war between independent nation the army of occupation has the right to

enact laws and take measures hostile to its enemy, for its purpose was to harass and subdue the latter; and it is not bound to respect or preserve the rights of the citizens of the occupied territory under their Constitution.

Let us now look into the nature and status of the government styled "Republic of the Philippines "in order to determined the criterion by which the validity of its enactments should be tested. In the recent case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh Dizon (G.R. No. L-5, p. 113, ante), this Court speaking through Justice Feria, had occasion to comment upon the nature of said government in the following words:

The so-called Republic of the Philippines, apparently established and organized as a sovereign state independent from any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth and reality, a government established by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese forces of occupation. It was of the same character as the Philippines Executive Commission, and the ultimate source of its authority was the same — the Japanese military authority and government. As General McArthur stated in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, a portion of which had been already quoted, "under enemy duress a was established on October 14, 1943, base upon neither the free expression of the peoples" will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States.' Japan had no legal power to grant independence to the Philippines or transfer the sovereignty of the United State to, or recognize the latent sovereignty of, the Filipino people, before its military occupation and possession of the Islands had matured into an absolute and permanent dominion or sovereignty by a treaty of peace or other means recognized in the law of nations. For it is a well-established doctrine in internal law, recognized in the law, recognized in Article 45 of the Hague Conventions of 1907 (which prohibits compulsion of the population of the occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power), that belligerent occupation, being essentially provisional, does not severe to transfer sovereignty over the territory controlled although the de jure government is during the period of occupancy deprived of the power to exercise its rights as such. (Thirty Hogshead of Sugar vs. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 191; United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheat., 246; Fleming vs. Page, 9 Howard, 603; Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S., 345.) The formation of the Republic of the Philippines was a scheme contrived by Japan to delude of the Filipino people into believing in the apparent magnanimity of the Japanese gesture of transferring or turning over the rights of governments into the hands of Filipinos. It was established under the mistaken belief that, by doing so, Japan would secure the cooperation or at least the neutrality of the Filipino people in her war against the United States and other allied nations.

We reaffirmed those statements. To show further the fictitious character of much-propagandized "independence" which Japan purported to grant to the Philippines through the establishment of the "Republic", we may add that, as matter of contemporary history and of common knowledge, in practice the Japanese military authorities in the Philippines never treated the "Republic of the Philippines" as an independent government after its inauguration. They continued to impose their will on its executive officials when their interests so required. The Japanese military police arrested and punished various high officials of said government, including the First Assistant Solicitor General, and paid no attention to the protests and representations made on their behalf by the President of the "Republic." As a climax of their continual impositions, in December 1944 the Japanese military authorities placed the President and the members of his Cabinet under the "protective" custody of the military police, and on the 22nd of the month forced them to leave the seat of the government in Manila and hide with them in the mountains. The only measure they did not succeed in imposing upon the "Republic" was the conscription of the Filipino youth into an army to fight with the Japanese against the United States. So, while in theory and for the purpose of propaganda Japan professed to be a benefactor and liberator of the Filipinos, hoping thereby to secure their willing cooperation in her war efforts, in practice she continued to enslave and oppress the Filipinos, as she saw that the latter remained loyal to the United States. She found that the Filipinos merely feigned cooperation as their only means of self-preservation and that those who could stay beyond the reach of her army of occupation manifested their hospitality by harassing and attacking that army. Thus Japan continued to oppress and tyrannize the

Filipinos notwithstanding the former's grant of "independence" to the latter. It would therefore be preposterous to declare that the "Republic of the Philippines" was a government established by the Filipino people in rebellion against the Commonwealth and the sovereignty of the United States.

The said government being a mere instrumentality of the Commander in Chief of the Japanese army as military occupant, the ordinance question promulgated by the President of the "Republic" must be deemed as an act emanating from the power or authority of said occupant. The question, therefore, is whether or not it was within the competence of the military occupant to pass such a law.

Article 43 of the Hague Regulations provides as follows:

ART. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Commenting upon this article, Hyde in his work on International Law, volume 2, pages 366, 367, 368, says:

In consequence of his acquisition of the power to control the territory concerned, the occupant enjoys the right and is burdened with the duty to take all the measures within his power to restore and insure public order and safety. In so doing he is given great freedom may be partly due to circumstance that the occupant is obliged to consider as a principal object the security, support, efficiency and success of his own force in a hostile land inhabited by nationals of the enemy. . . .

xxx           xxx           xxx

The right to legislate is not deemed to be unlimited. According to the Hague Regulations of 1907, the occupant is called upon to respect, "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force the ordinary civil and criminal laws which do not conflict with security of his army or its support, efficiency, and success."

In the exercise of his powers the commander must be guided by his judgment and his experience and a high sense of justice. (President McKinley, Order to the Secretary of War, July 18, 1898, on the occupation of Santiago de Cuba by the American forces, Moore, Dig. VII, p. 261.)

Acts of the military occupant which exceed his power tested by the criterion set forth in article 43 of the Hague Regulations, are null and without effect as against the legitimate government. (Wheaton's International Law, 7th ed. [1944], p. 245.)

Hall in his Treatise on Internal Law, (7th edition), discussing the extent of the right of a military occupant, states:

If occupation is merely a phase in military operations, and implies no change in the legal position of the invader with respect to the occupied territory and its inhabitants, the rights which he possesses over them are those which in the special circumstances represent his general right to do whatever acts are necessary for the prosecution of his war; in other words he has the right of exercising such control, and such control only, within the occupied territory as is required for his safety and the success of his operations. . . . On occupying a country an invader at

once invest himself with absolute authority; and the fact of occupation draws with it as of course the substitution of his will for previously existing law whenever such substitution is reasonably needed, and also the replacement of the actual civil judicial administration by the military jurisdiction. In its exercise however this ultimate authority is governed by the condition that the invader, having only a right to such control as is necessary for his safety and the success of his operations, must use his power within the limits defined by the fundamental notion of occupation, and with due reference to its transient character. He is therefore forbidden as a general rule to vary or suspend laws affecting property and private personal relations, or which regulate the moral order of the community. . . . (Pages 498, 499.)

We deduce from the authorities that the power of the occupant is broad and absolute in matters affecting his safety. But in affairs which do not affect the security, efficacy, and success of his military operations, his power is qualified by the transient character of his administration. He is forbidden "to vary or suspend laws affecting property and private personal relations, or which regulate the moral order of the community." Unless absolutely prevented, he is bound to laws, and civil and criminal, in force in the country.

Tested by this criterion, was it within the power or competence of the Commander in Chief of the Japanese army of occupation of the Philippines to promulgate Ordinance No. 7? In so far as said ordinance created new court of special criminal jurisdiction we think his power to promulgate and enforce it during the occupation cannot be seriously disputed; but in so far as that ordinance varied radically our law of criminal procedure and deprived the accused of certain rights which our people have always treasured and considered inviolate, we are of the that it transcended his power or competence. We base this opinion upon the following considerations:

1. The occupant was not absolutely prevented from respecting our law of criminal procedure and the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal jurisdiction. The application or nonapplication of said law did not affect the security, efficacy, and success of his military operations. The crimes over which the said court was vested with jurisdiction were mostly crimes against property penalized in our Revised Penal Code, which crimes did not affect the army of occupation. As to the illegal possession of firearms the City Fiscal himself, who the validity of the ordinance, informs us that the occupant did not avail himself of said court but punished his enemies direct without recurring to the agencies of the "Republic"; and he further informs us that "as regards food control, the Japanese forces did not have any need of the measures or agencies established by "Republic", nor did they make use of them.

2. The summary procedure prescribed in Ordinance No. 7 was inquisitorial, repugnant to the humanitarian method of administering criminal justice adopted by all progressive, democratic, and freedom-loving countries of the world, and, therefore, devoid of that high sense of justice by which the military occupant must be guided in the exercise of his powers. This concept is, we think, borne out by an examination of the following features of said procedure:

(a) Under the rule of procedure embodied in said ordinance any prosecuting officer may, on his own volition and even without probable cause, issue a search warrant for the seizure of documents and articles which may be regarded as evidence of an offense — in violation of section 2, Rule 122 of the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures," and prohibits the issuance of warrants except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

(b) The trial must be commenced within two days after the filing of the information — in violation of section 7, Rule 114, which give the accused at least two days after the plea of not guilty within which to prepare fort trial.

(c) The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in all criminal prosecutions until the contrary is proved, which is likewise guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is violated in that, after the arraignment and before the presentation of any proof for the prosecution, the accused is interrogated by the judge as to the facts and circumstances of the case, and if from the facts obtained by such interrogation it should appear (to the judge) that accused is guilty a sentence of conviction may be immediately rendered against him, thereby also depriving him of his right to meet the witnesses face to face and of his privilege against self-incrimination.

The City Fiscal justifies this feature of the procedure by giving the following hypothetical case: "In the house of Juan and under his bed a policeman finds a revolver. Juan is arrested and an information for illegal possession of firearms is filed against him by the fiscal. He is brought before the judge of the corresponding special court for the preliminary interrogatory. He is asked whether or not he admits that the revolver was found in his house. He answers in the affirmative but says that he is not the owner of the revolver and he does not know how it placed there. Asked whether he knows of anybody who could have placed the revolver under his bed, he answers that it might have been place there by a guest who slept on his bed the night previous to its discovery by the polices. He is asked to give the name of the guest reffered to and his address, but he refuses to answers. Asked if he has other witnesses to support his claim, he answer that he has none. As may be seen, the evidence of guilt is complete, and there being no further evidence to be presented that may change the result the accused may be then and there sentenced by the court. In this case, the conviction of the accused is reasonable and fair, for his refusal to reveal the identity of his alleged guest may due, either to the fact that there was no such guest, or that the cause for concealing his identity is worth suffering for. Volente non fit injuria."

But to us that hypothetical case is a good illustration of the injustice of such procedure. There the accused was convicted not because the prosecution had proved his guilt but because he was unable to prove his innocence. His inability to prove who the owner of the revolver was, did not to our mind prove him guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, under the circumstances. He was accused of illegal possession of firearm, an offense punishable under the ordinance in question with imprisonment for six to twelve years. He pleaded not guilty, for according to him the revolver was not his and he did not know how it got into his house. He had no time to investigate and try to find out whether the policeman himself or some the other person who wished to do him harm had planted it there, sooner was the revolver seized than he was brought before the court and interrogated about it when he was naturally dazed and in a state of alarm. If the law of criminal procedure had been followed, he would have had ample time to reflect and endeavor to unravel the mystery. He could have consulted a lawyer, and he would have been entitled to at least two days after the information was read to him to investigate the facts and prepare for the trial. At the trial he would not have been required to answer to any proof in his defense until the prosecution had presented its witness, principally the policeman. His lawyer could have cross-examined the policeman and found out from him whether he had any grudge against the accused and how he happened to search the latter's house. From the testimony of the policeman the accused might have been enlightened as to how and by whom the revolver was place in his house. Suppose that the policeman should say that his informant as to the presence of the revolver under the bed of the accused was a houseboy of the latter, and suppose that houseboy was really the one who planted the revolver because of some grievance he had against his master but that the latter had not suspected before that his houseboy had any revolver. In view of the revelation of the policeman he would had been able to investigate and ascertain that fact. In that he way he could have satisfactory explained how and by whom the revolver was placed under his bed. But under the procedure in question as outlined by the City Fiscal, the accused was of course utterly unable to do that and was consequently doomed to at least six years' imprisonment for a crime he had not committed.

(d) Section 6 of the Ordinance in question provided: "The decisions of the special courts herein created shall be final except where the penalty imposed is death, in which case the records of the particular case shall be elevated en consulta to a special division of the Supreme Court composed of three members to be designated by the President of the Republic of the Philippines." Under our law of criminal procedure, which the military occupant was bound to respect unless absolutely prevented, all persons accused of any offense have the right to appeal to the Court Appeals or to the

Supreme Court. It is true that as rule that right is statutory and may be withdrawn by the legislature except in certain cases where the right to appeal is provided in the Constitution itself, as in the cases involving life imprisonment and death penalty; but the question here is not whether the legislative department of the legitimate government has the power to abrogate that right but whether it was within the competence of the military occupant to do so.

(e) In the instant case the penalty imposed upon accused by the special court, after a summary trial was life imprisonment, and he was denied the right to have that sentence reviewed by the Supreme Court, altho under sub-section 4, section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, he could not have been deprived by law of that right.

( f ) Section 7 of the Ordinance suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons accused of or under investigation for any of the crimes and offenses enumerated in sections 1 and 2. The Constitution of the Commonwealth prohibit the suspension of that privilege except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion when the public safety requires it. The suspension by the ordinance was not motivated by any one of these cases but by the necessity for waging a campaign against certain classes of crime; martial law was not declared; and the suspension of habeas corpus did not apply to all persons living in the specified territory (as should have been done if the public safety required such suspension) but only to those accused of or investigated for certain specified crimes or offenses. The result of such partial suspension was that persons accused of or under investigation for any of the offenses specified in section 1 and 2 could be held in detention indefinitely, whereas person accused of or under investigation for crimes other than those specified, such for example as theft, physical injuries, homicide, murder, and parricide, had the right to demand their release by habeas corpus after the lapse of six hours. The same discrimination holds true with reference to the other features already noted above, namely, unreasonable searches and seizures, summary trial, denial of the presumption innocence, self-incrimination, and denial of the right to appeal. Such discrimination was unwarranted and unjust and was contrary to the concept of justice prevailing in all democratic countries, where every person is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

3. It is apparent from the foregoing examination of the main features of the ordinance that while the methods thus adopted may not be unusual under totalitarian governments like those of the aggressor nations in the recent global war, they are strange and repugnant to the people of the democratic countries which united together to defeat said aggressors and "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, . . . and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." (Preamble Charter for Peace adopted by the United Nations at San Francisco, California, June 26, 1945.) The recent global war was a clash between two antagonistic ways of life, between facism and democracy. It would be strange indeed if his Court, which functions under a democratic government that fought with the other democratic nations in that war, should sanction or approve the way of life, against which that war was fought and won the cost of million of lives and untold sacrifices.

4. The case involves the interpretation not of constitution but of international law, which "is based on usage and opinion"; and "he who in such a case bases his reasoning on high considerations of morality may succeed in resolving the doubt in accordance with humanity and justice." (Principles of International Lawrence, 7th ed., pp. 12, 13.) We think the contentions for the petitioner against the validity of the ordinance in question are in accord with humanity and justice.

Before concluding this opinion we deem it pertinent to comment on the remark of the City Fiscal that, as stated in its preamble, the ordinance in question was promulgated in response to "an urgent necessity for waging an immediately and relentless campaign against certain classes and expediting the trail and determination thereof in order to hasten the re-establishment of peace and other throughout the country and promote a feeling

of security among the people conducive to the earlier return of normalcy in our national life." We concede that the objective of the author of the ordinance was commendable, but we think — and in this we are supported by the actual result — it was unattainable thru the means and methods prescribed in said ordinance. Peace and order and normalcy could not be restored unless the root cause of their disturbance were eliminated first. That cause was the presence in the country of the Japanese army, which wrecked our political, social, and economic structures, destroyed our means of communication, robbed the people of their food, clothing, and medicine and other necessities of life, ejected them from their own homes, punished and tortured innocent men and women, and other wise made life unbearable. The relative rampancy of the crimes mentioned in said ordinance was but the effect of that cause. The cornering and hoarding of foodstuffs would not for the scarcity produced by the Japanese army and the disruption of our commerce and industries on account of the invasion. The possession of firearms was rendered desirable to many person to defend themselves against or attack the invader. Robberies and other crimes against property increased as a resulted of hunger and privation to which the people were subjected by the rapacity of the Japanese. It was a delusion to expect peace and normalcy to return without eliminating the cause of their disturbance or destruction of the Japanese army in the Philippines — an objective to which the ordinance was not addressed. So, even from the point of view of the Filipino people and not of the Japanese army of occupation, the ordinance in question results untenable.

Having reached the conclusion that the enactment of the procedure embodied in said ordinance for the special court therein created was beyond the competence of the occupant, inasmuch as that procedure was inseparable from the first part of the ordinance which creates the special court and prescribes the jurisdiction thereof, we are constrained to declare the whole ordinance null and void ab initio. Consequently the proceedings in said court which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are also void.

PARAS, J., concurring in the result:

Charged with robbery, the petitioner herein was found guilty and sentence to suffer life imprisonment. He commenced to serve the term on August 21, 1944. Inasmuch as he was a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary, the basis of the information was Act No. 65, passed during the Japanese — sponsored Republic of the Philippines and amending certain articles of the Revised Penal Code. The trial was held by the then existing Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which was authorized to conduct proceedings in a special manner. Ordinance No. 7 of the "Republic.")

After General of the Army Douglas McArthur had issued the Proclamation dated October 23, 1944, the Act under which the petitioner was charged and convicted stands nullified, and the original provisions of the Revised Penal Code restored. By virtue of article 22 of the said Code, "Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in rule 5 of article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same."

In the absence of other details, it may here be assumed that the offense committed is that defined in article 294, paragraph 5, which provides as follows:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

The penalty of prision correccional to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.

In accordance with the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Acts Nos. 4103 and 4225 ), the maximum penalty that can be imposed is six months of arresto mayor.

This Court has already dismissed cases wherein the defendants were charge with the violation of law in force at the time of the commission and trial of the crime, after said laws have been repealed by subsequent legislation, People vs. Moran (Phil., 44 387); People vs. Tamayo (61 Phil., 226 ), and also repeatedly released on writs of habeas corpus prisoners who, were given the benefit of subsequent legislation either repealing statute under which they had been convicted or modifying the same by imposing lesser penalties, Escalante vs. Santos (56 Phil., 483); Directo vs. Director of Prisons (56 Phil., 692).

Prisoners who behave well are almost always liberated upon the expiration of the minimum penalty fixed in the judgments of conviction or within a reasonable time thereafter. In the present case, there being no information that the double the period of the minimum penalty that could be imposed upon him, he should be released. As this is the effect of the decision of the majority, I concur in the result.

DE, JOYA, J., concurring:

The principal question involved in this case is the validity of the judicial proceeding held in criminal case No. 66 of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, established in the City of Manila, during Japanese occupation, under the authority of Ordinance No. 7, issued by the President of the so-called Philippine Republic, and the effect on said proceeding of the proclamation of General Douglas McArthur, dated October 23, 1944.

In said criminal case, herein petitioner was accused of the crime of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment, on August 21, 1944.

There can be doubt that the government established in this country by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Imperial Forces, under the name of the Philippine Executive Commission, was a de facto government, as already held by this Court in civil case G.R. No. L-5 entitled Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, decided on September 17, 1945 (p. 133, ante). Said government possessed all the characteristics of a de facto government as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the following language:

But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2), that while it exist it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administrated, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force. (MacLeod vs. United States [1913,] 229 U. S., 416.)

Under a de facto government, the courts of the country, under military occupation, should be kept open, and whenever practicable, the subordinate officers of the local administration should be allowed to continue in their functions, supported by the military force of the invader, because the responsibility of maintaining peace and public order, and of punishing crime, falls directly upon the commander in chief of the occupying forces. And in the performance of this duty, he may proclaim martial law (Davis, Elements of International Law [3d.], pp. 330-332).

In occupied territory, the conquering power has a right to displace the pre-existing authority, and to assume to such extent as it may deem proper the exercise by itself of all the powers and functions of government. It may appoint all the necessary officers and clothe them with designated powers, according to its pleasure. It may prescribe the revenues to be paid, and apply them to its own use or otherwise. It may do anything necessary to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy. There is no limit to the powers that may be exerted in such cases, save those which are found in the laws and customs and usages of war (Cross vs. Harrison, 16 How., 164 ; Leitensdorfer vs. Webb, 20 Id., 176; The Grapeshot, 9 Wall.[ U.S.], 129; New Orleans vs. Steamship Co., [1874], 20 Wall., [ U.S.], 287.

It is generally the better course for the inhabitants of the territory, under military occupation, that they should continue to carry on the ordinary administration under the invader; but the latter has no right to force them to do so. If they decline, his only rights, and it is also his duty, is to replace them by appointees of his own, so far as necessary for maintaining order and the continuance of the daily life of the territory: other purposes, as these of the superior judicial offices, can bide their time (Westlake, International Law, Part II, War, 2d ed., pp. 121-123).

Though the fact of occupation imposes no duties upon the inhabitants of the occupied territory, the invader himself is not left equally free. As it is a consequence of his acts that the regular government of the country is suspended, he is bound to take whatever means are required for the security of public order; and as his presence, so long as it is based upon occupation, is confessedly temporary, and his rights of control spring only from the necessity of the case, he is also bound to alter or override the existing laws as little as possible (Hall, International Law, 6th ed., 476).

The government established here under the Philippine Executive Commission was more in consonance with the general practice among civilized nations, in establishing governments for the maintenance of peace and order and the administration of justice, in territories of the enemy under military occupation; because said government was of a temporary character.

The government subsequently established under the so-called Philippine Republic, with a new constitution, was also of the nature of a de facto government, in accordance with International Law, as it was established under the authority of the military occupant and supported by the armed forces of the latter. But it was somewhat different from that established under the Philippine Executive Commission, because the former apparently, at least, had the semblance of permanency, which however, is unusual in the practices among civilized nations, under similar circumstances.

Under military occupation, the original national character of the soil and of the inhabitants of the territory remains unaltered; and although the invader is invested with quasisovereignity, which give him a claim as of right to the obedience of the conquered population, nevertheless, its exercise is limited by the qualification which has gradually become established, that he must not, as a general rule, modify the permanent institutions of the country (Hall, International Law, 6th ed., p. 460).

The Convention Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, adopted at The Hague in 1899, lays down (Arts. 42, 43) definite rules concerning military authority over the territory of a hostile state. In addition to codifying the accepted law, it provides that the occupant must respect, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

It will thus be readily seen that the municipal law of the invaded state continues in force, in so far as it does not affect the hostile occupant unfavorably. The regular courts of the occupied territory continue to act in cases not affecting the military occupation; and it is not customary for the invader to take the whole administration into his own hands, as it is easier to preserve order through the agency of the native officials, and also because the latter are more competent to administer the laws of the territory; and the military occupant, therefore, generally keeps in their posts such of the judicial officers as are willing to serve under him, subjecting them only to supervision by the military authorities, or by superior civil authorities appointed by him (Young vs. United States, 97 U. S., 39; 24 Law. ed., 992; Coleman vs. Tennessee, 97 U. S., 509; 24 Law. ed., 1118; MacLeod vs. United States, 229 U. S., 416; 33 Sup. Ct., 955; 57; Law. ed., 1260; Taylor, International Law, secs. 576, 578; Wilson, International Law, pp. 331-337; Hall, International Law, 6th ed. (1909), pp. 464, 465,475,476; Lawrence, International Law, 7th ed., pp. 421-413; Davis, Elements of International Law, 3rd ed., pp. 330-332, 335; Holland, International Law, pp. 356-57, 359; Westlake, International Law, Part II, War 2d ed., pp. 121-123).

The judicial proceedings conducted, under the municipal law of the territory, before the court established by the military occupant are general considered legal and valid, even after the government established by the invader had been displaced by the legitimate government of said territory.

Thus the judgment rendered by the Confederate courts, during the Civil War, merely settling the rights of private parties actually within their jurisdiction, not tending to defeat the legal rights of citizens of the United States, nor in furtherance of laws passed in aid of the rebellion, had been declared legal, valid and binding (Coleman vs. Tennessee, 97 U. S 509., 24 Law. ed., 1118; Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U. S., 176; Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570; 21 Law. ed., 660; Sprott vs. United States, 20 Wall., 249; 22 Law. ed., 371)

When the military forces of the Confederate states were destroyed, their government perished, and with it all its enactments. But the legislative acts of the several States forming the Confederacy stood on a different ground, and so far as they did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of citizens under the Federal constitution, they were considered as legal, valid and binding (Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U. S., 177; 24 Law. ed., 716; Ford vs. Surget, 97 U. S., 594; 24 Law. ed., 1018; United States vs. Ins. Co., 22 Wall. [ U. S.], 99; 22 Law. ed., 816; Ketchum vs. Buckley [1878], 99 U. S.,188; Johnson vs. Atlantic G. & W. I. Transit Co., 156 U. S., 618; 15 Sup. Ct., 520).

In the later case, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that the judicial and legislative acts of the rebellious States, as de facto governments, should be respected by the courts, if they were not hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the national government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the Federal Constitution. (Baldy vs. Hunter, 171 U. S., 388; 18 Sup. Ct., 890; Law. ed., 208.)

Under the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur, dated October 23, 1944, declaring null and void all laws, regulations and processes issued and promulgated by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Philippine Republic, during Japanese occupation, said Ordinance No. 7 promulgated on March 8, 1944, creating the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, ostensibly for the speedy reestablishment of peace and order, and Executive Commission, prescribing summary rules of procedure, and other allied laws, such as Act No. 65 of the puppet republic, prescribing heavier penalties, became null and void, once the Japanese armies in the Philippines had been defeated, as with them the de facto governments, successively established under them, perished, and with them all their enactments and processes of a hostile character.

But there are other considerations equally important why judicial proceedings held and conducted before the courts established by said de facto governments, under laws promulgated by them, should be declared null and void, without violating, in the least, settled principles, judicial precedents

or public policy.

Said Ordinance No. 7 adopted as integral parts thereof said Executive Order No. 157, as well as said Act No. 65 of the National Assembly of the puppet republic, prescribing exceptionally heavy penalties for the crimes enumerated therein.

The principal crimes mentioned in said Ordinance No. 7 and Act No. 65 of the puppet republic and the other allied laws are illegal possession of firearms, robbery, violations of food-control laws, falsification malversation and bribery; and it was under said laws that herein petitioner was prosecuted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime robbery.

The penalty of life imprisonment or death for robbery was aimed principally at the underground forces resolute and determined to seize and remove stores of food provisions, whenever possible, to prevent them from falling into the hands of the enemy.

The penalty of twelve years' imprisonment for illegal possession of firearms was directed mainly against those underground forces, that had been receiving arms from the forces of liberation across the seas.

Violation of food-control laws were included and used as a pretext and justification for the seizure and confiscation of food provisions so badly needed by the invader.

And the inclusion under said Ordinance No. 7 of the crime of bribery and other was used as a cloak to conceal its venom and make said law look innocent.

By the imposition of excessive penalties , by the denial of the remedy of habeas corpus, by compelling the accused to testify against themselves, and by denying them the right of appeal to the highest court of the land, except where the death penalty was imposed, and by its summary procedure, said Ordinance No. 7 and the other allied laws impaired and defeated the just and legal rights of Filipino citizens under the Commonwealth Constitution, and the supremacy of the authority of the legitimate Government. Under said laws, the persons accused were deprived of liberty without due process of law.

In the language of this Court, "the phrase 'due process of law' used in the Philippine Bill should receive a comprehensive interpretation, and no procedure should be treated as unconstitutional which makes due provision for the trial of alleged criminal before a court of competent jurisdiction, for bringing the accused into court and notifying him of the cause he is required to meet, for giving him an opportunity to be heard, for the deliberation and judgement of the court, and for an appeal from such judgement to the highest tribunal" (United States vs. Kennedy, 18 Phil., 122).

In their conception, in their purpose and mode of enforcement and execution said laws were hostile to the authority of the Commonwealth Government and that of the United States of America; as they had been promulgated in furtherance of the war aims of the enemy, and they are, therefore, of political character and complexion.

Those repressive laws were aimed at the men and women who had kept the faith, and whose heroes and martyrs now lie in graves still unknown and whose names remain unsung; but whose heroic efforts and sacrifices have made immortal the legends of Filipino resistance, and made possible our

participation in the councils of free and liberty-loving peoples and nations.

Said laws are contrary to the principles of Democracy, championed by North America, whose gigantic efforts and heroic sacrifices have vindicated human rights, human dignity and human freedom, and consecrated them anew all over the earth with the generous blood of her children. They violate the fundamental principles of Justice for which civilized Mankind stands, under the benign leadership of Totalitarianism and given all the nations of the earth a new birth as well as a new character of freedom, to enable each and everyone to live a nobler and more worthy life and realize the justice and prosperity of the future.

For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the dispositive part of the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Feria.

PERFECTO, J., concurring:

On October 21, 1944, petitioner William F. Peralta began to serve, in the Muntinglupa Prison Camp, a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, created by Ordinance No. 7 issued by President Laurel of the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese regime, and now seeks a writ of habeas corpus in order that his liberty may be restored to him, contending that said Ordinance No. 7 was null and void ab initio because it was of a political complexion and its provisions are violative of the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

Petitioner alleges that sometime in the month of September, 1943, he joined the Constabulary forces as a private, against his will, and before joining it, he was for several times arrested and maltreated as a guerrilla member, he being then a minor only 17 years old, and that he was prosecuted, not because he committed any crime, but because he joined the guerrilla organization, deserted the Constabulary forces, and followed political and military activities in open allegiance to the Commonwealth Government and the United States of America.

The Solicitor General, appearing in behalf of respondent Director of Prisons, answered the petition agreeing that the acts and proceedings taken and had before said Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction should be denied force and efficacy, and therefore, recommended that the writ prayed for be granted.

At the hearing held on September 21, and 22, 1945, there appeared to argue the First Assistant Solicitor General, impugning the validity of said Ordinance No. 7, and the City Fiscal of Manila, as amicus curiae, who sustained the validity if the said Ordinance and the proceeding by virtue of which petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment.

I. ORDINANCE NO. 7 AND PROCESSES UNDER IT NULLIFIED BY THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION OF GENERAL MACARTHUR

On October 23, 1944, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief of the Philippine-American Forces, which fought in Bataan and later liberated the whole Philippines, as an aftermath of the liberation, issued a proclamation declaring:

1. That the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines is, subject to the supreme authority of the Government of the United States, the sole and only government having legal and valid jurisdiction over the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control;

2. That the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and

3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control.

It appears that Ordinance No. 7 in question has been issued under the Japanese regime and that the judicial process under which petitioner has been sentenced to life imprisonment, having been held in a court not belonging to the Commonwealth of the Philippines but organized and established under the authority of the enemy, became null and void and without effect since October 23, 1944, by virtue of the above-quoted October Proclamation of General MacArthur.

We have explained at length our position as to the effects of said October Proclamation in our dissenting opinion in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (G. R. No. L-5, 153, ante), and we deem it unnecessary to repeat what we stated in said opinion.

It is fortunate that all the members of the Supreme Court arrived at a unanimous conclusion as to the absolute nullity of the process under which petitioner is now being held in prison.

The shocking character of the provisions of Ordinance No. 7 and the processes held under it show once more how General MacArthur was absolutely right and justified in issuing the October Proclamation.

There are indications that more processes held under the Japanese regime will come to our knowledge, revealing strong grounds for their annulment, justifying, like the process here in question, the wisdom of the decision of General MacArthur in nullifying in a sweeping manner all judicial processes held during enemy occupation.

The October Proclamation is, in keeping with the following official statement of the President of the United States:

On the fourteenth of this month, a puppet government was set up in the Philippine Islands with Jose P. Laurel, formerly a justice of the Philippine Supreme Court as president. Jorge Vargas, formerly a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Cabinet and Benigno Aquino, also formerly a member of that cabinet, were closely associated with Laurel in this movement. The first act of the new puppet regime was to sign a military alliance with Japan. The second act was a hypocritical appeal for American sympathy which was made in fraud and deceit, and was designed to confuse and mislead the Filipino people.

I wish to make it clear that neither the former collaborationist "Philippine Executive Commission" nor the present Philippine Republic has the recognition or sympathy of the Government of the United States. . . .

Our sympathy goes out to those who remain loyal to the United States and the Commonwealth — that great majority of the Filipino people who have not been deceived by the promises of the enemy. . . .

October 23, 1943

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELTPresident of the United States

(From U. S. Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1943, pp. 93, 94.)

Putting aside the October Proclamation, by a mere perusal of the ordinance in question, we will see immediately how such law and the processes held under it are incompatible with the fundamental principles and essential safeguards in criminal procedure, universally recognized in civilized modern nations and how such ordinance and processes can only be justified by a retrogressive and reactionary mentality developed under the social, cultural, and political atmosphere of the era of darkness.

II. VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Section 5 of Ordinance No. 7 provides that cases arising under it shall follow the summary procedure provided in Act No. 65 of the Laurel Philippine Republic, which, in turn, is the same as that established by Chapter II of Executive Order No. 157 of the Chairman of the Vargas Philippine Executive Commission, dated May 18, 1943.

Under said procedure, "search warrants may be issued by the court or by any prosecuting officer, authorizing peace officers to search for and seize any articles or objects described in the warrant, including those which may be regarded as evidence of an offense under this order even if such articles or objects are not included among those described in section 2, Rule 122, of the Rules of Court." This provision is repugnant to the Filipino sense of right in the matter of warrants of search and seizure, sense of right which has been clearly and definitely stereotyped in the following words of our fundamental law:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 3, Constitution of the Philippines.)

This constitutional provision is violated by the summary, unreasonable, and arbitrary procedure provided under the authority of the ordinance in question:

(1) By authorizing "any prosecuting officer" to issue search warrants, when under our Constitution such search warrants should be issued only by a judge;

(2) By trespassing the limits established by section 2, Rule 122, of the Rules of Court, considered as a necessary element to make the warrant reasonable;

(3) By authorizing the search and seizure of articles or objects not described in warrant, which is the real meaning of the words "including those which may be regarded as evidence of an offense under this Ordinance."

III. DISCRIMINATORY AND INIQUITOUS SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Section 7 of Ordinance No. 7 in question provides that "the privileges of the writ habeas corpus are hereby suspended with respect to persons accused of, or under investigation for, any of the crimes and offenses enumerated in sections 1 and 2 hereof."

This provision is also violative of one of the fundamental guarantees established in the Constitution of the Philippines, which provides that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only in case of "invasion, insurrection, or rebellion" and only "when the public safety requires it."

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist. (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 14, Constitution of the Philippines.)

Again, it is evident that the ordinance in question is repugnant to the deep sense of right of our people. It is so, not only because it suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, without the circumstances which can only justify said suspension, but because it flagrantly violates the fundamental principle of equality before the law, by depriving the accused, in cases falling under the ordinance in question, of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which is not denied to the accused in all other cases:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 1, Constitution of the Philippines.)

IV. VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION

Under section 18 of Executive Order No. 157, above mentioned, "the accused or his representative may be examined by the court, and with the permission of the court, by the fiscal or other prosecuting officer as to any matters favorable or unfavorable to him of his principal." (Emphasis ours.)

It is also provided that "statements made by the accused, his co-accused, or the representative of the accused or a person acting in a similar capacity, irrespective of the circumstances under which they were made shall be admissible in evidence if material to the issue." (Emphasis ours.)

Under section 21 of Executive Order No. 157, after arraignment and plea, "the judge shall interrogate the accused . . . as to facts and circumstances of the case in order to clarify the points in dispute and those which are admitted." In the same section it is also provided that "refusal of the accused to answer any questions made or allowed by the court may be considered unfavorable to him." (Emphasis ours.)

Under the same section the absence of an accused or of his representative "shall not be a ground for interrupting the proceedings or attacking the validity of the judgment."

From the foregoing, it appears:

(1) That the accused may be examined by the court or any prosecuting officer as to any matters favorable or unfavorable to him;

(2) That the refusal of the accused to answer may be considered unfavorable to him;

(3) That statements made by the accused, "irrespective of the circumstances under which they were made" (that is, even under third degree procedure, or exacted through brutal kempei tortures), shall be admissible in evidence;

(4) That not only the accused, but "his representative" (his lawyer, whose personal security was jeopardized under the Japanese regime), may be examined by the court or by the fiscal or other prosecuting officer, as if said representative or attorney is facing the same criminal prosecution instituted against his client;

(5) That the statement made by said representative or attorney, although exacted under duress, intimidation, or torture, shall be admissible in evidence;

(6) That statements made by any person acting in a similar capacity as a representative of the accused which may be a relative or a friend or, even an impostor who might pose as a representative to assure the doom of the accused, "irrespective of the circumstances under which they were made (that is, even if made in the absence of the accused, or in the same circumstances under which masked spies decreed the death of innocent citizens pointed by them during zoning concentrations), shall be admissible in evidence;

(7) That trial shall proceed in the absence of the accused;

(8) That trial shall proceed in the absence of his attorney or other representative.

It is evident that the procedure established violates the following provisions of our fundamental code:

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 17, Constitution of the Philippines.)

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 18, Idem.)

The procedure is so revolving, so nauseating, and so opposed to human nature, that it takes a real courage to keep our equanimity while we are compelled to analyze it.

It is beyond our comprehension how a man, endowed with reason, could devise such an execrable system of judicial procedure, which is but a shameless mockery of the administration of justice.

We must be very careful to retain zealously the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. We must not forget that that constitutional guarantee was acquired as a result of protest against all inquisitorial and third degree procedures. We must not forget how, not very long ago, in the thirteen colonies of America, alleged witches were burned at the stake, as a means of compelling them to confess their fantastic compacts with the devil. We must not forget how an institution created in the twelfth century was the cause of so much tortures and sufferings, and that the terroristic menace of its rakes was abolished in Spain, and therefore in Philippines, only in 1834.

We must not forget that during normal times, under the twentieth century lights, just before the last global war started, in the United States of America and in the Philippines, denunciations of third degree procedures employed by agents the law were often heard. This very Supreme Court, not only once, had to deal with cases where such tactics were conclusively proved. Even today, among criminal cases we have under consideration, there is evidence of confessions exacted through cruel and brutal means.

No matter what merits can be found, from the theoretical point of view, in the arguments of those who are championing the suppression of the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, the undeniable reality of human experience shows conclusively the absolute need of such guarantee if justice must be served. Even with the existence of such guarantee, there are officers of the law who cannot resist temptation of using their power to compel, through third degree methods, innocent or guilty persons to admit involuntarily real or imaginary offenses. Let us allow changes tending to nullify the protection against self-incrimination, and no man, however innocent he may be, shall be secure in his person, in his liberty, in his honor, in his life.

V. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF APPEAL TRAMPLED UPON

In section 6 of Ordinance No. 7, it is provided that "the decision of the special courts herein created shall be final except where the penalty imposed is death, in which case the records of the particular case shall be elevated en consulta to a special division of the Supreme Court composed of three members to be designated by the President of the Republic of the Philippines."

This provision is a clear violation of the fundamental right of appeal, constitutionally guaranteed to all accused in the Philippines. Under the Constitution of the Philippines, all accused are entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court:

(1) In all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulations is in question. (Art. VIII, sec. 2, No. 1, Constitution of the Philippines.)

(2) In all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (Art. VIII, sec 2, No. 2, Idem.)

(3) In all cases in which the jurisdiction of any trial court is in issue. (Art. VIII, sec. 2, No. 3, Idem.)

(4) In all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. (Art. VIII, sec. 2, No. 4, Idem.)

(5) In all cases in which an error or question of law is involved. (Art. VIII, sec. 2, No. 5, Idem.)

Before the adoption of the Constitution of the Philippines, it was the prevailing theory in judicial decisions that the right of appeal is not a fundamental one, but it is a mere privilege or mere statutory grant.

The drafters of our Constitution, taught by the unerring lessons of human experience, came to the conclusion that mistake is one of the most irretrievable human weaknesses.

The drafters of our Constitution, therefore, considered it necessary to establish constitutional guarantees to reduce to its minimum the effects of such innate human weakness by providing that the appeal to the highest tribunal of the land may be enjoyed by any accused, who, under the specific provisions of the Constitution, believed himself to be the victim of a wrong in any inferior court.

The fact that the provisions of section 2, of Article VIII, of the Constitution, instead of stating that the accused shall not be denied of the right of appeal in the cases mentioned therein, provide that the Supreme Court may not be deprived of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts, in the specified cases, does not impair nor diminish the fundamental character of the right of appeal of the accused to the Supreme Court.

The provisions of section 2, of Article VIII, of the Constitution, have been enacted by our Constitutional Convention, not for the benefit and well-being of the people.

In fact, the Supreme Court is just one of the instrumentalities created by the Constitution in the service of the people. The Supreme Court is not an entity or institution whose rights and privileges must be constitutionally guaranteed. It is only a means. It is one of the means considered necessary by our Constitution to better serve the supreme interest of the people.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of the United States itself declared that the elimination of said tribunal is not incompatible with the existence of a government of laws. In a case of denaturalization wherein the Government of the United States sought to deprive a person of his American citizenship, on the ground that the 1928 platform of the Communist Party of the United States, to which the respondent belonged, advocated the abolition of the supreme Court, of the Senate and the veto power of the President, and replacement of congressional districts with "councils of workers" in which legislative and executive powers would be united, the Federal Supreme Court declared:

These would indeed be significant changes in our governmental structure — changes which it is safe to say are not desired by the majority of the people in this country — but whatever our personal views, as judges we cannot say that person who advocates their adoption through peaceful and constitutional means is not in fact attached to the Constitution — those institutions are not enumerated as necessary in the government's test of "general political philosophy", and it is conceivable that "orderly liberty" could be maintained without them. The Senate

has not gone free of criticism and one object of the Seventeenth Amendment was to make it more responsive to the popular will. The unicameral legislature is not unknown in the country. It is that this Court has played a large in the unfolding of the constitutional plan (sometimes too so in the opinion of some observers), but we be arrogant indeed if we presume that a government of laws, with protection for minority groups would be impossible without it. Like other agencies of government, this Court at various lines its existence has not escaped the shafts of critics whose sincerity and attachment to the Constitution is beyond question — critics who have accused it of assuming functions of judicial review not intended to be conferred upon it, or of abusing those function to thwart the popular will, and who advocated various remedies taking a wide range. (Schneiderman vs. United States of America, June 21, 1943.)

VI. ABRIDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is evidently abridged in the summary procedure in criminal cases under Ordinance No. 7:

(1) By the fact that the accused therein are victims of search warrants specially provided for them, where the guarantees against unreasonableness in search warrants issued against other accused are specially eliminated.

(2) By depriving the accused, under the Ordinance No. 7, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus enjoyed by the accused in other cases.

(3) By depriving the accused, under Ordinance No. 7 of the fundamental right of appeal in all cases, except when sentenced of death is imposed.

(4) By discriminating against the accused, under Ordinance No. 7, where the right of appeal is retained for them, that is, in cases where the sentenced imposed is death, by entrusting the power to revised said sentence to small minority of the Supreme Court, under the Japanese regime, and a minority of three justices to be specially called out by the President of the Laurel Philippine Republic, undoubtedly with the evident purpose of the confirmation of the conviction of the accused, and to make the appeal en consulta just an empty gesture to make the situation of the accused more pitiful by lengthening is days of agony.

(5) By placing the accused, in the case in question, under the sword of Damocles of an unfavorable presumptions, should he refuse to answer any question that the court or any prosecuting officer might propound to him.

Under our constitution, no one shall be deprived of the "equal protection of the laws". (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 1, Constitution of the Philippines.)

VII. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS VIOLATED

Since the American flag began to fly over our soil, the fundamental guarantee that in all criminal prosecution the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, has been implanted in our country to remain forever.

That guarantee was consecrated in our Constitution:

In all criminal prosecution the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and a public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. (Art. III, sec. 1, No. 17, Constitution of the Philippines.)

This guarantee is undoubtedly violated when, in the summary procedure established by Ordinance No. 7, it is provided that the refusal of the accused to answer any question, propounded by the court or any officer, "may raise unfavorable presumption against him."

If we have to keep democracy in our country, we must be vigilant in upholding the constitutional principle that all persons shall be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

This principle is the opposite of that prevailing under autocracies, or under facist or totalitarian regimes. During the Japanese occupation all persons who might fall under the suspicion of any Japanese or their spies and lackeys, were presumed to be guilty of any imaginary crime until they were able to convince their victimizers of the contrary, beyond any reasonable doubt. Even then, they were submitted to preventive tortures and long months of imprisonment, just in case they might think later of committing any offense against the Japanese or their collaborators.

VIII. ORDINANCE NO. 7 VIOLATED THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1899

In the convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land, adopted by the Hague in 1899, it is provided that the military occupant must respect the laws in force in the occupied country, unless absolutely prevented. (Arts. 42 and 43.)

The provision of the Convention has been flagrantly violated when, under the enemy occupation the Laurel Philippine Republic enacted Ordinance No. 7 which suspended our laws, including the fundamental one, by substantially subverting the judicial procedures in the special criminal cases instituted under said ordinance.

For this reason, said ordinance, being violative of international law, was null and void ab initio.

Under international law, under the most elemental principles of law, the legitimate government, once restored to its own territory, after expelling the enemy invader, enjoys the absolute freedom of not recognizing or of nullifying any and all acts of the invader, including those internationally legal ones. The situation is exactly the same as that of the owner of the house who can do anything in it that pleases him, after expelling the bandit who was able to usurp its possession for a while.

General McArthur exercised correctly that power by the sweeping nullification decreed in his October Proclamation.

But even without the October Proclamation, the judicial process — maybe it is better to say injudicial process — which resulted in the imprisonment of petitioner, must be shorn of all effects because it had taken place under the authority of an ordinance which was null and void ab initio.

IX. THE DECISION CONVICTING THE PETITIONER HAVING BEEN RENDERED UNDER FOREIGN AUTHORITY IS UNENFORCEABLE

The decision by which petitioner William F. Peralta was convicted and is being confined for life having been rendered by a tribunal created, functioning, and acting under the authority of a foreign State, the Emperor of the Imperial Government of Japan, is unenforceable.

It has, therefore, the nature of a foreign decision or judgment. For that reason, it is unenforceable within the Philippines or under the Commonwealth, as we have shown in our opinion in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (G.R. No. 5, p. 153, ante)

Said decision, having been rendered under Ordinance No. 7, which was null and void ab initio, carries the same vice as the ordinance under which it was rendered.

But even admitting arguendo that said decision is valid, because it is so under international law, and is not included in the nullification decreed by General Douglas MacArthur, still it cannot be enforced, being a foreign decision. A foreign decision can only be enforced through the institution of an action before our tribunals. Even decisions of a court of the United States or of any of its States or territories can be enforced in the Philippines only by the institution of an action or special proceeding before our own courts. This theory is confirmed by sections 47 and 48, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, which read:

SEC. 47. Effect of record of a court of the United States. — The effect of a judicial record of a court of the United States or of a court of one of the States or territories of the United States, is the same in the Philippines as in the United States, or in the States or territory where it was made, except that it can only be enforced here by an action or special proceeding, and except, also, that the authority of a guardian, or executor, or administrator does not extend beyond the jurisdiction of the Government under which he was invested with his authority.

SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a judgement of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgement, is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgement against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing;

(b) In case of a judgement against a person, the judgement is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgement may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

X. THE STUNNING FACTS REVEALED IN THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS.

At the hearing of this case, respondent Director of Prisons was required to submit statistical data concerning the number of prisoners and the various crimes for which they were convicted by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction.

In submitting said statistical data, the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondent, calls our attention to the fact that, out of the 92 prisoners committed by said courts to the Bureau of Prisons for confinement, fifty-five (55), that is more than one-half, were convicted of illegal possession of firearms, and that only 3 are now actually in confinement serving sentences, among them the petitioner in this proceeding, thus dissipating the unfounded fear entertained by the City Fiscal of Manila, to the effect that a pronouncement by this Supreme Tribunal that the sentences of the courts in question are null and void, will signify the release of hundreds of criminals, whose liberty and mixing with society will endanger public peace and order.

Of the other two remaining prisoners serving sentence, one has been committed for evasion of service of sentence, and the other for illegal possession of firearms.

Of the 55 prisoners convicted for illegal possession of firearms, 25 died, 23 were released, and 6 escaped, and this is the reason why only one remains in confinement.

It is striking that so many prisoners died, 25 of those convicted for illegal possession of firearms, that is, almost 50% of them, 33 of the total of 94 prisoners committed, or more than one-third of them. This unusual and shocking percentage of mortality is worth inquiring into and, certainly, cannot be counted very favorably to judicial proceedings which eventually lead to such wholesale death, if not outright massacre.

The fact that a big number of the prisoners, 21 of them, were able to escape, was not explained to us. Is it reasonable to surmise, from the ruthless cruelty of the proceedings and of the penalties imposed, which exacted from the mouth of the First Assistant Solicitor General, who appeared to argue the case in behalf of the respondent, the adjective "ferocious", that the wardens themselves, moved by pity, directly or indirectly helped the escape?

More than one-third of the prisoners committed by the said courts in confinement to the Bureau of Prisons, that is, 33 of them died. May we ask if they died because they were executed? Of those who died, one was convicted of profiteering in rice, one of robbery, one of kidnapping of minor, one of violation of certain sections of Act No. 66, four of crimes against public order, and 25 of possession of firearms. If all of them were executed by virtue of sentences rendered by the courts in question, that fact does not speak very highly of their proceedings. If the accused died by natural death, there must be something physically or morally fatal in said proceedings.

If a tree must be judged by the fruits it bears, how shall we judge proceedings so deadly, so fatal, so wantonly inhuman as the proceedings had in the special courts in question?

The City Fiscal of Manila exerted great efforts to show that the fact that in the proceedings in question "the refusal of the accused to answer any question made or allowed by the court may be considered unfavorable to him," does not violate the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. He even goes to the extent of maintaining the theory that such constitutional guarantee is not essential for the protection of the substantial rights of an accused.

His argument centered on the alleged freedom of the accused to refuse to answer any question made or allowed by the court, alleging that, if the accused chooses to refuse to answer, the court cannot compel him to answer under menace of punishment for contempt or through any other coercive or minatory measures.

The City Fiscal seems to labor under the belief that the fact that the silence of the accused "may be considered unfavorable to him", is of no consequence at all.

Such belief can logically be entertained alone by ignoring completely the lessons of experience in human conduct.

If the refusal to answer can be considered unfavorably to the accused, is not that the same as placing him on the hard predicament of choosing between testifying self-incriminating and risking the fatal effects of a legal presumption of guilt? Is not that the same as placing him between the two steel cages of a dilemma: self-incrimination or presumption of guilt? Is not that the same as placing him between Scylla and Charybdis, between a dagger and a wall? Either way, he will always find himself under the inexorable sword of Damocles of sure punishment, whether he testifies or refuses to testify. It is not impossible to open a debate upon the abstract question whether the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination should not remain. But the value of such a moot question, for purposes of this case, is nil.

The constitutional guarantee had to be adopted as a protest against inquisitorial method of the past, when accused and suspects were submitted to the most brutal torture to compel them to confess real or imaginary crimes. That past is not far away. It seems that we are still smelling the stench of human flesh burned in the stakes, where suspected witches suffered iniquitous death.

There is no doubt that the procedure in question shows the purpose of pandering to the most flagitious doctrines in criminal proceedings. The transgressions of the bill of rights in all its phases cannot be hidden even to a chela in constitutional law. It is the very negation of the administration of justice. Such procedure has absolutely no place in the framework of our juridical system. We will feel mere whifflers in our professed convictions, principles, and creed, if we should permit ourselves to fall into the weakness of abetting it even for a moment, which could only happen once the flambeau of reason has ceased completely to burn. No one but the truckling lackeys of the arrogant enemy could have the servility of applauding the implantation of the criminal procedure in question.

All arguments and dissertations are useless to conceal the real fact. Behind and under said criminal process stealthily crawls and trundles the Nippon psychosis, like a cobra with fangs overflowing with venom. To ferret it out from the hole where it lurks, waiting for its victims, and crush its head with one hammer blow, is an imperative measure of national self-defense.

XI. THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED, AS A MATTER OF ABSOLUTE RIGHT, TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE

After showing the absolute nullity of the judicial process under which petitioner has been convicted to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, the inevitable consequence is that he is entitled, as a matter of absolute right, to be immediately released, so that he can once again enjoy a life of freedom, which is the natural boon to law-abiding residents of our country, and of which he was unjustly deprived through means most abhorrent to human conscience.

We must not hesitate for one moment to do our duty in this case. The sooner we comply with it, the better. The process and judgement under which petitioner has been convicted and is now undergoing an unjust imprisonment, is one of the hateful vestiges left in our country by the moral savagery of a people spiritually perverted and debased. The seriousness of this matter cannot be viewed with insouciance. We must not lose time to wipe out such vestiges if we must protect ourselves against their poisonous effects in our political, social, and cultural patrimony.

We must erase those vestiges if we want to keep immune from all germs of decay the democratic institutions which are the pride of our people and country, under which we are enjoying the blessings of freedom and with which we hope to assure the well-being and happiness of the unending generations who will succeed us in the enjoyment of the treasures accumulated by a bountiful nature in this Pearl of the Orient.

If we allow such vestiges to remain we are afraid that some historian may write about Philippine democracy, Philippine race, and Philippine culture, what, on ancient art, Hegel said in the "Phenomenology of the Spirit", according to Kohler, the greatest work of genius that the nineteenth century has produced:

The statues set up are corpses in stone, whence the animating soul has flown; while the hymns of praise are words from which all belief has gone. The tables of the gods are bereft of spiritual food and drink, and from his games and festivals, man no more receives the joyful sense of his unity with the Divine Being. The works of the muse lack the force and energy of the Spirit which derived the certainty and assurance of itself just from the crushing ruin of goods and men. They are themselves now just what they are for us — beautiful fruit broken off the tree, a kindly fate has passed on those works to us, as a maiden might offer such fruit off tree. It is not their actual life as they exist, that is given us, not the tree that bore them, not the earth and the elements, which constituted their substance, nor the climate that determined their constitutive character, nor the change of seasons which controlled the process of their growth. So, too, it is not their living world that fate preserves and gives us with those works of ancient art, not the spring and summer of that ethical life in which they bloomed and ripened, but the veiled remembrance alone of this reality.

Our sense of national self-preservation compels us, as an imperative duty, not only to restore immediately the petitioner to his personal liberty, but, all possible means, to obliterate even the memory of the inquisitorial summary procedure depicted in the present case.

Such procedure exhibits either inversion, retroversion, subversion, or perversion of elemental human concepts. It ignores completely and debases the high purposes of a judicial procedure. It represents a hylistic ideology which proclaims the supremacy of the state force over fundamental human rights. We must never allow the neck of our people to be haltered by the lethal string of that ideology. It is a virus that must be eliminated before it produces the logical disaster. Such ideology is a cancerous excrescence that must be sheared, completely extirpated, from the live tissues of our body politic, if the same must be saved.

We cannot understand how any one can justify the summary process in question under the principles embodied in our Constitution. To profess attachment to those principles and, at the same time, to accept and justify such kind of criminal miscarriage of justice, is just sheer hypocrisy. It is a repetition of what Seneca did when, after preaching moral virtues, justified without any compunction the act of Nero, the sanguinary Roman Emperor, of murdering in cold blood his own mother. It is reproducing the crooked mentality of Torquemada, who, upon the pretext of combating and persecuting heresy to save souls from hell, conceived the diabolical idea of condemning their victims to an advanced version of hell in this life, and among those who suffered under the same spirit of intolerance and bigotry which was its very essence are counted some of the greatest human characters, such as Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and Girolamo Savonarola. That procedure might find justification in the thick heads of the Avars, Huns, Vandals, and Teutons, or in the stratified mentality of Japanese cullions, but not in a healthy mind of a cultured person of modern times. To allow any vestige any vestige of such procedure to remain is tantamount to reviving the situation during which our citizens endured sleepless nights in constant fear of the hobnail terror stalking in the darkness, when their personal security and their life were hanging by the thin of chance.

We wish a way could be found to free completely our people of the sense of shame, which they cannot help feeling, engendered by members of our race who justified such abhorrent summary procedure and allowed themselves to become a party to the execution of a scheme only acceptable to the undeveloped mentalities of the dark ages. It is a shame that makes our blood boil when we think that countrymen of Father Gomez, of Rizal, of Mabini, could accept procedures representing the brutal ideology which is the very opposite of the humane, lofty, and dignified ideology that placed said heroes and martyrs among the purest and noblest specimens that humanity produced in all countries, in all time, for all ones and light years to come.

It is with joy and pride that we agree with all our brethren in unanimously granting petitioner the redress he seeks in his petition.

HILADO, J., concurring:

I concur in the result, as well as in the reasons stated in the majority opinion not inconsistent with the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in G. R. No. L-5, Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (p. 199, ante).

However, I would additionally base my conclusion upon broader grounds.

Firstly, I reiterate here by reference the arguments advanced in said dissenting opinion in additional support of the conclusion that the writ of mandamus herein sought should be granted. Secondly, the importance and transcendence of the legal principles involved justify further elaboration.

From the allegations of the petition herein, it can be deduced that the petitioner William F. Peralta was a "guerrillero" when he was arrested, tried and convicted; and that he had never voluntarily submitted to the Japanese forces in his civil capacity.

No attempt is made in the Solicitor General's answer to controvert the facts alleged in the petition from which the foregoing deduction flows, and from the record nothing appears which may tend to gainsay them. Even when he was forced temporarily to join the Constabulary, which had been organized under orders of the Japanese Army in the Philippines, he did so against his will.

Even granting for the sake of argument, and laying aside for the moment the reasons to the contrary set forth in my aforesaid dissenting opinion, that the rules of International Law regarding the power of a belligerent army of occupation to establish a provisional government in an occupied enemy territory, are still binding upon the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, yet such rules would not be any avail to bind the herein petitioner by the laws, regulations, process and other acts of the so-called "Republic of the Philippines", under and by virtue of which said petitioner has been convicted to life imprisonment by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction of Manila in Criminal Case No. 66 thereof.

If we analyze the different adjudications and treatises which have been cited in support of the validity or binding force of the acts of such provisional governments, which have been variously called de facto governments, or governments of paramount force, with a view to finding the real ground and philosophical justification for the doctrine therein announced, we will see that reason and that justification are made to consist in the submission of

the inhabitants upon whom the said acts have been held to be of obligatory or binding force, to the army of occupation. Thus, to cite just a few typical examples, we quote the following excerpts from three leading cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States:

Excerpts from Thorington vs. Smith (8 Wall. [U. S.], 1; 19 Law. ed., 361)

That while it (government of paramount force) exists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience, rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrong-doers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government (p. 363; Emphasis ours).

The authority of the United States over the territory was suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conqueror. (P. 364; Emphasis ours.).

Excerpts from Fleming vs. Page (9 Howard. [U. S.], 603; 13 Law. ed., 276):

While it (Tampico) was occupied by our troops, they were in an enemy's country, and not in their own; the inhabitants were still foreigners and enemies, and owed to the United States nothing more than the submission and obedience, sometimes called temporary allegiance, which is due from a conquered enemy, when he surrenders to a force which he is unable to resist. (P. 281; Emphasis ours.)

Excerpts from United States vs. Rice (4 Wheat. [U. S.], 246; 4 Law. ed., 562):

The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. (P. 564; Emphasis ours.)

It results from the above-quoted pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States that the laws, regulations, processes and other acts of the government that the occupying belligerent establishes are made binding only and precisely upon those inhabitants from whom obedience could be effectively exacted, namely, those who remain within the effective reach of the occupying forces and submit to them. This is plain common sense. Those who conceived and developed the doctrine could not logically have thought of the army of occupation setting upon a civil government for those who still continued resistance. As to them, further military operations would be necessary to reduce them to submission, before one could think of civilly governing them.

In the Philippines, during the occupation by the Japanese of Manila and certain other portions of the Archipelago, the overwhelming majority of the people never submitted to the Japanese invaders, and never recognized any legality in the invasion of their country, and to the very date of liberation refused to accept the alleged protection or benefits of the puppet governments of the "Philippine Executive Commission" and the "Republic of the Philippines." The majority of our people lived in the provinces, in the farms, hills and other places beyond the effective reach of the Japanese military garrisons. Only a small minority submitted to the invaders for various reasons, such as their having been caught in Manila or other parts of the Island occupying government positions, or residing therein without adequate facilities for escaping from or evading said invaders, reasons of ill health, disabling them from living the hard life of the mountains, hills, or country places, and the like.

To have bound those of our people who constituted the great majority who never submitted to the Japanese oppressors, by the laws, regulations, processes and other acts of those two puppet governments, would not only have been utterly unjust and downright illegal, but would have placed them in the absurd and impossible condition of being simultaneously submitted to two mutually hostile governments, with their respective constitutional and legislative enactments and institutions — on the one hand bound to continue owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth Government, and, on the other, to owe allegiance, if only temporary, to Japan. Among them we find the petitioner William F. Peralta. The surrender of the Fil-American forces in Bataan and Corregidor did not matter so far as this was concerned. Much less did that surrender obligate all the civil population to submit to the Japanese, and obey all their future dictations. If it did, President Roosevelt and President Osmeña would not have so heartily commended the Philippine resistance movement and so enthusiastically extolled the firm stand of those who participated therein, in the former's message of October 23, 1943, and in the latter's speech of February 27, 1945, cited in the writer's above mentioned dissenting opinion. If these historic utterances should seem incompatible with any provision of the Hague Convention, we should understand from them that both Presidents must have considered such provision as no longer applicable to, or binding upon, the United States and the Philippines. Who knows but that their attitude was based upon the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy by their respective peoples, which renunciation necessarily includes all the "rights" or "powers" which may be claimed to be delivered from war so employed? Or else, upon the ground that such provisions does not support the wrongful acts of Japan in the Philippines?

Another reason advanced to justify the creation of a provisional civil government, with its courts and other departments, in occupied enemy territory, is the alleged convenience of the civil population. It can immediately be asserted in reply that the convenience of the above-mentioned overwhelming majority of our people, far from requiring the establishment of such government, was in the very nature of things positively opposed thereto. They not only did not need the supposed benefits of such a government, but they actually reputed them as inimical to the larger interest of the very ideology and cause for which they were continuing their resistance to those who would extend here the brutal power and pernicious influence of the now exploded "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." They suffered, yes, and suffered much — but they placed that ideology and that cause high above their private comfort. Let us not penalize them for it. If this government is democratic, and when it comes to a question of convenience, whose will and whose convenience should prevail, that of the majority or that of the minority? Are we going to force those free citizens of this free country to accept the alleged benefits and assume the burdens of a government they have never consented to own?

I am furthermore, of opinion that there is another important consideration which argues against the recognition of the said government as a de facto government or government of paramount force during the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands. Japan, in starting and prosecuting this war against the United States and her allies by breaking the most vital rules of civilized warfare as prescribed by International Law, must be deemed to have forfeited the right to invoke that law in so far as specific provisions thereof would favor her or her acts. Japan in treacherously attacking Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, successively on December 7 and 8, 1941, violated the rule providing for the necessity of declaring war as established at the Hague Conference of 1907 (Lawrence, Principles of International Law, 7th ed., pp. 321-322, 325); she has infringed the rule requiring that war prisoners be cared for and treated with humanity (Ibid, p. 377); the rule imposing the obligation to properly tend the sick and wounded (Ibid, 384), the rule interdicting bombing of open and defenseless cities (Ibid, 522, 523) when she bombed Manila after it had been declared an open city and all its military defenses had been removed; the rule exempting noncombatants from personal injury (Ibid, 397) — her violations of one or the other of which were matters of daily occurrence, one might say, during her three and a half years of tyranny and oppression in this country, and were climaxed by the ignominious and indescribable atrocities of the mass massacre of innocent civilians during the battle for Manila. In the interpretation of doubtful provisions of International Law, Doctor Lawrence, in his work cited above, has the following to say:

. . . If a point of Municipal Law is doubtful, men resort to supreme court for a decision, or to a supreme legislature for an interpreting statute; but if a point of International Law is doubtful, they can resort only to general reasoning for a convincing argument, unless, indeed, they settle the question by blows. And International Law in many of its details is peculiarly liable to disputes and doubts, because it is based on usage and opinion. He who in such a case bases his reasoning on high considerations of morality may succeed in resolving the doubt in accordance with humanity and justice. (Pp. 12, 13.).

It would seem that to deny Japan benefits, because she has refused to carry the burdens of the law, is to base our reasoning "on high considerations of morality", and to resolve any doubt, there be, as to the point in question, "in accordance with humanity and justice." In other words (even if we applied said rules to the instant case), Japan, under the circumstances of this case, could not be heard to say that the government which she established here was a de facto government, or a government of paramount force, as in the cases where such a government was deemed to exist.

In additional to what has been said above, let us see if the Japanese-sponsored "Republic of the Philippines" did not introduces such fundamental and drastic changes in the political organization of this country, as it existed upon the date of the Japanese invasion, as to vitiate with invalidity the acts of all its department, executive, judicial, and legislative. To begin with, the Commonwealth Constitution was completely overthrown. It was replaced by the so-called constitution of the "Republic." A casual comparison of these two instruments cannot fail to reveal a most revolutionary transformation of the political organization of the country. While under the Commonwealth Constitution the retention of American sovereignty over the Philippines is expressly recognized, for the purposes specified in the ordinance appended thereto, in the very preamble of the constitution of the "Republic" the independence " of the Philippines is proclaim. While under the Commonwealth Constitution the President and Vice-President are elected "by direct vote of the people "Art. VII, sec. 2), under the constitution of the "Republic" the President (no Vice-President is provided for) was elected "by majority of all the members of the Assembly" (Art. II, sec. 2). While under Commonwealth Constitution the legislative power is vested in a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House of Representatives (Art. VI, sec. 1), under the constitution of the "Republic" that power was vested in a unicameral National Assembly (Art. III, sec. 1). While under the Commonwealth Constitution the Senators are chosen at large by the qualified electors of the Philippines (Art. VI, sec. 2) and the Representatives by the qualified electors in the respective districts (Art. VI, sec. 2) and the Representative by the qualified electors in the respective districts (Art. VI, 5), under the constitution of the "Republic" the National Assembly was composed of the provincial governors and city mayors as members ex-oficio, and of delegate elected every three years, one from each and every province and chartered city (Art. III, sec. 2), While under the Commonwealth Constitution, respecting the Judicial Department, the members of Supreme Court and all judges of inferior courts are appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the Congress (Art. VII, sec.), under the constitution of the "Republic" the members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the President with the advice of the Cabinet, and all judges of interior courts, by the President with the advice of the Supreme Court (Art. IV, sec. 4).

These changes and innovations can be multiplied many times, but the foregoing will suffice for our purpose.

It has been said constantly in this discussion that political acts, or acts of a political complexion of a de facto government of paramount force, are the only ones vitiated with nullity. Of course, I disagree with those who so hold. But even by this test the "Republic" — or, which is the same, the Imperial Japanese Forces which gave it birth — in thus introducing such positive changes in the organization of this country or suspending the working of that already in existence, executed a political act so fundamental and basic in nature and operation that all subsequent acts of the new government which of course had to be based thereon, inevitably had to be contaminated by the same vitiating defect.

Thus judicial acts done under his control, when they are not of a political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take effect during the continuance of his control, and various acts done during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain good.. Political acts on the other hand fall through as of course, whether they introduce any positive change into the organization of the country, or whether they only suspend the working of that already in existence. . . . (Hall, International Law, 6th ed., p. 483; Emphasis ours.)

Finally, upon closed scrutiny, we will find that all of the de facto governments or governments of paramount force which have been cited in all this discussion were at the same time bona fide governments. The British established such a government in Castine, and ran it is a purely British organization. The Americans established another such government in Tampico, and ran it as an American organization. The Confederate States established a like government in the seceding States, and ran it as the Government of the Confederacy. They were all frank, sincere, and honest in their deeds as well as in their words. But what happened in this country during the Japanese occupation? When the "Republic of the Philippines" was established on October 14, 1943, under duress exerted by the Japanese Army, did the Japanese openly, frankly, and sincerely say that government was being established under their orders and was to be run subject to their direction and control? Far from it! They employed all the means they could conceive to deceive the Filipino people and the outside world that they had given the Filipinos their independence, and that "Republic" thereunder. But behind the curtain, from beginning to end, there was the Imperial Japanese Army giving orders and instructions and otherwise directing and controlling the activities of what really was their creature for the furtherance of their war aims. I cannot believe that those who conceived and developed the doctrine of de facto government or government of paramount force, ever intended to include therein such a counterfeit organization as the Japanese contrived here — an organization which, like its counterparts in Manchukuo, Nanking, Burma, and Vichy, has been appropriately called "puppet" by the civilized government of the world.

BRIONES, M., concurrente:

El mandamiento de habeas corpus que se solicita debe concederse.

La proclama del General McArthur de 23 de Octubre de 1944, lanzada cuatro dias despues de su desembarco en Leyte con las fuerzas libertadoras, reza en parte lo siguiente:

3. Que todas las leyes, regulaciones y procesos de cualquier otro gobierno en Filipinas que no fuera el del Commonwealth son nulos e invalidos y carecen de efecto legal en areas de Filipinas liberadas de la ocupacion y control del enemigo.

Recientemente se ha discutido mucho en esta jurisdiccion sobre si la anulacion de que trata dicha proclama puede referirse tambien a actuaciones judiciales ( judicial processes). En el asunto de Co Kim Cham contra Valdez Tan Keh y Dizon, R.G. No. L-5 (pag, 133, ante), he opinado afirmativamente, esto es, que el alcance de esa proclama puede extenderse a veces a ciertos actos o procesos judiciales. Reafirmo ahora mi opinion y con mayor vigor y enfasis si cabe. Porque, a mi juicio, la sentencia de reclusion perpetua impuesta al recurrente bajo la ocupacion militar japonesa es de aquellos actos judiciales del passado regimen que por su naturaleza y circunstancias reclaman una decidida y pronta accion de parte nuestra en el sentido de anularla y dejarla sin efecto. Mis razones se exponen a continuacion.

Parece innegable que la ley procesal bajo la cual fue enjuiciado y convicto el recurrente durante la ocupacion japonesa era absolutamente incompatible con las salvaguardias y garantias de un proceso justo, imparcial y ordenado que la constitucion y legislacion procesal del Commonwealth de Filipinas otorgan a todo acusado en una causa criminal. Hay en dicha ley ciertos aspectos decididamente repulsivos para una conciencia disciplinada en las normas y pricipios de una democracia constitucional.

Bajo nuestro sistema procesal el acusado tiene derecho a que no se le ponga en situacion de acriminarse. Tiene a derecho a callarse sin que esto pueda astribuirsele cargo inculpatorio alguno. Este es un derecho fundamental, garantido por la constitucion.

Empero bajo el sistema procesal que se discute, "la negativa del acusado a constestar cualqueira pregunta formulada por el tribunal o permitida por el mismo, puede ser considerada en contra de dicho acusado." (Seccion 21, Orden Ejecutiva No. 157.) Bajo este mismo sistema el caracter sumarisimo del proceso llega a tal extremo que "una sentencia condenatoria puede dictarse inmediatemente contra el acusado siempre que los hechos discubiertos en el interrogatorio preliminar demuestren que el acusado es culpable."

Bajo el sistema procesal del Commonwealth, cualquier acusado convicto ante el Juzgado de Primera Instancia tiene el derecho de apelar de la sentencia para ante el Tribunal superior de revision; y en los casos de condena a reclusion perpetua o a muerte, el Tribunal Supremo es el llamado a revisar la causa, siendo compulsoria la revision en el caso de condena a muerte. Esta jurisdiccion del Tribunal Supremo en los casos de condena a reclusion perpetua y a muerte no se halla estatuida simplemente por una ley ordinaria, sino que esta proveida en la misma constitucion del Commonwealth. Asi que el derecho del condenado a reclusion perpetua o a muerte para que se revise su cuasa por el Tribunal Supremo es constitucional y, por ende, no puede ser abolido por un simple fiat legislativo.

En cambio, bajo el sistema procesal en controversia las sentencias de los tribunales o sumarias eran de caracter final, excepto cuando la pena impuesta fuera la de muerte, en cuyo caso los autos se elevaban en consulta a una division especial del Tribunal Supremo compuesta de tres miembros (Ordenanza No. 7 de la llamada Republica de Filipinas por la que se crearon las tribunales especiales o sumarios). De modo que en esta ordenanza no solo se suprimia de una plumada el derecho de apelar reconocido y establecido por la legislacion procesal del Commonwealth aun en los casos de delitos y penas ordinarios, sino que inclusive quedaba abolido el derecho de apelar otorgado por la constitucion del Commonwealth al acusado condenado a reclusion perpetua. Por este motivo el recurrente, a quien se le habia impuesto esta pena por el alergado delito de robo, no pudo apelar de al sentencia para ante el Tribunal Supremo.

La cuestion que ahora tenemos que determinar y resolver es si debemos reconocer validez y eficacia en la sentencia por la cual el recurrente se halla extinguiendo su condena de reclusion perpetua, o debemos anularla ahora que esta en nuestras manos el poder hacerlo, restablecida como esta enteramente la normalidad juridica y constitucional en nuestro pais.

En favor de la validez de dicha sentencia se arguye que fue dictada por un tribunal creado por un gobierno de jure; que aun admitiendo el caracter inquisitorial, anti democratico de la ley procesal bajo la cual fue enjuiciado el acusado, el gobierno de facto era dueño de establecer los procedimientos legales que quisiera; y que, segun las reglas y doctrinas conocidas de derecho international, las sentencias por "crimenes de guerra" o delitos politicos" generalmente validas aun despues de restablecido el gobierno de jure. Se alega que en estos casos el derecho no tiene mas remedio que ceder a la fuerza, aceptando la realidad de los hechos consumados.

Se admite, sin embargo, que la regla tiene sus excepciones. Una de allas esque "los actos del ocupante militar que rebasen su poder a tenor del criterio establecido en el articulo 43 de las Regulaciones de La Haya, son nulos y sin efecto con relacion al gobierno legitimo." (Wheaton's International Law, 7th ed. [1944], p. 245.) Segun esto, las sentencias por "crimenes de guerra" o "delitos politicos" cometidos durante la ocupacion son, por razones pecfetamente comprensibles, nulas e invalidas al restablecerse la soberania legitima. Tambien quedan comprendidos bajo esta excepcion los denominados actos de caracter o complexion politica.

Otra limitacion a los poderes de un gobierno de ocupacion militar es que elejercicio de tales poderes debe extenderse tan solo hasta donde fuese necesario para su seguridad y el exito de sus operaciones, teniendo particularmente en cuental el caracter transeunte de su occupacion. Como regla general, al invasor se le prohibe alterar o suspender las leyes referentes a la propiedad y a las relaciones personales privadas, o las leyes que regulan el orden moral de la comunidad. (Hall, Treatise on International Law, 7th ed., 498,499). Lo que se hace fuera de estas limitaciones es en exceso de su competencia y es generalmente nulo al rstaurarse la soberania legitima.

Otra excepcion es la que se refiere a los actos de un gobierno de facto resultante de una insurreccion, rebelion, revolucion o guerra civil. A esteefecto se ha declarado, peo ejemplo. que los actos en fomento o apoyo de unarebelion contra los Estados Unidos, o encaminados a anular los justos derechos de los ciudadanos, y otros actos de igual indole, deben ser considerados, por lo general, invalidos y nulos (Texas vs. White, 74 U. S.,733; 19 Law, ed., 240). En otro caso se ha declaro la validez de ciertos actos judiciales o legislativos en estados insurreccionados, siempre que su proposito o modo de operacion no fuerte hostil a la autoridad del gobierno nacional, o no conculcaren derechos de los ciudadanos bajo la Constitucion. — Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Well, 570-581; 2 Law. ed., 660.)

Visto el caso que nos ocupa a la luz de estas doctrinas, ¿cual de ellas debemos adoptar para determinar si es o no valida la sentencia por la la cual el recurrente sufre ahora pena de reclusion perpetua y pide ser liberado mediante peticion de habeas corpus?

Se aservera que no procede aplicar al presente caso la doctrina establecida en la jurisprudencia americana sobre gobiernos de facto resultantes de una insureccion, revolucion o guerra civil porque evidentemente la llamada Republica de Filipinas instaurada durante la ocupacion militar japonesa no tenia este caracter, sino que era mas bien un gobierno establecido mediantefuerza y coaccion por los mismos invasores para promover ciertos designios politicos relacionados con sus fines de guerra. En otras palabras, era el mismo gobierno militar de ocupacion con fachada filipina arreglada y arbitrada coercitivamente.

Mientras estoy conforme con una parte de la asercion, esto es, que la aludida republica no tenia caracter insurreccional ni revolucionario, en disfrute de plena autonomia, sino que era simple producto de la coaccion y estaba mediatizada continuamente por el invasor, difiero de la otra parte, aquella que declara inaplicable la conocida doctrina americana mencionada arriba sobre gobiernos de facto establecidos en el curso de una insurreccion, revolucion o guerra civil. Y la razon es sencilla. Si a un gobierno de factode este ultimo tipo — gobierno establecido, despues de todo, por compatriotas,por conciudadanos — se le coarta con la restriccion de que sus actos legislativos o judiciales, en tanto son validos, al restaurarse el regimende jure, en cuanto no conculcaren los derechos justos de los ciudadanos, a los derechos garantidos por la constitucion, parece que no existe ninguna razon por que no se ha de aplicar la misma restriccion al gobierno de facto establecido como incidente de una guerra entre dos naciones independientes y enemigas. En realidad, la razon de nulidad es mucho mas poderosa y fuertecuando, en su caso como el de Filipinas, el enemigo invasor incio la agresion de una manera inicua y traicionera y la ejecuto luego con vesania y sadismo que llegaron a extremos inconcebibles de barbarie. En este caso la conculcacion de los justos derechos de los ciudadanos, o de los derechos garantidos por la constitucion cobra proporciones de mucha mayor gravedad porque viene a ser tan solo parte de un vasto plan de rapiña, devastacion y atrocidades de todo genero cometidas contra la

humanidad y contra las leyes y usos de la guerra entre naciones civilizadas. El invasor, en este caso, es como el foragido que se coloca fuera de toda ley. Por tanto, no hay absolutamente ninguna razon para no aplicarle una restriccion que se estimabuena para el insurrecto o revolucionario.

La ventaja de extender hasta cierto punto la doctrina sobre gobiernos de facto resultantes de una insurreccion, rebelion o guerra civil a gobiernos de facto establecidos como incidente en el curso de una guerra entre dos naciones independeientes enemigas es que, frente a casos de conculcacion de los justos derechos de los ciudadanos, o de los garantidos por laconstitucion para los efectos de declararlos validos o nulos al restablecerse el gobierno de jure, ya no se hace preciso examinar si los actos conculcatorios fueron motivados por razones o exigencias de las seguridad y exito de las operaciones del ocupante militar, sino que la piedra de toque de la validez o nulidad viene a ser tan solo el acto positivo mismo de la conculcacion.

Esta forma de racioncinio no solo no es heterodoxa a la luz de los pincipiosestablecidos de derecho internacional, sino parece ser una logica inferenciade los mismos. Ya hemos visto que al ocupante militar en el curso de unaguerra internacional se le prohibe, como regla general, alterar o suspenderlas leyes referentes a la propiedad y a las relaciones personales privadas, olas leyes que regulan el orden moral de la comunidad. (Hall, Treatise on International Law, supra.) Ahora cabe preguntar: ¿Son los justos derechos de los ciudadanos, o los fundamentales garantidos por la constitucion inferiores en categoria a la propiedad, o las relaciones personales privadas, o al ordenmoral de la comunidad? ¿No son en cierto sentido hasta superiores? Por tanto,a nadie debe chocar que la prohibicion se extienda a estas materias. Es unainclusion y perfectamente natural, mas que justificada por los avances y conquistas del moderno derecho internacional. Notese que en las fraguas de esta ultima guerra se han forjado unas modalidades juridicas harto originalesque denotan el esfuerzo supremo y gigante dela humanidad por superar la barbarie y por dar al traste con las formulas arcaicas, reaccionarias. Para citar solamente algunos ejemplos los mas destados, tenemos el enjuiciamento de los llamados criminales de la guerra, y la responsabilidad que se exige a los jefes militares por las atricidades cometidas por las tropas bajo su mando.

Mi conclusion, por tanto, es que desde cualquier angulo que se mire la sentencia impuesta al recurrente por el tribunal sumario de la llamada republica de Filipinas debe ser declarada nula, acotando las palabras delProcurador General, "no solo por razones fundadas en principios de derecho internacional, sino tambien por la mas apremiante y poderosa de las razones,la de preservar y salvaguardar a nuestros ciudadanos de los actos del enemigo."

Dar validez a esa sentencia ahora, en plena atmosfera de libertad que respiran a pulmon lleno de resto de nuestros conciudadanos menos el recurrente y otras que corrieron su suerte durante la ocupacion japonesa,equivaldria tanto como prolongar el regimen de opresion bajo el cual se tramito y se dicto la referida sentencia. Es mas, equivaldria a sancionar laideologia totalitaria, despotica, medieval contra la cual nuestro pueblo lucho tan heroicamente jugandose todo; vida libertad y bienes materiales.

Ciertamente no nos hemos librado de la opresion para llegar a tan irrisorioresultado.

Concedase el remedio pedido.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6            November 29, 1945

ANICETO ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs.DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

Buenaventura B. Martinez for petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General Tañada for respondent.

FERIA, J.:

This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for the release of the petitioner on the ground that the latter is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Director of Prison in the provincial jail at Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

Petitioner was convicted by the Court First Instance of Ilocos Sur (Criminal case No. 23) of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon at Baguio modified said sentence (CA- G.R. No. 790)and sentence the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of from four months four months and twenty-one days of arresto mayor to three years, nine months and three days of prison correccional. The sentence as modified became final on September 12, 1944, and June 23, 1945, petitioner commenced serving his sentence.

Petitioner now questions the validity of the decision of the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon, on the sole ground that said court was only a creation of the so-called Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation of the Islands; that the Court of Appeals was not authorized by Commonwealth Act No. 3 to hold sessions in Baguio, and that only the two Justices constituted the majority which promulgated the decision in question. The petitioner does not question the validity of said decision on the strength of the Proclamation of General Douglas McArthur of October 23, 1944, which according to our decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, G.R. No. L-5 (p. 113, ante), does not refer to judicial processes.

In the said case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, this Court ruled that the so-called Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Executive Commission established in the Philippines during the Japanese regime were governments de facto organized by the belligerent occupant by the judicial acts thereof were good and valid and remained good and valid after the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, except those a political complexion. In that the same case this Court held that the Court of Appeals which was continued throughout the Japanese occupation, was

the same Court of Appeals existed prior to the Japanese occupation and was lately abolished by Executive Order No. 37. The division of the Court of Appeals into several District Court of Appeals, and the reduction of the number of Justices sitting in each division, the regime of the so-called Republic effected no substantial change in its nature and jurisdiction.

Even assuming that the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon was a new court created by the belligerent occupant or the de facto governments established by him, the judgments of such court, like those of the court which were continued during the Japanese occupation, were good and valid and remain good and valid, and therefore enforceable now after the liberation or occupation of the Philippines, provided that such judgments do not have a political complexion, as this court held in its decision in the abovementioned case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon supra, in accordance with the authorities therein cited.

Obviously, the sentence which petitioner is now serving has no political complexion. He was charged with and convicted of an offense punishable under the municipal law of the Commonwealth, the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the sentence of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, as modified by the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon, is valid and enforceable.

A punitive or penal sentence is said to of a political complexion when it penalizes either a new act not defined in the municipal laws, or acts already penalized by the latter as a crime against the legitimate government, but taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offenses committed against belligerent occupant, incident to a state of a war and necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier. They are acts penalized for public rather than private reasons, acts which tend, directly or indirectly, to aid or favor the enemy and are directed against the welfare, safety and security, of the belligerent occupant. As example, the crimes against national security , such as treason, espionage, etc., and against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, etc., were crimes against the Commonwealth or United States Government under the Revised Penal Code, which were made crimes against the belligerent occupant.

In view of the foregoing, the petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Pablo and Bengzon, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

DE JOYA, J., concurring:

The principal question involved in this habeas corpus case is the validity of the judicial proceedings held, during the Japanese occupation, in the Court First Instance of Ilocos Sur, in which herein petitioner was accused of frustrated murder, and in the Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon, in which, on appeal, said petitioner was found guilty of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment ranging from four moths and twenty-one days of arresto mayor to three years, and nine months and three days of prison correccional; and the effect on said proceedings of the proclamation of General Douglas McArthur, dated October 24 1944. The decision of this questions requires the application of principles of International Law, in connection with the municipal law of this country.

Under the Constitution Commonwealth of the Philippines, International Law is part of the Fundamental law of the land (Article II, sec. 3). As International Law is an integral part of our law, it must be ascertained and administered by this Court, whenever question of right depending upon it are presented for our determination (Kansas vs. Colorado, 185 U.S. 146; 22 Sup. Ct., 552; 46 Law. ed., 838).

Since International Law is a body of rules accepted by nations as regulating their mutual relations, the proof of their existence is to be found in the consent of the nations to abide by them; and this consent is evidenced chiefly by the usages and customs of nation, as found in the writings of publicist and in the decisions of the highest courts of the different countries of the world (The Habana, 175 U. S., 677; 20 Sup. Ct., 290; 44 Law. ed., 320.).

But while usages and customs are the older original source of International Law, great international treaties are a latter source of increasing importance, such as The Hogue Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The Hague Conventions of 1899, respecting laws and customs of war on land, expressly declare that:

ARTICLE XLII. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.

ART. XLII. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. (32 Stat., II, 1821.).

The above provisions of the Hague Conventions have been adopted by the nations giving adherence to them, among which is the United States of America (32 Stat., II, 1821).

The commander in chief of the invading forces or military occupant may exercise governmental authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy's territory, and this authority will be exercised upon principles of International Law (New Orleans vs. Steamship Co. [1874], 20 Wall., 387; Kelly vs. Sanders [1878], 99 U.S., 441; MacLeod vs. United States 229 U.S. 416; 33 Sup Ct., 955; 57 Law. ed., 1260; II Oppenheim on International Law, sec. 167).

It will thus be readily seen that the civil laws of the invaded state continue in force, in so far as they do not affect the hostile occupant unfavorably. The regular judicial tribunals of the occupied territory continue to act in cases not affecting the military occupation, and is not usual for the invader to take the whole administration into his own hands, because it is easier to preserve order through the agency of the native officials, and also because the latter are more competent to administer the laws of the territory; and the military occupant generally keeps in their posts such of the judicial and administrative officers as are willing to serve under him, subjecting them only to supervision by the military authorities, or by superior civil authorities appointed by him (Young vs. United States, 97 U.S. 39; 24 Law. ed 992; Coleman vs. Tennessee, 97 U.S. 509; 24 Law ed., 1118; MacLeod vs. United States, 229 U.S. 416; 33 Sup Ct., 955; 57 Law. ed., 1260 Taylor, International Law, secs. 576, 578; Wilson, International Law, pp. 331-337; Hall, International Law, 6th ed. [1909], pp. 464, 465, 475, 476; Lawrence, International Law, 7th ed., 412, 413; Davis, Elements of

International Law, 3d ed., pp. 330-332, 335; Holland, International Law, pp. 356, 357, 359; Westlake, International Law, Part II, 2d ed., pp. 121-123).

In 1811, during the occupation of Catalonia, Spain, by the French army, a Frenchman, accused of the murder of a Catalan in that province, was tried and convicted by the assize Court of the Department of the Pyrenees Orientales, France. Upon appeal to the French Court of Cassation, the conviction was quashed, on the ground that the courts of the territory within which the crime had been committed had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case and that "the occupation of Catalonia by French troops and its government by the French authorities had not communicated to its inhabitants the character of French citizens, nor to their territory the character of French territory, and that such character could only be acquired by a solemn act of incorporation which had not been gone through." (Hall, International Law, 6th ed., p. 461.)

It is, therefore, evident that the establishment of the government under the name of the Philippine Executive Commission, or the so-called Philippine Republic, afterwards, during Japanese occupation, respecting the laws in force in the country, and permitting our courts to function and administer said laws, as proclaim in the City of Manila, by the commander in chief of the Japanese Imperial Forces, on January 3, 1942, was in accordance with the rules and principles of International Law.

If the military occupant is thus in duty bound to establish in the territory under military occupation governmental agencies for the preservation of peace and order and for the proper administration of justice, in accordance with the local laws, it must necessarily follow that the judicial proceeding conducted before the courts established by the military occupant must be considered legal and valid, even after said government established by the military occupant had been displaced by the legitimate government of the territory.

Thus the judgments rendered by the Confederate Courts, during the American Civil War, merely setting the rights of private parties actually within their jurisdiction, not only tending to defeat the legal rights of citizens of the United States, nor in furtherance of laws passed in aid of the rebellion, had been declared valid and binding (Cook vs. Oliver, 1 Woods, 437; Fed. Cas., No. 3, 164; Coleman vs. Tennessee, 97 U.S., 509;24 Law. ed., 1118; Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176; Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570; Sprott vs. United States, 20 Wall., 459; Texas vs. White, 7 Wall., 700; Ketchum vs. Buckley [1878], 99 U.S., 188); and the judgment of a court of Georgia rendered in November, 1861, for the purchase money slaves was held valid judgment when entered, and enforceable in 1871 (French vs. Tumllin, 10 Am. Law. Reg. [N.S.], 641; Fed. Case, No. 5104).

The judgments by the courts of the states constituting the Confederate States of the America were considered legal and valid and enforceable, even after the termination of the American Civil War, because they had been rendered by the courts of a de facto government. The Confederate States were a de facto government, in the sense that its citizens were bound to render the government obedience in civil matters, and did not become responsible, as wrong-doers, for such act of obedience (Thorington vs. Smith, 8 Wall. [U.S.] 9; 19 Law ed., 361).

In the more recent case of Ketchum vs. Buckley ([1878], 99 U.S., 188), the Supreme Court of the United States held-- "It is now settled law in this court that during the late civil war the same general law for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights, which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the acts of the States did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of the citizens, under the Constitution, they are in general to be treated as valid and binding." (Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U.S., 176; Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570; Sprott vs. United States, 20 Wall., 459; Texas vs. White 7 Wall., 700.)

The government established in the Philippines, during Japanese occupation, would seem to fall under the following definition of de facto government given by the Supreme Court of the United States:

But there is another description of government de facto, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, he more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics (1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force. (MacLeod vs. United States [1913], 229 U.S., 416.)

The government established in the Philippines, under the Philippine Executive Commission or under the so-called Philippine Republic, during Japanese occupation, was and should, therefor, be considered as a de facto government; and that the judicial proceedings conducted before the courts has been established in this country, during said Japanese occupation, and are should be considered as legal and valid enforceable, even after the liberation of this country by the American forces, as a long a said judicial proceedings had been conducted, in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

The judicial proceedings involved in the case under consideration merely refer to the prosecution of the petitioner in this case, for the crime of frustrated murder, which was reduced to illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries, under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, in force in this country under the Commonwealth government, before and during Japanese occupation.

Now, petitioner contends that the judicial proceedings in question are null and void, and that the accused should be immediately released from the custody, under the provisions of the proclamation issued by General Douglas McArthur dated October 23, 1944; as said proclamation nullifies all the laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

In other words petition demands a literal interpretation of said proclamation issued by the General Douglas McArthur, a contention which, in our opinion, is untenable, as it would inevitably produce judicial chaos and uncertainties. When an act is susceptible of two or more constructions, one of which will maintain and the others destroy it, the Courts will always adopt the former (United States vs. Coombs [1838]], 12 Pet., 72; 9 Law. ed., 1004; Board of Supervisors of Grenada County vs. Brown [1884], 112 U.S., 261; 28 Law. ed., 704; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep., 125; In re Guariña [1913], 24 Phil., 37; Fuentes vs. Director of Prisons [1924], 46 Phil., 22; Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad [1925], 47 Phil., 385). The judiciary, always alive to the dictates of national welfare, can properly incline the scales of its decisions in favor of that solution which will most effectively promote the public policy (Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. vs. Natividad [1919], 40 Phil., 136). All laws should receive a sensible construction as not to lead it injustice, oppression or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exception to its language, which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter (United States vs. Kirby, 7 Wall [U.S.], 482; 19 Law. ed, 278; Church of Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 U.S., 461; 12 Sup. Ct., 511; 36 Law. ed., 226; Jacobson vs. Massachussetts, 197 U.S., 39; 25 Sup. Ct., 358; 49 Law. ed., 643; 3 Ann. Cas., 765; In re Allen, 2 Phil., 630). The duty of the court in construing a statute, which is reasonably susceptible of two constructions to adopt that which saves its constitutionality, includes the duty of a avoiding a construction which raises grave and doubtful constitutional questions, if it can be avoided (United States vs. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S., 366; 29 Sup. Ct. 527; 53 Law. ed., 836).

According to the rules and principles of International Law, and the legal doctrines cited above, the judicial proceedings conducted before the court of the justice, established here during Japanese military occupation, merely applying the provisions of the municipal law of the territory, as the provisions of the Revised Penal Code in the instant case which have no political or military significance, are and should be considered legal, valid and binding. It is to be presumed that General Douglas McArthur knows said rules and principles of International Law, as International Law is an integral part of the fundamental law of the land, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. And it is also to be presumed that General Douglas McArthur has acted, in accordance with said principles of International Law, which have been sanction by the Supreme Court of the United States, as the nullification of all judicial proceedings conducted before our courts, during the Japanese occupation would be highly detrimental to public interests.

For the forgoing reasons, I concur in the majority opinion, and the petition for habeas corpus filed in this case should, therefore, be denied.

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

Following our opinions in this cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (p. 153, ante), and Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (p. 334, ante), G.R. No. L-5 and G.R. No. L-49 respectively, the proceedings attacked by petitioner belong to the judicial processes declared null and void in the proclamation issued by General McArthur on October 23, 1944, and therefore, we vote the granting of the writ of habeas corpus prayed for.

HILADO, J., dissenting:

Upon the grounds stated my main dissenting opinion, in G.R. No. L-5 Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (p. 199, ante), and in my concurring opinion in G.R. No. L-49, Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (p. 355, ante), I dissent from the opinion of the majority herein. The writ of habeas corpus sought by petitioner should be granted because the nullity of the judgment and proceedings under which he has been imprisoned and restrained of his liberty. As stated in the majority opinion, the sentence against him became final on September 122, 1944, and had been pronounced by the Japanese-sponsored Court of Appeals of Northern Luzon upon appeal from a judgment of conviction by the Japanese sponsored Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-533             August 20, 1946

RAMON RUFFY, ET AL., petitioners, vs.THE CHIEF OF STAFF, PHILIPPINE ARMY, ET AL., respondents.

Placido C. Ramos for petitioners.Lt. Col. Fred Ruiz Castro and Capt. Ramon V. Diaz, JAGS, PA., for respondents.

TUASON, J.:

This was a petition for prohibition, praying that the respondents, the Chief of Staff and the General Court Martial of the Philippine Army, be commanded to desist from further proceedings in the trial of petitioners before that body. Preliminary injunction having been denied by us and the General Court Martial having gone ahead with the trial, which eventually resulted in the acquittal of one of the defendants, Ramon Ruffy, the dismissal of the case as to another, Victoriano Dinglasan, and the conviction of Jose L. Garcia, Prudente M. Francisco, Dominador Adeva and Andres Fortus, the last-named four petitioners now seek in their memorandum to convert the petition into one for certiorari, with the prayer that the records of the proceedings before the General Court Martial be ordered certified to this court for review.

The ground of the petition was that the petitioners were not subject to military law at the time the offense for which they had been placed on trial was committed. In their memorandum they have raised an additional question of law — that the 93d Article of War is unconstitutional.

An outline of the petitioner's previous connection with the Philippine Army, the Philippine Constabulary, and/or with guerrilla organizations will presently be made. This outline is based on allegations in the petition and the answer, and on exhibits attached thereto and to the parties' memoranda, exhibits which were offered in the course of the oral argument and admitted without objection. The said exhibits are public documents certified by the officials who had them in custody in their official capacity. They are presumed to be authentic, as we have no doubt they are.

It appears that at the outbreak of war on December 8, 1941, Ramon Ruffy was the Provincial Commander, Prudente M. Francisco, a junior officer, and Andres Fortus, a corporal, all of the Philippine Constabulary garrison stationed in Mindoro. When, on February 27, 1942, the Japanese forces landed in Mindoro, Major Ruffy retreated to the mountains instead of surrendering to the enemy, disbanded his company, and organized and led a guerrilla outfit known as Bolo Combat team of Bolo Area. Lieutenant Francisco, Corporal Fortus and Jose L. Garcia, the last then a civilian joined

Major Ruffy's organization towards the latter part of 1942, while Dominador Adeva and Victoriano Dinglasan, then likewise civilians, became its members some time in 1943..

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Macario Peralta, Jr., then a lieutenant colonel of the Philippine Army, also took to the hills of Panay and led the operation of the 6th Military District, one of the districts into which the Philippine Army had been divided before the war. About November, 1942, Colonel Peralta succeeded in contacting the General Headquarters of General MacArthur in Australia as the result of which on February 13, 1943, the 6th Military District was recognized by the Headquarters of the Southwest Pacific Area as a military unit and part of its command.

Even before General MacArthur's recognition of the 6th Military District Colonel Peralta had extended its sphere of operation to comprise Mindoro and Marinduque, and had, on January 2, 1943, named Major Ruffy as Acting Commander for those two provinces and Commanding Officer of the 3rd Battalion, 66 Infantry 61st Division, Philippine Corps. After the recognition, 2d Lieut. Prudente M. Francisco, by virtue of Special Orders No. 99, dated November 2, 1943, and signed by Enrique L. Jurado, Major, OSE, Commanding, was assigned as S-3 in the Bolo Area. Major, later Lieut. Col., Jurado, it should be noted, had been dispatched by the 6th Military District to Mindoro to assume operational control supervision over the Bolo Area unit and to make and direct the necessary report to the Headquarters, 6th Military District, in Panay. On April 26, 1944, by General Orders No. 40 of the 6th Military District, 2d Lieutenant Francisco was promoted to the rank of 1st Lieutenant (Brevet), effective April 15, 1944, subject to approval by the President of the Philippines, and was re-assigned to the Bolo Area. As to Andres Fortus he was assigned to the same Bolo Area as probationary 3d lieutenant for two-month probationary training, by the Headquarters of the 6th Military District, as per Special Orders No. 70, dated May 15, 1944.

According to a memorandum of the Chief of Staff, 6th Military District, dated January 1943, and signed by L.R. Relunia, Lieut. Col., CE, Chief of Staff, Jose L. Garcia and Dominador Adeva were appointed 3d lieutenants, infantry as of December 31, 1942. Garcia later was promoted to the rank of captain, effective March 15, 1943, as per Special Orders No. 82, issued in the field, 6th Military District, and dated August 28, 1943. On May 24, 1943, Jose L. Garcia took his oath before Captain Esteban P. Beloncio, then Acting Commanding Officer, 3d Battalion, 66th Infantry Regiment, 61st Division, 6th Military District.

As has been said, the 6th Military District sent Lieut. Col. Enrique L. Jurado to be Commanding Officer of the Bolo Combat Team in Mindoro and to undertake other missions of Military character. Pursuant to instructions, Colonel Jurado on November 2, 1943, assigned Major Ruffy as Commanding Officer of the Bolo Area with 3d Lieut. Dominador Adeva and 2d Lieut. Prudente M. Francisco as members of his staff and Victoriano Dinglasan as Finance Officer, as per Special Orders No. 99 dated November 2, 1943. In a memorandum of Colonel Jurado for Major Ruffy bearing date 25 June, 1944, it was stated that Captain Garcia had been given P5,000 for palay and Lieut. Francisco P9,000, P5,000 for palay and P4,000 for salary of the personnel B. Company.

A change in the command of the Bolo Area was effected by Colonel Jurado on June 8, 1944: Major Ruffy was relieved of his assignment as Commanding Officer, Bolo Battalion, and Capt. Esteban P. Beloncio was put in Ruffy's place. On October 19, 1944, Lieut. Col. Jurado was slain allegedly by the petitioners. After the commission of this crime, the petitioners, it is alleged, seceded from the 6th Military District. It was this murder which gave rise to petitioner's trial, the legality of which is now being contested.

On July 26, 1941, the President of the Untied States issued a military order the pertinent paragraph of which stated: ". . . as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, I hereby call and order into the service of the armed forces of the United States Army, for the period of the

existing emergency, and place under the command of the general officer, United States Army, to be designated by the Secretary of War, from time to time, all of the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth." Following the issuance of President Roosevelt's order General Douglas MacArthur was appointed Commanding General of the United States Armed Forces in the Far East.

It is contended, in behalf of Captain Francisco and Lieutenant Fortus, that "by the enemy occupation of the Philippines, the National Defense Act and all laws and regulations creating and governing the existence of the Philippine Army including the Articles of War, were suspended and in abeyance during such belligerent occupation."

The paragraph quoted in the petitioner's memorandum from Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents and the subsequent paragraph which has been omitted furnish a complete answer to petitioner's contention of the Philippines by Japanese forces, the officers and men of the Philippine Army did not cease to be fully in the service, though in a measure,' only in a measure, they were not subject to the military jurisdiction, if they were not active duty. In the latter case, like officers and soldiers on leave of absence or held as prisoners of war, they could not be held guilty of a breach of the discipline of the command or of a neglect of duty, or disobedience of orders, or mutiny, or subject to a military trial therefor; but for an act unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, or an act which constitutes an offense of the class specified in the 95th Article of War, they may in general be legally held subject to military jurisdiction and trial. "So a prisoner of war, though not subject, while held by the enemy, to the discipline of his own army, would, when exchanged of paroled, be not exempt from liability for such offenses as criminal acts or injuriuos conduct committed during his captivity against other officers or soldiers in the same status." (Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, 2d Edition, pp. 91, 92.)

The rule invoked by counsel, namely, that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms. This is self-evident from the very nature of things. The paradox of a contrary ruling should readily manifest itself. Under the petitioner's theory the forces of resistance operating in an occupied territory would have to abide by the outlawing of their own existence. They would be stripped of the very life-blood of an army, the right and the ability to maintain order and discipline within the organization and to try the men guilty of breach thereof.

The surrender by General Wainright of the Fil-American Forces does not profit the petitioner's who were former members of the Philippine Constabulary any more than does the rule of war or international law they cite. The fall of Bataan and Corregidor did not end the war. It did not, legally or otherwise, keep the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines from organizing a new army, regular or irregular, out of new men and men in the old service who had refused to surrender or who having surrendered, had decided to carry on the fight through other diverse means and methods. The fall of Corregidor and Bataan just marked the beginning of the gigantic preparation for the gigantic drive that was to fight its way to and beyond the Philippines in fulfillment of General MacArthur's classic promise, "I shall return." The heroic role which the guerrillas played in that preparation and in the subsequent liberation of the Philippines is now history.

Independently of their previous connection with the Philippine Army and the Philippine Constabulary, Captain Francisco and Lieutenant Fortus as well as Major Garcia and Lieutenant Adeva were subject to military jurisdiction.

The 2d Article of War defines and enumerates the persons subject to military law as follows:

Art. 2. Persons Subject to Military Law. — The following persons are subject to these articles and shall be understood as included in the term "any person subject to military law" or "persons subject to military law," whenever used in these articles:

(a) All officers, members of the Nurse Corps and soldiers belonging to the Regular Force of the Philippine Army; all reservists, from the dates of their call to active duty and while on such active duty; all trainees undergoing military instructions; and all other persons lawfully called, drafted, or order to obey the same;

(b) Cadets, flying cadets, and probationary third lieutenants;

(c) All retainers to the camp and all persons accompanying or serving with the Army of the Philippines in the field in time of war or when martial law is declared though not otherwise subject to these articles;

(d) All persons under sentences adjudged by courts-martial.

It is our opinion that the petitioners come within the general application of the clause in sub-paragraph (a); "and all other persons lawfully called, drafted, or ordered into, or to duty for training in, the said service, from the dates they are required by the terms of the call, draft, or order to obey the same." By their acceptance of appointments as officers in the Bolo Area from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military District, they became members of the Philippine Army amendable to the Articles of War. The Bolo Area, as has been seen, was a contigent of the 6th Military District which, as has also been pointed out, had been recognized by and placed under the operational control of the United States Army in the Southwest Pacific. The Bolo Area received supplies and funds for the salaries of its officers and men from the Southwest Pacific Command. As officers in the Bolo Area and the 6th Military District, the petitioners operated under the orders of duly established and duly appointed commanders of the United States Army.

The attitude of the enemy toward underground movements did not affect the military status of guerrillas who had been called into the service of the Philippine Army. If the invaders refused to look upon guerrillas, without distinctions, as legitimate troops, that did not stop the guerillas who had been inducted into the service of the Philippine Army from being component parts thereof, bound to obey military status of guerrillas was to be judged not by the concept of the army of the country for which they fought.

The constitutionality of the 93d Article of War is assailed. This article ordains "that any person subject to military law who commits murder in time of was shall suffer death or imprisonment for life, as the court martial may direct." It is argued that since "no review is provided by that law to be made by the Supreme Court, irrespective of whether the punishment is for life imprisonment or death", it violates Article VIII, section 2, paragraph 4, of the Constitution of the Philippines which provides that "the National Assembly may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment."

We think the petitioners are in error. This error arose from failure to perceive the nature of courts martial and the sources of the authority for their creation.

Courts martial are agencies of executive character, and one of the authorities "for the ordering of courts martial has been held to be attached to the constitutional functions of the President as Commander in Chief, independently of legislation." (Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, 2d Edition,

p. 49.) Unlike courts of law, they are not a portion of the judiciary. "The Supreme Court of the United States referring to the provisions of the Constitution authorizing Congress to provide for the government of the army, excepting military offenses from the civil jurisdiction, and making the President Commander in Chief, observes as follows: "These provisions show that Congress has the power to provide for the trial and punishment of military and naval offenses in the manner then and now practiced by civilized nations, and that the power to do so is given without any connection between it and the 3d Article of the United States; indeed that the two powers are entirely independent of each other."

"Not belonging to the judicial branch of the government, it follows that courts-martial must pertain to the executive department; and they are in fact simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by Congress for the President as Commander in Chief, to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein, and utilized under his orders or those of his authorized military representatives." (Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, 2d Edition, p. 49.) Of equal interest Clode, 2 M. F., 361, says of these courts in the British law: "It must never be lost sight of that the only legitimate object of military tribunals is to aid the Crown to maintain the discipline and government of the Army." (Footnote No. 24, p. 49, Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, 2d Edition.)

Our conclusion, therefore, is that the petition has no merit and that it should be dismissed with costs. It is so ordered.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

We agree with the rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered in abeyance during enemy military occupation, although we maintain that the rule must be restricted to laws which are exclusively political in nature. We agree with the theory that the rule is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms, but we do not agree with the theory that the rule is intended for the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory without exception. We are of opinion that the rule does not apply to civil government of the occupied territory. Enemy occupation does not relieve them from their sworn official duties. Government officers wield powers and enjoy privileges denied to private citizens. The wielding of powers and enjoyment of privileges impose corresponding responsibilities, and even dangers that must be faced during emergency.

The petitioners assailed the constitutionally of the 93rd Article of War, providing that "any person subject to military law who commits murder in time of war shall suffer death or imprisonment for life, as the court-martial may direct," because no review is provided by said law to be made by the Supreme Court, irrespective of whether the punishment is for life imprisonment or death, such omission being a violation of section 2 (4) , Article VIII, of the Constitution of the Philippines.

Petitioners are mistaken. The silence of the law as to the power of the Supreme Court to review the decisions and proceedings of courts-martial, especially when the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment, should not be understood as negating such power, much more when it is recognized and guaranteed by specific provisions of the fundamental law. At any rate, any doubt in interpreting the silence of the law must be resolved in favor of a construction that will make the law constitutional.

Furthermore, it may not be amiss to recall the fact that the National Assembly, in approving the Articles of War (Commonwealth Act No. 408), had never intended to deny or diminish the power of the Supreme Court to review, revise, reverse or modify final judgments and decrees of courts martial created and organized under the Articles of War. On the contrary, it was clearly understood that the decrees and the decisions of said courts-martial are subject to review by the Supreme Court. The last Committee report on the Articles of War was rendered to the National Assembly by its Committee on Third Reading, commonly known as the "Little Senate," which submitted the bill printed in final form. As chairman of the committee and in behalf of the same, we submitted the report recommending the approval of the bill on third reading with the express statement and understanding that it would not deprive the Supreme Court of its constitutional revisionary power on final judgments and decrees of courts-martial proposed to be created, which were and are to be considered as part of the judicial system, being included in the denomination of inferior courts mentioned in section 1, Article VIII, of the constitution. With the said statement and understanding, the National Assembly, without any dissenting vote, approved the Articles of War as recommended by the Committee on third Reading.

Consequently, petitioners' contention is untenable, the premise upon which they assailed the constitutionality of the 93rd Article of War being groundless in view of the actuation of the national Assembly.

The majority appear to concur in petitioners' premise that, by the silence of the Articles of War, the Supreme Court is deprived of its constitutional power to review final decisions of courts-martial. The majority even go as far as to justify the constitutionality of such deprivation on the theory that courts martial belong, not to the judicial branch of the government, but to the executive department, citing as authority therefor Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents. The majority are in error.

In our opinion in Yamashita vs. Styer (L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664) and in Homma vs. Styer (L-244), we have shown that this Supreme Court enjoys the power to revise the actuations and decisions of military commissions, especially if they act without jurisdiction or violate the law, military commissions being included within the denomination of inferior courts under the provisions of our Constitution. Courts-martial are, likely military commissions, inferior courts. The fact that they are military tribunals does not change their essence as veritable tribunals or courts of justice, as agencies of the government in the administration of justice. Their functions are essentially judicial. Except in cases where judicial functions are specifically entrusted by the Constitution to other agencies — such as impeachment to Congress, legislative electoral contests to the Electoral Tribunals — all judicial functions are vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. Courts-martial are inferior courts established by law.

The majority's theory is based on an authority which has no bearing or application under the Constitution of the Philippines. Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents has in mind the Constitution of the United States of America, the provisions of which regarding the judicial department are essentially different from those contained in our own Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America is as follows:

SECTION 1. The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the Supreme Court and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times, received for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

SEC. 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; — to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction; — to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; — to controversies between two or more States; — between a States and citizens of another State; — between citizens of another State; — between citizens of different States, — between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

SEC. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attached.

A comparison of the above provision with that of the Constitution of the Philippines will readily show that the former does not have the negative provision contained in the latter to the effect that our Supreme Court may not be deprived of certain specific judicial functions.

Section 2 of Articles VIII of our Constitution is as follows:

SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, nor of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify of affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in —

(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulations is in question.

(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any trial courts is in issue.

(4) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment.

(5) All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.

It is our considered opinion that the theory maintained in Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents and in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States cited therein to the effect that the trial and punishment of military and naval offenses by courts-martial are executive functions because the only legitimate object of military tribunals "is to aid the Crown to maintain the discipline and government of the Army," as applied in the Philippine, is basically wrong, being rooted in the English monarchial ideology.

Military tribunals are tribunals whose functions are judicial in character and in nature. No amount of logodaedaly may change the nature of such functions. The trial and punishment of offenses, whether civil or military naval or aerial, since time immemorial, have always been considered as judicial functions. The fact that such trial and punishment are entrusted to "tribunals or courts-martial" shows the nuclear idea of the nature of the function. Tribunals and courts are the agencies employed by government to administer justice.

The very fact that in this case the Supreme Court has given due course to the petition, required respondents to answer, set the case for hearing and, in fact, heard it, instead of ordering the outright dismissal of the petition as soon as it was filed, thus following the same procedure in Reyes vs. Crisologo, (L-54, 41 Off. Gaz., 1096) and in Yamashita vs. Styer (supra), is a conclusive evidence of the fact of that this Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and power to review the proceedings and decision of military tribunals, such as courts-martials, military commissions, and other similar bodies exercising judicial functions limited to military personnel.

It appearing that petitioners impugning the jurisdiction of the court-martial which has tried and convicted them, we are of opinion that the petition must be granted in the sense that the records of the court-martial in question should, be elevated to the Supreme Court for revision, so that we may decide the question on the court-martial's jurisdiction and give petitioners the justice they are claiming for.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18463             October 4, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GREGORIO PERFECTOR, defendant-appellant.

Alfonso E. Mendoza and the appellant in behalf of the latter. Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.

 

MALCOLM, J.:

The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code, punishing "Any person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority . . .," is still in force.

About August 20, 1920, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate, Fernando M. Guerrero, discovered that certain documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil companies, had disappeared from his office. Shortly thereafter, the Philippine Senate, having been called into special session by the Governor-General, the Secretary for the Senate informed that body of the loss of the documents and of the steps taken by him to discover the guilty party. The day following the convening of the Senate, September 7, 1920, the newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published an article reading as follows:

Half a month has elapsed since the discovery, for the first time, of the scandalous robbery of records which were kept and preserved in the iron safe of the Senate, yet up to this time there is not the slightest indication that the author or authors of the crime will ever be discovered.

To find them, it would not, perhaps, be necessary to go out of the Sente itself, and the persons in charge of the investigation of the case would not have to display great skill in order to succeed in their undertaking, unless they should encounter the insuperable obstacle of offical concealment.

In that case, every investigation to be made would be but a mere comedy and nothing more.

After all, the perpetration of the robbery, especially under the circumstances that have surrounded it, does not surprise us at all.

The execution of the crime was but the natural effect of the environment of the place in which it was committed.

How many of the present Senators can say without remorse in their conscience and with serenity of mind, that they do not owe their victory to electoral robbery? How may?

The author or authors of the robbery of the records from the said iron safe of the Senate have, perhaps, but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and robbery.

The Philippine Senate, in its session of September 9, 1920, adopted a resolution authorizing its committee on elections and privileges to report as to the action which should be taken with reference to the article published in La Nacion. On September 15, 1920, the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing the President of the Senate to indorse to the Attorney-General, for his study and corresponding action, all the papers referring to the case of the newspaper La Nacion and its editor, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto. As a result, an information was filed in the municipal court of the City of Manila by an assistant city fiscal, in which the editorial in question was set out and in which it was alleged that the same constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

During the course of the trial in the Court of First Instance, after the prosecution had rested, the defense moved for the dismissal of the case. On the subject of whether or not article 256 of the Penal Code, under which the information was presented, is in force, the trial judge, the Honorable George R. Harvey, said:

This antiquated provision was doubtless incorporated into the Penal Code of Spain for the protection of the Ministers of the Crown and other representatives of the King against free speech and action by Spanish subjects. A severe punishment was prescribed because it was doubtless considered a much more serious offense to insult the King's representative than to insult an ordinary individual. This provision, with almost all the other articles of that Code, was extended to the Philippine Islands when under the dominion of Spain because the King's subject in the Philippines might defame, abuse or insult the Ministers of the Crown or other representatives of His Majesty. We now have no Ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority in the Philippines representing the King of Spain, and said provision, with other articles of the Penal Code, had apparently passed into "innocuous desuetude," but the Supreme Corut of the Philippine Islands has, by a majority decision, held that said article 256 is the law of the land to-day. . . .

The Helbig case is a precedent which, by the rule of stare decisis, is binding upon this court until otherwise determined by proper authority.

In the decision rendered by the same judge, he concluded with the following language:

In the United States such publications are usually not punishable as criminal offense, and little importance is attached to them, because they are generally the result of political controversy and are usually regarded as more or less colored or exaggerated. Attacks of this character upon a legislative body are not punishable, under the Libel Law. Although such publications are reprehensible, yet this court feels some aversion to the application of the provision of law under which this case was filed. Our Penal Code has come to us from the Spanish regime. Article 256 of that Code prescribes punishment for persons who use insulting language about Ministers of the Crown or other "authority." The King of

Spain doubtless left the need of such protection to his ministers and others in authority in the Philippines as well as in Spain. Hence, the article referred to was made applicable here. Notwithstanding the change of sovereignty, our Supreme Court, in a majority decision, has held that this provision is still in force, and that one who made an insulting remark about the President of the United States was punishable under it. (U.S. vs. Helbig, supra.) If it applicable in that case, it would appear to be applicable in this case. Hence, said article 256 must be enforced, without fear or favor, until it shall be repealed or superseded by other legislation, or until the Supreme Court shall otherwise determine.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the court finds the defendant guilty as charged in the information and under article 256 of their Penal Code sentences him to suffer two months and one day of arresto mayor and the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs of both instances.

The fifteen errors assigned by the defendant and appellant, reenforced by an extensive brief, and eloquent oral argument made in his own behalf and by his learned counsel, all reduce themselves to the pertinent and decisive question which was announced in the beginning of this decision.

It will be noted in the first place that the trial judge considered himself bound to follow the rule announced in the case of United States vs. Helbig (R. G. No. 14705, 1 not published). In that case, the accused was charged with having said, "To hell with the President and his proclamations, or words to that effect," in violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty in a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila and again on appeal to the Supreme Court, with the writer of the instant decision dissenting on two principal grounds: (1) That the accused was deprived of the constitutional right of cross-examination, and (2) that article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is no longer in force. Subsequently, on a motion of reconsideration, the court, being of the opinion that the Court of First Instance had committed a prejudicial error in depriving the accused of his right to cross-examine a principal witness, set aside the judgment affirming the judgment appealed from and ordered the return of the record to the court of origin for the celebration of a new trial. Whether such a trial was actually had, is not known, but at least, the record in the Helbig case has never again been elevated to this court.

There may perchance exist some doubt as to the authority of the decision in the Helbig case, in view of the circumstances above described. This much, however, is certain: The facts of the Helbig case and the case before us, which we may term the Perfecto case, are different, for in the first case there was an oral defamation, while in the second there is a written defamation. Not only this, but a new point which, under the facts, could not have been considered in the Helbig case, is, in the Perfecto case, urged upon the court. And, finally, as is apparent to all, the appellate court is not restrained, as was the trial court, by strict adherence to a former decision. We much prefer to resolve the question before us unhindered by references to the Helbig decision.

This is one of those cases on which a variety of opinions all leading to the same result can be had. A majority of the court are of the opinion that the Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, has had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as relates to written defamation, abuse, or insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant is neither guilty of a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code, nor of the Libel Law. The view of the Chief Justice is that the accused should be acquitted for the reason that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a violation of article 156 of the Penal Code. Three members of the court believe that article 256 was abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and is inconsistent with democratic principles of government.

Without prejudice to the right of any member of the court to explain his position, we will discuss the two main points just mentioned.

1. Effect of the Philippine Libel Law, Act No. 277, on article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. — The Libel Law, Act No. 277, was enacted by the Philippine Commission shortly after organization of this legislative body. Section 1 defines libel as a "malicious defamation, expressed either in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures, or the like, or public theatrical exhibitions, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead or to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation, or publish the alleged or natural deffects of one who is alive, and thereby expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." Section 13 provides that "All laws and parts of laws now in force, so far as the same may be in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. . . ."

That parts of laws in force in 1901 when the Libel Law took effect, were in conflict therewith, and that the Libel Law abrogated certain portion of the Spanish Penal Code, cannot be gainsaid. Title X of Book II of the Penal Code, covering the subjects of calumny and insults, must have been particularly affected by the Libel Law. Indeed, in the early case of Pardo de Tavera vs. Garcia Valdez ([1902], 1. Phil., 468), the Supreme Court spoke of the Libel Law as "reforming the preexisting Spanish law on the subject of calumnia and injuria." Recently, specific attention was given to the effect of the Libel Law on the provisions of the Penal Code, dealing with calumny and insults, and it was found that those provisions of the Penal Code on the subject of calumny and insults in which the elements of writing an publicity entered, were abrogated by the Libel Law. (People vs. Castro [1922], p. 842, ante.)

The Libel Law must have had the same result on other provisions of the Penal Code, as for instance article 256.

The facts here are that the editor of a newspaper published an article, naturally in writing, which may have had the tendency to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation of members of the Philippine Senate, thereby possibly exposing them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, which is exactly libel, as defined by the Libel Law. Sir J. F. Stephen is authority for the statement that a libel is indictable when defaming a "body of persons definite and small enough for individual members to be recognized as such, in or by means of anything capable of being a libel." (Digest of Criminal Law, art. 267.) But in the United States, while it may be proper to prosecute criminally the author of a libel charging a legislator with corruption, criticisms, no matter how severe, on a legislature, are within the range of the liberty of the press, unless the intention and effect be seditious. (3 Wharton's Criminal Law, p. 2131.) With these facts and legal principles in mind, recall that article 256 begins: Any person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority," etc.

The Libel Law is a complete and comprehensive law on the subject of libel. The well-known rule of statutory construction is, that where the later statute clearly covers the old subject-matter of antecedent acts, and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject, previous laws are held to be repealed by necessary implication. (1 Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, p. 465.) For identical reasons, it is evident that Act No. 277 had the effect so much of this article as punishes defamation, abuse, or insults by writing.

Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, the Treason and Sedition Law, may also have affected article 256, but as to this point, it is not necessary to make a pronouncement.

2. Effect of the change from Spanish to Amercian sevoreignty over the Philippine son article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code. — Appellant's main proposition in the lower court and again energetically pressed in the appellate court was that article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is not now in force because abrogated by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and because inconsistent with democratic principles of government. This view was indirectly favored by the trial judge, and, as before stated, is the opinion of three members of this court.

Article 256 is found in Chapter V of title III of Book II of the Spanish Penal Code. Title I of Book II punishes the crimes of treason, crimes that endanger the peace or independence of the state, crimes against international law, and the crime of piracy. Title II of the same book punishes the crimes of lese majeste, crimes against the Cortes and its members and against the council of ministers, crimes against the form of government, and crimes committed on the occasion of the exercise of rights guaranteed by the fundamental laws of the state, including crime against religion and worship. Title III of the same Book, in which article 256 is found, punishes the crimes of rebellion, sedition, assaults upon persons in authority, and their agents, and contempts, insults, injurias, and threats against persons in authority, and insults, injurias, and threats against their agents and other public officers, the last being the title to Chapter V. The first two articles in Chapter V define and punish the offense of contempt committed by any one who shall be word or deed defame, abuse, insult, or threathen a minister of the crown, or any person in authority. The with an article condemning challenges to fight duels intervening, comes article 256, now being weighed in the balance. It reads as follows: "Any person who, by word, deed, or writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or by reason of such performance, provided that the offensive minister or person, or the offensive writing be not addressed to him, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor," — that is, the defamation, abuse, or insult of any Minister of the Crown of the Monarchy of Spain (for there could not be a Minister of the Crown in the United States of America), or other person in authority in the Monarchy of Spain.

It cannot admit of doubt that all those provisions of the Spanish Penal Code having to do with such subjects as treason, lese majeste, religion and worship, rebellion, sedition, and contempts of ministers of the crown, are not longer in force. Our present task, therefore, is a determination of whether article 256 has met the same fate, or, more specifically stated, whether it is in the nature of a municipal law or political law, and is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the characteristics and institutions of the American Government.

It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. (American Insurance Co. vs. Canter [1828], 1 Pet., 511; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. vs. McGlinn [1885], 114 U.S., 542; Roa vs. Collector of Customs [1912], 23 Phil., 315.) Mr. Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court stated the obvious when in the course of his opinion in the case of Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. vs. McGlinn, supra, he said: "As a matter of course, all laws, ordinances and regulations in conflict with the political character, institutions and Constitution of the new government are at once displaced. Thus, upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power — and the latter is involved in the former — to the United States, the laws of the country in support of an established religion or abridging the freedom of the press, or authorizing cruel and unusual punishments, and he like, would at once cease to be of obligatory force without any declaration to that effect." To quote again from the United States Supreme Court: "It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exercise them. Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the government ceding it." (Pollard vs. Hagan [1845], 3 Hos., 210.)

On American occupation of the Philippines, by instructions of the President to the Military Commander dated May 28, 1898, and by proclamation of the latter, the municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting private rights of person and property and providing for the punishment of crime were nominally continued in force in so far as they were compatible with the new order of things. But President McKinley, in his instructions to General Merritt, was careful to say: "The first effect of the military occupation of the enemy's territory is the severance of the former political relation of the inhabitants and the establishment of a new political power." From that day to this, the ordinarily it has been taken for granted that the provisions under consideration were still effective. To paraphrase the language of the United States Supreme Court in Weems vs. United States ([1910], 217 U. S., 349), there was not and could not be, except as precise questions were presented, a careful consideration of the codal provisions

and a determination of the extent to which they accorded with or were repugnant to the "'great principles of liberty and law' which had been 'made the basis of our governmental system.' " But when the question has been squarely raised, the appellate court has been forced on occasion to hold certain portions of the Spanish codes repugnant t democratic institutions and American constitutional principles. (U.S. vs. Sweet [1901], 1 Phil., 18; U.S. vs. Balcorta [1913], 25 Phil., 273; U.S. vs. Balcorta [1913], 25 Phil., 533; Weems vs. U.S., supra.)

The nature of the government which has been set up in the Philippines under American sovereignty was outlined by President McKinley in that Magna Charta of Philippine liberty, his instructions to the Commission, of April 7, 1900. In part, the President said:

In all the forms of government and administrative provisions which they are authorized to prescribe, the Commission should bear in mind that he government which they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands, and the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of the indispensable requisites of just and effective government. At the same time the Commission should bear in mind, and the people of the Islands should be made plainly to understand, that there are certain great principles of government which have been made the basis of our governmental system, which we deem essential to the rule of law and the maintenance of individual freedom, and of which they have, unfortunately, been denied the experience possessed by us; that there are also certain practical rules of government which we have found to be essential to the preservation of these great principles of liberty and law, and that these principles and these rules of government must be established and maintained in their islands for the sake of their liberty and happiness, however much they may conflict with the customs or laws of procedure with which they are familiar. It is evident that the most enligthened thought of the Philippine Islands fully appreciates the importance of these principles and rules, and they will inevitably within a short time command universal assent.

The courts have naturally taken the same view. Mr. Justice Elliott, speaking for our Supreme Court, in the case of United States vs. Bull ([1910], 15 Phil., 7), said: "The President and Congress framed the government on the model with which American are familiar, and which has proven best adapted for the advancement of the public interests and the protection of individual rights and privileges."

Therefore, it has come with somewhat of a shock to hear the statement made that the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands and their customs, habits, and prejudices, to follow the language of President McKinley, demand obeisance to authority, and royal protection for that authority.

According to our view, article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the King. With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, as set up in the Philippines. It was in no sense a continuation of the old, although merely for convenience certain of the existing institutions and laws were continued. The demands which the new government made, and makes, on the individual citizen are likewise different. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. "In the eye of our Constitution and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal rights with every other man. We have no rank or station, except that of respectability and intelligence as opposed to indecency and ignorance, and the door to this rank stands open to every man to freely enter and abide therein, if he is qualified, and whether he is qualified or not depends upon the life and character and attainments and conduct of each person for himself. Every man may lawfully do what he will, so long as it is not malum in se or malum prohibitum or does not infringe upon the qually sacred rights of others." (State vs. Shepherd [1903], 177 Mo., 205; 99 A. S. R., 624.)

It is true that in England, from which so many of the laws and institutions of the United States are derived, there were once statutes of scandalum magnatum, under which words which would not be actionable if spoken of an ordinary subject were made actionable if spoken of a peer of the realm or of any of the great officers of the Crown, without proof of any special damage. The Crown of England, unfortunately, took a view less tolerant that that of other sovereigns, as for instance, the Emperors Augustus, Caesar, and Tiberius. These English statutes have, however, long since, become obsolete, while in the United States, the offense of scandalum magnatum is not known. In the early days of the American Republic, a sedition law was enacted, making it an offense to libel the Government, the Congress, or the President of the United States, but the law met with so much popular disapproval, that it was soon repealed. "In this country no distinction as to persons is recognized, and in practice a person holding a high office is regarded as a target at whom any person may let fly his poisonous words. High official position, instead of affording immunity from slanderous and libelous charges, seems rather to be regarded as making his character free plunder for any one who desires to create a senation by attacking it." (Newell, Slander and Libel, 3d ed., p. 245; Sillars vs. Collier [1890], 151 Mass., 50; 6 L.R.A., 680.)

Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. The gulf which separates this article from the spirit which inspires all penal legislation of American origin, is as wide as that which separates a monarchy from a democratic Republic like that of the United States. This article was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine Islands. Penalties out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense, grounded in a distorted monarchical conception of the nature of political authority, as opposed to the American conception of the protection of the interests of the public, have been obliterated by the present system of government in the Islands. 1awph!l.net

From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against executive officials, although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. Punishment for contempt of non-judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. Our official class is not, as in monarchies, an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the people themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they are acting within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where such respect and obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks.

The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag.

To summarize, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the opinion, although for different reasons, that the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted, with costs de officio. So ordered.

Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

ARAULLO, C.J., concurring:

I concur with the dispositive part of the foregoing decision, that is, with the acquittal of the accused, for the sole reason that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code; for although that article is in force with respect to calumny, injuria, or insult, by deed or word, against an authority in the performance of his duties or by reason thereof, outside of his presence, it is repealed by the Libel Law in so far as it refers to calumny, injuria, or insult committed against an authority by writing or printing, as was that inserted in the said information.

ROMUALDEZ, J., concurring:

I concur with the result. I believe that the responsibility of the accused has not been shown either under article 256 of the Penal Code or under the Libel Law.

I am of the opinion that article 256 of the Penal Code is still in force, except as it refers to "Ministers of the Crown," whom we do not have in our Government, and to calumny, injuria, or insult, by writing or printing, committed against an authority in the performance of his duties or by reason thereof, which portion was repealed by the Libel Law.

Johnson, Street, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 133-J May 31, 1982

BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA, complainant, vs.HONORABLE ELIAS B. ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent.

 

MAKASIAR, J:

In a verified complaint dated August 6, 1968 Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, with "acts unbecoming a judge."

The factual setting of the case is stated in the report dated May 27, 1971 of then Associate Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma of the Court of Appeals now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to whom this case was referred on October 28, 1968 for investigation, thus:

Civil Case No. 3010 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte was a complaint for partition filed by Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Priscilla Reyes, plaintiffs, against Bernardita R. Macariola, defendant, concerning the properties left by the deceased Francisco Reyes, the common father of the plaintiff and defendant.

In her defenses to the complaint for partition, Mrs. Macariola alleged among other things that; a) plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales was not a daughter of the deceased Francisco Reyes; b) the only legal heirs of the deceased were defendant Macariola, she being the only offspring of the first marriage of Francisco Reyes with Felisa Espiras, and the remaining plaintiffs who were the children of the deceased by his second marriage with Irene Ondez; c) the properties left by the deceased were all the conjugal properties of the latter and his first wife, Felisa Espiras, and no properties were acquired by the deceased during his second marriage; d) if there was any partition to be made, those conjugal properties should first be partitioned into two parts, and one part is to be adjudicated solely to defendant it being the share of the latter's deceased mother, Felisa Espiras, and the other half which is the share of the deceased Francisco Reyes was to be divided equally among his children by his two marriages.

On June 8, 1963, a decision was rendered by respondent Judge Asuncion in Civil Case 3010, the dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, upon a preponderance of evidence, finds and so holds, and hereby renders judgment (1) Declaring the plaintiffs Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes as the only children legitimated by the subsequent marriage of Francisco Reyes Diaz to Irene Ondez; (2) Declaring the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales to have been an illegitimate child of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (3) Declaring Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and 1/4 of Lot 1145 as belonging to the conjugal partnership of the spouses Francisco Reyes Diaz and Felisa Espiras; (4) Declaring Lot No. 2304 and 1/4 of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the spouses Francisco Reyes Diaz and Irene Ondez in common partnership; (5) Declaring that 1/2 of Lot No. 1184 as belonging exclusively to the deceased Francisco Reyes Diaz; (6) Declaring the defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, being the only legal and forced heir of her mother Felisa Espiras, as the exclusive owner of one-half of each of Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506; and the remaining one-half (1/2) of each of said Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 1154 as belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (7) Declaring Irene Ondez to be the exclusive owner of one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 2304 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 3416; the remaining one-half (1/2) of Lot 2304 and the remaining one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (8) Directing the division or partition of the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz in such a manner as to give or grant to Irene Ondez, as surviving widow of Francisco Reyes Diaz, a hereditary share of. one-twelfth (1/12) of the whole estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz (Art. 996 in relation to Art. 892, par 2, New Civil Code), and the remaining portion of the estate to be divided among the plaintiffs Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, Priscilla Reyes and defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, in such a way that the extent of the total share of plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales in the hereditary estate shall not exceed the equivalent of two-fifth (2/5) of the total share of any or each of the other plaintiffs and the defendant (Art. 983, New Civil Code), each of the latter to receive equal shares from the hereditary estate, (Ramirez vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528; Diancin vs. Bishop of Jaro, O.G. [3rd Ed.] p. 33); (9) Directing the parties, within thirty days after this judgment shall have become final to submit to this court, for approval a project of partition of the hereditary estate in the proportion above indicated, and in such manner as the parties may, by agreement, deemed convenient and equitable to them taking into consideration the location, kind, quality, nature and value of the properties involved; (10) Directing the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales and defendant Bernardita R. Macariola to pay the costs of this suit, in the proportion of one-third (1/3) by the first named and two-thirds (2/3) by the second named; and (I 1) Dismissing all other claims of the parties [pp 27-29 of Exh. C].

The decision in civil case 3010 became final for lack of an appeal, and on October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which is marked Exh. A. Notwithstanding the fact that the project of partition was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and defendant, Judge Asuncion approved it in his Order dated October 23, 1963, which for convenience is quoted hereunder in full:

The parties, through their respective counsels, presented to this Court for approval the following project of partition:

COMES NOW, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the above-entitled case, to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following Project of Partition:

l. The whole of Lots Nos. 1154, 2304 and 4506 shall belong exclusively to Bernardita Reyes Macariola;

2. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 2,373.49 square meters along the eastern part of the lot shall be awarded likewise to Bernardita R. Macariola;

3. Lots Nos. 4803, 4892 and 5265 shall be awarded to Sinforosa Reyes Bales;

4. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 1,834.55 square meters along the western part of the lot shall likewise be awarded to Sinforosa Reyes-Bales;

5. Lots Nos. 4474 and 4475 shall be divided equally among Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares;

6. Lot No. 1184 and the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 after taking the portions awarded under item (2) and (4) above shall be awarded to Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares, provided, however that the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 shall belong exclusively to Priscilla Reyes.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Project of Partition indicated above which is made in accordance with the decision of the Honorable Court be approved.

Tacloban City, October 16, 1963.

(SGD) BONIFACIO RAMO Atty. for the Defendant Tacloban City

(SGD) ZOTICO A. TOLETE Atty. for the Plaintiff Tacloban City

While the Court thought it more desirable for all the parties to have signed this Project of Partition, nevertheless, upon assurance of both counsels of the respective parties to this Court that the Project of Partition, as above- quoted, had been made after a conference and agreement of the plaintiffs and the defendant approving the above Project of Partition, and that both lawyers had represented to the Court that they are given full authority to sign by themselves the Project of Partition, the Court, therefore, finding the

above-quoted Project of Partition to be in accordance with law, hereby approves the same. The parties, therefore, are directed to execute such papers, documents or instrument sufficient in form and substance for the vesting of the rights, interests and participations which were adjudicated to the respective parties, as outlined in the Project of Partition and the delivery of the respective properties adjudicated to each one in view of said Project of Partition, and to perform such other acts as are legal and necessary to effectuate the said Project of Partition.

SO ORDERED.

Given in Tacloban City, this 23rd day of October, 1963.

(SGD) ELIAS B. ASUNCION Judge

EXH. B.

The above Order of October 23, 1963, was amended on November 11, 1963, only for the purpose of giving authority to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Leyte to issue the corresponding transfer certificates of title to the respective adjudicatees in conformity with the project of partition (see Exh. U).

One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184 or rather one-half thereof with an area of 15,162.5 sq. meters. This lot, which according to the decision was the exclusive property of the deceased Francisco Reyes, was adjudicated in said project of partition to the plaintiffs Luz, Anacorita Ruperto, Adela, and Priscilla all surnamed Reyes in equal shares, and when the project of partition was approved by the trial court the adjudicatees caused Lot 1184 to be subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E inclusive (Exh. V).

Lot 1184-D was conveyed to Enriqueta D. Anota, a stenographer in Judge Asuncion's court (Exhs. F, F-1 and V-1), while Lot 1184-E which had an area of 2,172.5556 sq. meters was sold on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Arcadio Galapon (Exh. 2) who was issued transfer certificate of title No. 2338 of the Register of Deeds of the city of Tacloban (Exh. 12).

On March 6, 1965, Dr. Arcadio Galapon and his wife Sold a portion of Lot 1184-E with an area of around 1,306 sq. meters to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S. Asuncion (Exh. 11), which particular portion was declared by the latter for taxation purposes (Exh. F).

On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interest in Lot 1184-E to "The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc." (Exit 15 & 16). At the time of said sale the stockholders of the corporation were Dominador Arigpa Tan, Humilia Jalandoni Tan, Jaime Arigpa Tan, Judge Asuncion, and the latter's wife, Victoria S. Asuncion, with Judge Asuncion as the President and Mrs. Asuncion as the secretary (Exhs. E-4 to E-7). The Articles of Incorporation of "The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc." which we shall henceforth refer

to as "TRADERS" were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only on January 9, 1967 (Exh. E) [pp. 378-385, rec.].

Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola filed on August 9, 1968 the instant complaint dated August 6, 1968 alleging four causes of action, to wit: [1] that respondent Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010 decided by him; [2] that he likewise violated Article 14, paragraphs I and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3, paragraph H, of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by associating himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte; [3] that respondent was guilty of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum by closely fraternizing with a certain Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney when in truth and in fact his name does not appear in the Rolls of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar; and [4] that there was a culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics by respondent Judge (pp. 1-7, rec.).

Respondent Judge Asuncion filed on September 24, 1968 his answer to which a reply was filed on October 16, 1968 by herein complainant. In Our resolution of October 28, 1968, We referred this case to then Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report and recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating Justice submitted her report dated May 27, 1971 recommending that respondent Judge should be reprimanded or warned in connection with the first cause of action alleged in the complaint, and for the second cause of action, respondent should be warned in case of a finding that he is prohibited under the law to engage in business. On the third and fourth causes of action, Justice Palma recommended that respondent Judge be exonerated.

The records also reveal that on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 (pp. 481, 477, rec.), complainant herein instituted an action before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, entitled "Bernardita R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa R. Bales, et al., defendants," which was docketed as Civil Case No. 4235, seeking the annulment of the project of partition made pursuant to the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 and the two orders issued by respondent Judge approving the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the subsequent conveyances with damages. It appears, however, that some defendants were dropped from the civil case. For one, the case against Dr. Arcadio Galapon was dismissed because he was no longer a real party in interest when Civil Case No. 4234 was filed, having already conveyed on March 6, 1965 a portion of lot 1184-E to respondent Judge and on August 31, 1966 the remainder was sold to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. Similarly, the case against defendant Victoria Asuncion was dismissed on the ground that she was no longer a real party in interest at the time the aforesaid Civil Case No. 4234 was filed as the portion of Lot 1184 acquired by her and respondent Judge from Dr. Arcadio Galapon was already sold on August 31, 1966 to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing industries, Inc. Likewise, the cases against defendants Serafin P. Ramento, Catalina Cabus, Ben Barraza Go, Jesus Perez, Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., Alfredo R. Celestial and Pilar P. Celestial, Leopoldo Petilla and Remedios Petilla, Salvador Anota and Enriqueta Anota and Atty. Zotico A. Tolete were dismissed with the conformity of complainant herein, plaintiff therein, and her counsel.

On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, who was directed and authorized on June 2, 1969 by the then Secretary (now Minister) of Justice and now Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile to hear and decide Civil Case No. 4234, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

A. IN THE CASE AGAINST JUDGE ELIAS B. ASUNCION

(1) declaring that only Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Leyte has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the issue of the legality and validity of the Project of Partition [Exhibit "B"] and the two Orders [Exhibits "C" and "C- 3"] approving the partition;

(2) dismissing the complaint against Judge Elias B. Asuncion;

(3) adjudging the plaintiff, Mrs. Bernardita R. Macariola to pay defendant Judge Elias B. Asuncion,

(a) the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P400,000.00] for moral damages;

(b) the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P200,000.001 for exemplary damages;

(c) the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS [P50,000.00] for nominal damages; and

(d) he sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS [PI0,000.00] for Attorney's Fees.

B. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MARIQUITA VILLASIN, FOR HERSELF AND FOR THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED GERARDO VILLASIN —

(1) Dismissing the complaint against the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of the deceased Gerardo Villasin;

(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of Gerardo Villasin the cost of the suit.

C. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SINFOROSA R. BALES, ET AL., WHO WERE PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 3010 —

(1) Dismissing the complaint against defendants Sinforosa R. Bales, Adela R. Herrer, Priscilla R. Solis, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita R. Eng and Ruperto O. Reyes.

D. IN THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT BONIFACIO RAMO —

(1) Dismissing the complaint against Bonifacio Ramo;

(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant Bonifacio Ramo the cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED [pp. 531-533, rec.]

It is further disclosed by the record that the aforesaid decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals upon perfection of the appeal on February 22, 1971.

I

WE find that there is no merit in the contention of complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, under her first cause of action, that respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010. 'That Article provides:

Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another:

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession [emphasis supplied].

The prohibition in the aforesaid Article applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. WE have already ruled that "... for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property" (The Director of Lands vs. Ababa et al., 88 SCRA 513, 519 [1979], Rosario vda. de Laig vs. Court of Appeals, 86 SCRA 641, 646 [1978]).

In the case at bar, when the respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period; hence, the lot in question was no longer subject of the litigation. Moreover, at the time of the sale on March 6, 1965, respondent's order dated October 23, 1963 and the amended order dated November 11, 1963 approving the October 16, 1963 project of partition made pursuant to the June 8, 1963 decision, had long become final for there was no appeal from said orders.

Furthermore, respondent Judge did not buy the lot in question on March 6, 1965 directly from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased on July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E from three of the plaintiffs, namely, Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Luz R. Bakunawa after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. It may be recalled that Lot 1184 or more specifically one-half thereof was adjudicated in equal shares to Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes, Luz Bakunawa, Ruperto Reyes and Anacorita Reyes in the project of partition, and the same was subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. As aforestated, Lot 1184-E was sold on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Galapon for which he was issued TCT No. 2338 by the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, and on March 6, 1965 he sold a portion of said lot to respondent Judge and his wife who declared the same for taxation purposes only. The subsequent sale on August 31, 1966 by spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon of their respective shares and interest in said Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., in which respondent was the president and his wife was the secretary, took place long after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 and of the subsequent two aforesaid orders therein approving the project of partition.

While it appears that complainant herein filed on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 an action before the Court of First Instance of Leyte docketed as Civil Case No. 4234, seeking to annul the project of partition and the two orders approving the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the subsequent conveyances, the same, however, is of no moment.

The fact remains that respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E from Dr. Arcadio Galapon; hence, after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No. 3010 and his two questioned orders dated October 23, 1963 and November 11, 1963. Therefore, the property was no longer subject of litigation.

The subsequent filing on November 9, or 11, 1968 of Civil Case No. 4234 can no longer alter, change or affect the aforesaid facts — that the questioned sale to respondent Judge, now Court of Appeals Justice, was effected and consummated long after the finality of the aforesaid decision or orders.

Consequently, the sale of a portion of Lot 1184-E to respondent Judge having taken place over one year after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as the two orders approving the project of partition, and not during the pendency of the litigation, there was no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code.

It is also argued by complainant herein that the sale on July 31, 1964 of Lot 1184-E to Dr. Arcadio Galapon by Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes and Luz R. Bakunawa was only a mere scheme to conceal the illegal and unethical transfer of said lot to respondent Judge as a consideration for the approval of the project of partition. In this connection, We agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice thus:

And so we are now confronted with this all-important question whether or not the acquisition by respondent of a portion of Lot 1184-E and the subsequent transfer of the whole lot to "TRADERS" of which respondent was the President and his wife the Secretary, was intimately related to the Order of respondent approving the project of partition, Exh. A.

Respondent vehemently denies any interest or participation in the transactions between the Reyeses and the Galapons concerning Lot 1184-E, and he insists that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Dr. Galapon had acted, in the purchase of Lot 1184-E, in mediation for him and his wife. (See p. 14 of Respondent's Memorandum).

xxx xxx xxx

On this point, I agree with respondent that there is no evidence in the record showing that Dr. Arcadio Galapon acted as a mere "dummy" of respondent in acquiring Lot 1184-E from the Reyeses. Dr. Galapon appeared to this investigator as a respectable citizen, credible and sincere, and I believe him when he testified that he bought Lot 1184-E in good faith and for valuable consideration from the Reyeses without any intervention of, or previous understanding with Judge Asuncion (pp. 391- 394, rec.).

On the contention of complainant herein that respondent Judge acted illegally in approving the project of partition although it was not signed by the parties, We quote with approval the findings of the Investigating Justice, as follows:

1. I agree with complainant that respondent should have required the signature of the parties more particularly that of Mrs. Macariola on the project of partition submitted to him for approval; however, whatever error was committed by respondent in that respect was done in good faith as according to Judge Asuncion he was assured by Atty. Bonifacio Ramo, the counsel of record of Mrs. Macariola, That he was authorized by his client to submit said project of partition, (See Exh. B and tsn p. 24, January 20, 1969). While it is true that such written authority if there was any, was not presented by respondent in evidence, nor did Atty. Ramo appear to corroborate the statement of respondent, his affidavit being the only one that was presented as respondent's Exh. 10, certain actuations of Mrs. Macariola lead this investigator to believe that she knew the contents of the project of partition, Exh. A, and that she gave her conformity thereto. I refer to the following documents:

1) Exh. 9 — Certified true copy of OCT No. 19520 covering Lot 1154 of the Tacloban Cadastral Survey in which the deceased Francisco Reyes holds a "1/4 share" (Exh. 9-a). On tills certificate of title the Order dated November 11, 1963, (Exh. U) approving the project of partition was duly entered and registered on November 26, 1963 (Exh. 9-D);

2) Exh. 7 — Certified copy of a deed of absolute sale executed by Bernardita Reyes Macariola on October 22, 1963, conveying to Dr. Hector Decena the one-fourth share of the late Francisco Reyes-Diaz in Lot 1154. In this deed of sale the vendee stated that she was the absolute owner of said one-fourth share, the same having been adjudicated to her as her share in the estate of her father Francisco Reyes Diaz as per decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte under case No. 3010 (Exh. 7-A). The deed of sale was duly registered and annotated at the back of OCT 19520 on December 3, 1963 (see Exh. 9-e).

In connection with the abovementioned documents it is to be noted that in the project of partition dated October 16, 1963, which was approved by respondent on October 23, 1963, followed by an amending Order on November 11, 1963, Lot 1154 or rather 1/4 thereof was adjudicated to Mrs. Macariola. It is this 1/4 share in Lot 1154 which complainant sold to Dr. Decena on October 22, 1963, several days after the preparation of the project of partition.

Counsel for complainant stresses the view, however, that the latter sold her one-fourth share in Lot 1154 by virtue of the decision in Civil Case 3010 and not because of the project of partition, Exh. A. Such contention is absurd because from the decision, Exh. C, it is clear that one-half of one- fourth of Lot 1154 belonged to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz while the other half of said one-fourth was the share of complainant's mother, Felisa Espiras; in other words, the decision did not adjudicate the whole of the one-fourth of Lot 1154 to the herein complainant (see Exhs. C-3 & C-4). Complainant became the owner of the entire one-fourth of Lot 1154 only by means of the project of partition, Exh. A. Therefore, if Mrs. Macariola sold Lot 1154 on October 22, 1963, it was for no other reason than that she was wen aware of the distribution of the properties of her deceased father as per Exhs. A and B. It is also significant at this point to state that Mrs. Macariola admitted during the cross-examination that she went to Tacloban City in connection with the sale of Lot 1154 to Dr. Decena (tsn p. 92, November 28, 1968) from which we can deduce that she could not have been kept ignorant of the proceedings in civil case 3010 relative to the project of partition.

Complainant also assails the project of partition because according to her the properties adjudicated to her were insignificant lots and the least valuable. Complainant, however, did not present any direct and positive evidence to prove the alleged gross inequalities in the choice and distribution of the real properties when she could have easily done so by presenting evidence on the area, location, kind, the assessed and market value of said properties. Without such evidence there is nothing in the record to show that there were inequalities in the distribution of the properties of complainant's father (pp. 386389, rec.).

Finally, while it is. true that respondent Judge did not violate paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E which was in litigation in his court, it was, however, improper for him to have acquired the same. He should be reminded of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that: "A judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach." And as aptly observed by the Investigating Justice: "... it was unwise and indiscreet on the part of respondent to have purchased or acquired a portion of a piece of property that was or had been in litigation in his court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were ranking officers at the time of such transfer. One who occupies an exalted position in the judiciary has the duty and responsibility of maintaining the faith and trust of the citizenry in the courts of justice, so that not only must he be truly honest and just, but his actuations must be such as not give cause for doubt and mistrust in the uprightness of his administration of justice. In this particular case of respondent, he cannot deny that the transactions over Lot 1184-E are damaging and render his actuations open to suspicion and distrust. Even if respondent honestly believed that Lot 1184-E was no longer in litigation in his court and that he was purchasing it from a third person and not from the parties to the litigation, he should nonetheless have refrained from buying it for himself and transferring it to a corporation in which he and his wife were financially involved, to avoid possible suspicion that his acquisition was related in one way or another to his official actuations in civil case 3010. The conduct of respondent gave cause for the litigants in civil case 3010, the lawyers practising in his court, and the public in general to doubt the honesty and fairness of his actuations and the integrity of our courts of justice" (pp. 395396, rec.).

II

With respect to the second cause of action, the complainant alleged that respondent Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said corporation having been organized to engage in business. Said Article provides that:

Article 14 — The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by proxy, nor can they hold any office or have any direct, administrative, or financial intervention in commercial or industrial companies within the limits of the districts, provinces, or towns in which they discharge their duties:

1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of public prosecution in active service. This provision shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal judges, and municipal prosecuting attorneys nor to those who by chance are temporarily discharging the functions of judge or prosecuting attorney.

xxx xxx xxx

5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in commerce in a determinate territory.

It is Our considered view that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges.

Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]). It may be recalled that political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the law on public officers and elections. Specifically, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business: hence, political in essence.

It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, with some modifications made by the "Commission de Codificacion de las Provincias de Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took effect as law in this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888.

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

Thus, We held in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23 Phil. 315, 330, 311 [1912]) that:

By well-settled public law, upon the cession of territory by one nation to another, either following a conquest or otherwise, ... those laws which are political in their nature and pertain to the prerogatives of the former government immediately cease upon the transfer of sovereignty. (Opinion, Atty. Gen., July 10, 1899).

While municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the, laws of the new sovereign continue in force without the express assent or affirmative act of the conqueror, the political laws do not. (Halleck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14). However, such political laws of the prior sovereignty as are not in conflict with the constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, may be continued in force if the conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of the commander-in-chief during the war, or by Congress in time of peace. (Ely's Administrator vs. United States, 171 U.S. 220, 43 L. Ed. 142). In the case of American and Ocean Ins. Cos. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton (1 Pet. [26 U.S.] 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242), Chief Justice Marshall said:

On such transfer (by cession) of territory, it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered by the newly- created power of the State.

Likewise, in People vs. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]), this Court stated that: "It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. "

There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and then to the Republic of the Philippines. Consequently, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then Judge of the Court of First Instance, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.

It is also argued by complainant herein that respondent Judge violated paragraph H, Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which provides that:

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

xxx xxx xxx

(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any Iaw from having any interest.

Respondent Judge cannot be held liable under the aforestated paragraph because there is no showing that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacity in the business or transactions of the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the business of the corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office. The business of said corporation is not that kind where respondent intervenes or takes part in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance. As was held in one case involving the application of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code which has a similar prohibition on public officers against directly or indirectly becoming interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene, "(I)t is not enough to be a public official to be

subject to this crime; it is necessary that by reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactions; and, hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no relation to his office cannot commit this crime.' (People vs. Meneses, C.A. 40 O.G. 11th Supp. 134, cited by Justice Ramon C. Aquino; Revised Penal Code, p. 1174, Vol. 11 [1976]).

It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained any undue advantage in its business operations by reason of respondent's financial involvement in it, or that the corporation benefited in one way or another in any case filed by or against it in court. It is undisputed that there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in which the corporation was either party plaintiff or defendant except Civil Case No. 4234 entitled "Bernardita R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa O. Bales, et al.," wherein the complainant herein sought to recover Lot 1184-E from the aforesaid corporation. It must be noted, however, that Civil Case No. 4234 was filed only on November 9 or 11, 1968 and decided on November 2, 1970 by CFI Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno when respondent Judge was no longer connected with the corporation, having disposed of his interest therein on January 31, 1967.

Furthermore, respondent is not liable under the same paragraph because there is no provision in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an existing law expressly prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in any lawful business.

It may be pointed out that Republic Act No. 296, as amended, also known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, does not contain any prohibition to that effect. As a matter of fact, under Section 77 of said law, municipal judges may engage in teaching or other vocation not involving the practice of law after office hours but with the permission of the district judge concerned.

Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America, because it is political in nature.

Moreover, the prohibition in paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code against the purchase by judges of a property in litigation before the court within whose jurisdiction they perform their duties, cannot apply to respondent Judge because the sale of the lot in question to him took place after the finality of his decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as his two orders approving the project of partition; hence, the property was no longer subject of litigation.

In addition, although Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules made pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1959 prohibits an officer or employee in the civil service from engaging in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of department, the same, however, may not fall within the purview of paragraph h, Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because the last portion of said paragraph speaks of a prohibition by the Constitution or law on any public officer from having any interest in any business and not by a mere administrative rule or regulation. Thus, a violation of the aforesaid rule by any officer or employee in the civil service, that is, engaging in private business without a written permission from the Department Head may not constitute graft and corrupt practice as defined by law.

On the contention of complainant that respondent Judge violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, We hold that the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) and the Civil Service Rules promulgated thereunder, particularly Section 12 of Rule XVIII, do not apply to the members of the Judiciary. Under said Section 12: "No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the Head of Department ..."

It must be emphasized at the outset that respondent, being a member of the Judiciary, is covered by Republic Act No. 296, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948 and by Section 7, Article X, 1973 Constitution.

Under Section 67 of said law, the power to remove or dismiss judges was then vested in the President of the Philippines, not in the Commissioner of Civil Service, and only on two grounds, namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency, and upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court, which alone is authorized, upon its own motion, or upon information of the Secretary (now Minister) of Justice to conduct the corresponding investigation. Clearly, the aforesaid section defines the grounds and prescribes the special procedure for the discipline of judges.

And under Sections 5, 6 and 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, only the Supreme Court can discipline judges of inferior courts as well as other personnel of the Judiciary.

It is true that under Section 33 of the Civil Service Act of 1959: "The Commissioner may, for ... violation of the existing Civil Service Law and rules or of reasonable office regulations, or in the interest of the service, remove any subordinate officer or employee from the service, demote him in rank, suspend him for not more than one year without pay or fine him in an amount not exceeding six months' salary." Thus, a violation of Section 12 of Rule XVIII is a ground for disciplinary action against civil service officers and employees.

However, judges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees subject to the disciplinary authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service; for, certainly, the Commissioner is not the head of the Judicial Department to which they belong. The Revised Administrative Code (Section 89) and the Civil Service Law itself state that the Chief Justice is the department head of the Supreme Court (Sec. 20, R.A. No. 2260) [1959]); and under the 1973 Constitution, the Judiciary is the only other or second branch of the government (Sec. 1, Art. X, 1973 Constitution). Besides, a violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinary action against judges because to recognize the same as applicable to them, would be adding another ground for the discipline of judges and, as aforestated, Section 67 of the Judiciary Act recognizes only two grounds for their removal, namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency.

Moreover, under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the Commissioner of Civil Service who has original and exclusive jurisdiction "(T)o decide, within one hundred twenty days, after submission to it, all administrative cases against permanent officers and employees in the competitive service, and, except as provided by law, to have final authority to pass upon their removal, separation, and suspension and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of such officers and employees; and prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations governing the administration of discipline" (emphasis supplied). There is no

question that a judge belong to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee and is therefore not covered by the aforesaid provision. WE have already ruled that "... in interpreting Section 16(i) of Republic Act No. 2260, we emphasized that only permanent officers and employees who belong to the classified service come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Civil Service" (Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710,713 [1965], Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619 [1963]).

Although the actuation of respondent Judge in engaging in private business by joining the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, is not violative of the provissions of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce and Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well as Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules promulgated pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1959, the impropriety of the same is clearly unquestionable because Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics expressly declares that:

A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be involved in litigation in his court; and, after his accession to the bench, he should not retain such investments previously made, longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them without serious loss. It is desirable that he should, so far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his judicial duties. ...

WE are not, however, unmindful of the fact that respondent Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties, and it appears also that the aforesaid corporation did not in anyway benefit in any case filed by or against it in court as there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12, 1966, up to its incorporation on January 9, 1967, and the eventual withdrawal of respondent on January 31, 1967 from said corporation. Such disposal or sale by respondent and his wife of their shares in the corporation only 22 days after the incorporation of the corporation, indicates that respondent realized that early that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid Canon 25. Respondent Judge and his wife therefore deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm after its incorporation and before it became involved in any court litigation

III

With respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleged that respondent was guilty of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum, and that there was culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics. WE agree, however, with the recommendation of the Investigating Justice that respondent Judge be exonerated because the aforesaid causes of action are groundless, and WE quote the pertinent portion of her report which reads as follows:

The basis for complainant's third cause of action is the claim that respondent associated and closely fraternized with Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney (see Exhs. I, I-1 and J) when in truth and in fact said Dominador Arigpa Tan does not appear in the Roll of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar as certified to in Exh. K.

The "respondent denies knowing that Dominador Arigpa Tan was an "impostor" and claims that all the time he believed that the latter was a bona fide member of the bar. I see no reason for disbelieving this assertion of respondent. It has been shown by complainant that Dominador Arigpa Tan represented himself publicly as an attorney-at-law to the extent of putting up a signboard with his name and the words "Attorney-at Law" (Exh. I and 1- 1) to indicate his office, and it was but natural for respondent and any person for that matter to have accepted that statement on its face value. "Now with respect to the allegation of complainant that respondent is guilty of fraternizing with Dominador Arigpa Tan to the extent of permitting his wife to be a godmother of Mr. Tan's child at baptism (Exh. M & M-1), that fact even if true did not render respondent guilty of violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Dominador A. Tan and family did not influence his official actuations as a judge where said persons were concerned. There is no tangible convincing proof that herein respondent gave any undue privileges in his court to Dominador Arigpa Tan or that the latter benefitted in his practice of law from his personal relations with respondent, or that he used his influence, if he had any, on the Judges of the other branches of the Court to favor said Dominador Tan.

Of course it is highly desirable for a member of the judiciary to refrain as much as possible from maintaining close friendly relations with practising attorneys and litigants in his court so as to avoid suspicion 'that his social or business relations or friendship constitute an element in determining his judicial course" (par. 30, Canons of Judicial Ethics), but if a Judge does have social relations, that in itself would not constitute a ground for disciplinary action unless it be clearly shown that his social relations be clouded his official actuations with bias and partiality in favor of his friends (pp. 403-405, rec.).

In conclusion, while respondent Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, did not violate any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of land which was in litigation in his court and in engaging in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, he should be reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities, because his conduct as a member of the Judiciary must not only be characterized with propriety but must always be above suspicion.

WHEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS HEREBY REMINDED TO BE MORE DISCREET IN HIS PRIVATE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.

Fernando, C.J., Abad Santos and Esolin JJ., took no part.

 

 

Separate Opinions

 

AQUINO, J., concurring and dissenting:

I vote for respondent's unqualified exoneration.

BARREDO, J., concurring and dissenting:

I vote with Justice Aquino.

 

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., concurring and dissenting:

I vote for respondent's unqualified exoneration.

BARREDO, J., concurring and dissenting:

I vote with Justice Aquino.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5            September 17, 1945

CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM), petitioner, vs.EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondents.1

Marcelino Lontok for petitioner.P. A. Revilla for respondent Valdez Tan Keh.Respondent Judge Dizon in his own behalf.

FERIA, J.:

This petition for mandamus in which petitioner prays that the respondent judge of the lower court be ordered to continue the proceedings in civil case No. 3012 of said court, which were initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation of these Islands.

The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of and continue the proceedings in said case on the ground that the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944, by General Douglas MacArthur had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgements of the court of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation, and that, furthermore, the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority. And the same respondent, in his answer and memorandum filed in this Court, contends that the government established in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation were no de facto governments.

On January 2, 1942, the Imperial Japanese Forces occupied the City of Manila, and on the next day their Commander in Chief proclaimed "the Military Administration under law over the districts occupied by the Army." In said proclamation, it was also provided that "so far as the Military Administration permits, all the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and judicial institutions, shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the past," and "all public officials shall remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their duties as before."

A civil government or central administration organization under the name of "Philippine Executive Commission was organized by Order No. 1 issued on January 23, 1942, by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Forces in the Philippines, and Jorge B. Vargas, who was appointed Chairman

thereof, was instructed to proceed to the immediate coordination of the existing central administrative organs and judicial courts, based upon what had existed therefore, with approval of the said Commander in Chief, who was to exercise jurisdiction over judicial courts.

The Chairman of the Executive Commission, as head of the central administrative organization, issued Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4, dated January 30 and February 5, 1942, respectively, in which the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Courts of First Instance, and the justices of the peace and municipal courts under the Commonwealth were continued with the same jurisdiction, in conformity with the instructions given to the said Chairman of the Executive Commission by the Commander in Chief of Japanese Forces in the Philippines in the latter's Order No. 3 of February 20, 1942, concerning basic principles to be observed by the Philippine Executive Commission in exercising legislative, executive and judicial powers. Section 1 of said Order provided that "activities of the administration organs and judicial courts in the Philippines shall be based upon the existing statutes, orders, ordinances and customs. . . ."

On October 14, 1943, the so-called Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated, but no substantial change was effected thereby in the organization and jurisdiction of the different courts that functioned during the Philippine Executive Commission, and in the laws they administered and enforced.

On October 23, 1944, a few days after the historic landing in Leyte, General Douglas MacArthur issued a proclamation to the People of the Philippines which declared:

1. That the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines is, subject to the supreme authority of the Government of the United States, the sole and only government having legal and valid jurisdiction over the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control;

2. That the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and

3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control.

On February 3, 1945, the City of Manila was partially liberated and on February 27, 1945, General MacArthur, on behalf of the Government of the United States, solemnly declared "the full powers and responsibilities under the Constitution restored to the Commonwealth whose seat is here established as provided by law."

In the light of these facts and events of contemporary history, the principal questions to be resolved in the present case may be reduced to the following:(1) Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the court existing in the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines were good and valid and remained so even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces; (2)Whether the proclamation issued on October 23, 1944, by General Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief of the United States Army, in which he declared "that all laws, regulations and processes of any of the government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control," has invalidated all judgements and judicial acts and proceedings of the said courts; and (3) If the said judicial acts and proceedings have not been invalidated by said proclamation, whether the present courts of the Commonwealth, which were the same court existing prior to, and continued during, the Japanese military

occupation of the Philippines, may continue those proceedings pending in said courts at the time the Philippines were reoccupied and liberated by the United States and Filipino forces, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished in the Islands.

We shall now proceed to consider the first question, that is, whether or not under the rules of international law the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts established in the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines were good and valid and remained good and valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces.

1. It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. The question to be determined is whether or not the governments established in these Islands under the names of the Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto governments. If they were, the judicial acts and proceedings of those governments remain good and valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces.

There are several kinds of de facto governments. The first, or government de facto in a proper legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter, such as the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector. The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force, as the cases of Castine, in Maine, which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812, and Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the war with Mexico, by the troops of the United States. And the third is that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state of such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt not concerned in the present case with the first kind, but only with the second and third kinds of de facto governments.

Speaking of government "de facto" of the second kind, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Thorington vs. Smith (8 Wall., 1), said: "But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2), that while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, or wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force. . . . One example of this sort of government is found in the case of Castine, in Mine, reduced to British possession in the war of 1812 . . . U. S. vs. Rice (4 Wheaton, 253). A like example is found in the case of Tampico, occupied during the war with Mexico, by the troops of the United States . . . Fleming vs. Page (9 Howard, 614). These were cases of temporary possessions of territory by lawfull and regular governments at war with the country of which the territory so possessed was part."

The powers and duties of de facto governments of this description are regulated in Section III of the Hague Conventions of 1907, which is a revision of the provisions of the Hague Conventions of 1899 on the same subject of said Section III provides "the authority of the legislative power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."

According to the precepts of the Hague Conventions, as the belligerent occupant has the right and is burdened with the duty to insure public order and safety during his military occupation, he possesses all the powers of a de facto government, and he can suspended the old laws and promulgate new ones and make such changes in the old as he may see fit, but he is enjoined to respect, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances prevailing in the occupied territory, the municipal laws in force in the country, that is, those laws which enforce public order and regulate social and commercial life of the country. On the other hand, laws of a political nature or affecting political relations, such as, among others, the right of assembly, the right to bear arms, the freedom of the press, and the right to travel freely in the territory occupied, are considered as suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation. Although the local and civil administration of justice is suspended as a matter of course as soon as a country is militarily occupied, it is not usual for the invader to take the whole administration into his own hands. In practice, the local ordinary tribunals are authorized to continue administering justice; and judges and other judicial officers are kept in their posts if they accept the authority of the belligerent occupant or are required to continue in their positions under the supervision of the military or civil authorities appointed, by the Commander in Chief of the occupant. These principles and practice have the sanction of all publicists who have considered the subject, and have been asserted by the Supreme Court and applied by the President of the United States.

The doctrine upon this subject is thus summed up by Halleck, in his work on International Law (Vol. 2, p. 444): "The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession, is one of the incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer. We, therefore, do not look to the Constitution or political institutions of the conqueror, for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession, during its military occupation, nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws war, as established by the usage of the of the world, and confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts — in fine, from the law of nations. . . . The municipal laws of a conquered territory, or the laws which regulate private rights, continue in force during military occupation, excepts so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of conqueror. . . . He, nevertheless, has all the powers of a de facto government, and can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new ones."

And applying the principles for the exercise of military authority in an occupied territory, which were later embodied in the said Hague Conventions, President McKinley, in his executive order to the Secretary of War of May 19,1898, relating to the occupation of the Philippines by United States forces, said in part: "Though the powers of the military occupant are absolute and supreme, and immediately operate upon the political condition of the inhabitants, the municipal laws of the conquered territory, such as affect private rights of person and property and provide for the punishment of crime, are considered as continuing in force, so far as they are compatible with the new order of things, until they are suspended or superseded by the occupying belligerent; and in practice they are not usually abrogated, but are allowed to remain in force and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals, substantially as they were before the occupation. This enlightened practice is, so far as possible, to be adhered to on the present occasion. The judges and the other officials connected with the administration of justice may, if they accept the authority of the United States, continue to administer the ordinary law of the land as between man and man under the supervision of the American Commander in Chief." (Richardson's Messages and Papers of President, X, p. 209.)

As to "de facto" government of the third kind, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same case of Thorington vs. Smith, supra, recognized the government set up by the Confederate States as a de facto government. In that case, it was held that "the central government established for the insurgent States differed from the temporary governments at Castine and Tampico in the circumstance that its authority did no originate in lawful acts of regular war; but it was not, on the account, less actual or less supreme. And we think that it must be classed among the governments of which these are examples. . . .

In the case of William vs. Bruffy (96 U. S. 176, 192), the Supreme Court of the United States, discussing the validity of the acts of the Confederate States, said: "The same general form of government, the same general laws for the administration of justice and protection of private rights, which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the Acts of the States do not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of citizens under the Constitution, they are, in general, to be treated as valid and binding. As we said in Horn vs. Lockhart (17 Wall., 570; 21 Law. ed., 657): "The existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the regular administration of the laws. Order was to be preserved, police regulations maintained, crime prosecuted, property protected, contracts enforced, marriages celebrated, estates settled, and the transfer and descent of property regulated, precisely as in the time of peace. No one, that we are aware of, seriously questions the validity of judicial or legislative Acts in the insurrectionary States touching these and kindered subjects, where they were not hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the National Government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the Constitution'. The same doctrine has been asserted in numerous other cases."

And the same court, in the case of Baldy vs. Hunter (171 U. S., 388, 400), held: "That what occured or was done in respect of such matters under the authority of the laws of these local de facto governments should not be disregarded or held to be invalid merely because those governments were organized in hostility to the Union established by the national Constitution; this, because the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States did not relieve those who are within the insurrectionary lines from the necessity of civil obedience, nor destroy the bonds of society nor do away with civil government or the regular administration of the laws, and because transactions in the ordinary course of civil society as organized within the enemy's territory although they may have indirectly or remotely promoted the ends of the de facto or unlawful government organized to effect a dissolution of the Union, were without blame 'except when proved to have been entered into with actual intent to further invasion or insurrection:'" and "That judicial and legislative acts in the respective states composing the so-called Confederate States should be respected by the courts if they were not hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the National Government, and did not impair the rights of citizens under the Constitution."

In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Philippine Executive Commission, which was organized by Order No. 1, issued on January 23, 1942, by the Commander of the Japanese forces, was a civil government established by the military forces of occupation and therefore a de facto government of the second kind. It was not different from the government established by the British in Castine, Maine, or by the United States in Tampico, Mexico. As Halleck says, "The government established over an enemy's territory during the military occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws of war to the conqueror over the conquered, and is subject to all restrictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether such government be called a military or civil government. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. In either case it is a government imposed by the laws of war, and so far it concerns the inhabitants of such territory or the rest of the world, those laws alone determine the legality or illegality of its acts." (Vol. 2, p. 466.) The fact that the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil and not a military government and was run by Filipinos and not by Japanese nationals, is of no consequence. In 1806, when Napoleon occupied the greater part of Prussia, he retained the existing administration under the general direction of a french official (Langfrey History of Napoleon, 1, IV, 25); and, in the same way, the Duke of Willington, on invading France, authorized the local authorities to continue the exercise of their functions, apparently without appointing an English superior. (Wellington Despatches, XI, 307.). The Germans, on the other hand, when they invaded France in 1870, appointed their own officials, at least in Alsace and Lorraine, in every department of administration and of every rank. (Calvo, pars. 2186-93; Hall, International Law, 7th ed., p. 505, note 2.)

The so-called Republic of the Philippines, apparently established and organized as a sovereign state independent from any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth and reality, a government established by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese forces of occupation. It was of the

same character as the Philippine Executive Commission, and the ultimate source of its authority was the same — the Japanese military authority and government. As General MacArthur stated in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, a portion of which has been already quoted, "under enemy duress, a so-called government styled as the 'Republic of the Philippines' was established on October 14, 1943, based upon neither the free expression of the people's will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States." Japan had no legal power to grant independence to the Philippines or transfer the sovereignty of the United States to, or recognize the latent sovereignty of, the Filipino people, before its military occupation and possession of the Islands had matured into an absolute and permanent dominion or sovereignty by a treaty of peace or other means recognized in the law of nations. For it is a well-established doctrine in International Law, recognized in Article 45 of the Hauge Conventions of 1907 (which prohibits compulsion of the population of the occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power), the belligerent occupation, being essentially provisional, does not serve to transfer sovereignty over the territory controlled although the de jure government is during the period of occupancy deprived of the power to exercise its rights as such. (Thirty Hogshead of Sugar vs. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 191; United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheat., 246; Fleming vs. Page, 9 Howard, 603; Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U. S., 345.) The formation of the Republic of the Philippines was a scheme contrived by Japan to delude the Filipino people into believing in the apparent magnanimity of the Japanese gesture of transferring or turning over the rights of government into the hands of Filipinos. It was established under the mistaken belief that by doing so, Japan would secure the cooperation or at least the neutrality of the Filipino people in her war against the United States and other allied nations.

Indeed, even if the Republic of the Philippines had been established by the free will of the Filipino who, taking advantage of the withdrawal of the American forces from the Islands, and the occupation thereof by the Japanese forces of invasion, had organized an independent government under the name with the support and backing of Japan, such government would have been considered as one established by the Filipinos in insurrection or rebellion against the parent state or the Unite States. And as such, it would have been a de facto government similar to that organized by the confederate states during the war of secession and recognized as such by the by the Supreme Court of the United States in numerous cases, notably those of Thorington vs. Smith, Williams vs. Bruffy, and Badly vs. Hunter, above quoted; and similar to the short-lived government established by the Filipino insurgents in the Island of Cebu during the Spanish-American war, recognized as a de facto government by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of McCleod vs. United States (299 U. S., 416). According to the facts in the last-named case, the Spanish forces evacuated the Island of Cebu on December 25, 1898, having first appointed a provisional government, and shortly afterwards, the Filipinos, formerly in insurrection against Spain, took possession of the Islands and established a republic, governing the Islands until possession thereof was surrendered to the United States on February 22, 1898. And the said Supreme Court held in that case that "such government was of the class of de facto governments described in I Moore's International Law Digest, S 20, . . . 'called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force . . '." That is to say, that the government of a country in possession of belligerent forces in insurrection or rebellion against the parent state, rests upon the same principles as that of a territory occupied by the hostile army of an enemy at regular war with the legitimate power.

The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur. According to that well-known principle in international law, the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of sovereignty, "does not, except in a very few cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader, which for one reason or another it is within his competence to do. Thus judicial acts done under his control, when they are not of a political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take effect during the continuance of his control, and the various acts done during the

same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain good. Were it otherwise, the whole social life of a community would be paralyzed by an invasion; and as between the state and the individuals the evil would be scarcely less, — it would be hard for example that payment of taxes made under duress should be ignored, and it would be contrary to the general interest that the sentences passed upon criminals should be annulled by the disappearance of the intrusive government ." (Hall, International Law, 7th ed., p. 518.) And when the occupation and the abandonment have been each an incident of the same war as in the present case, postliminy applies, even though the occupant has acted as conqueror and for the time substituted his own sovereignty as the Japanese intended to do apparently in granting independence to the Philippines and establishing the so-called Republic of the Philippines. (Taylor, International Law, p. 615.)

That not only judicial but also legislative acts of de facto governments, which are not of a political complexion, are and remain valid after reoccupation of a territory occupied by a belligerent occupant, is confirmed by the Proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur on October 23, 1944, which declares null and void all laws, regulations and processes of the governments established in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, for it would not have been necessary for said proclamation to abrogate them if they were invalid ab initio.

2. The second question hinges upon the interpretation of the phrase "processes of any other government" as used in the above-quoted proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur of October 23, 1944 — that is, whether it was the intention of the Commander in Chief of the American Forces to annul and void thereby all judgments and judicial proceedings of the courts established in the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation.

The phrase "processes of any other government" is broad and may refer not only to the judicial processes, but also to administrative or legislative, as well as constitutional, processes of the Republic of the Philippines or other governmental agencies established in the Islands during the Japanese occupation. Taking into consideration the fact that, as above indicated, according to the well-known principles of international law all judgements and judicial proceedings, which are not of a political complexion, of the de facto governments during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign, it should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the intention of General Douglas MacArthur, in using the phrase "processes of any other government" in said proclamation, to refer to judicial processes, in violation of said principles of international law. The only reasonable construction of the said phrase is that it refers to governmental processes other than judicial processes of court proceedings, for according to a well-known rule of statutory construction, set forth in 25 R. C. L., p. 1028, "a statute ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains."

It is true that the commanding general of a belligerent army of occupation, as an agent of his government, may not unlawfully suspend existing laws and promulgate new ones in the occupied territory, if and when the exigencies of the military occupation demand such action. But even assuming that, under the law of nations, the legislative power of a commander in chief of military forces who liberates or reoccupies his own territory which has been occupied by an enemy, during the military and before the restoration of the civil regime, is as broad as that of the commander in chief of the military forces of invasion and occupation (although the exigencies of military reoccupation are evidently less than those of occupation), it is to be presumed that General Douglas MacArthur, who was acting as an agent or a representative of the Government and the President of the United States, constitutional commander in chief of the United States Army, did not intend to act against the principles of the law of nations asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States from the early period of its existence, applied by the Presidents of the United States, and later embodied in the Hague Conventions of 1907, as above indicated. It is not to be presumed that General Douglas MacArthur, who enjoined in the same proclamation of October 23, 1944, "upon the loyal citizens of the Philippines full respect and obedience to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines," should not only reverse the international policy and practice of his own government, but also disregard in the same breath the provisions of section 3,

Article II, of our Constitution, which provides that "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation."

Moreover, from a contrary construction great inconvenience and public hardship would result, and great public interests would be endangered and sacrificed, for disputes or suits already adjudged would have to be again settled accrued or vested rights nullified, sentences passed on criminals set aside, and criminals might easily become immune for evidence against them may have already disappeared or be no longer available, especially now that almost all court records in the Philippines have been destroyed by fire as a consequence of the war. And it is another well-established rule of statutory construction that where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words. (25 R. C. L., pp. 1025, 1027.)

The mere conception or thought of possibility that the titular sovereign or his representatives who reoccupies a territory occupied by an enemy, may set aside or annul all the judicial acts or proceedings of the tribunals which the belligerent occupant had the right and duty to establish in order to insure public order and safety during military occupation, would be sufficient to paralyze the social life of the country or occupied territory, for it would have to be expected that litigants would not willingly submit their litigation to courts whose judgements or decisions may afterwards be annulled, and criminals would not be deterred from committing crimes or offenses in the expectancy that they may escaped the penalty if judgments rendered against them may be afterwards set aside.

That the proclamation has not invalidated all the judgements and proceedings of the courts of justice during the Japanese regime, is impliedly confirmed by Executive Order No. 37, which has the force of law, issued by the President of the Philippines on March 10, 1945, by virtue of the emergency legislative power vested in him by the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Said Executive order abolished the Court of Appeals, and provided "that all case which have heretofore been duly appealed to the Court of Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court final decision." This provision impliedly recognizes that the judgments and proceedings of the courts during the Japanese military occupation have not been invalidated by the proclamation of General MacArthur of October 23, because the said Order does not say or refer to cases which have been duly appealed to said court prior to the Japanese occupation, but to cases which had therefore, that is, up to March 10, 1945, been duly appealed to the Court of Appeals; and it is to be presumed that almost all, if not all, appealed cases pending in the Court of Appeals prior to the Japanese military occupation of Manila on January 2, 1942, had been disposed of by the latter before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government in 1945; while almost all, if not all, appealed cases pending on March 10, 1945, in the Court of Appeals were from judgments rendered by the Court of First Instance during the Japanese regime.

The respondent judge quotes a portion of Wheaton's International Law which say: "Moreover when it is said that an occupier's acts are valid and under international law should not be abrogated by the subsequent conqueror, it must be remembered that no crucial instances exist to show that if his acts should be reversed, any international wrong would be committed. What does happen is that most matters are allowed to stand by the restored government, but the matter can hardly be put further than this." (Wheaton, International Law, War, 7th English edition of 1944, p. 245.) And from this quotion the respondent judge "draws the conclusion that whether the acts of the occupant should be considered valid or not, is a question that is up to the restored government to decide; that there is no rule of international law that denies to the restored government to decide; that there is no rule of international law that denies to the restored government the right of exercise its discretion on the matter, imposing upon it in its stead the obligation of recognizing and enforcing the acts of the overthrown government."

There is doubt that the subsequent conqueror has the right to abrogate most of the acts of the occupier, such as the laws, regulations and processes other than judicial of the government established by the belligerent occupant. But in view of the fact that the proclamation uses the words "processes of any other government" and not "judicial processes" prisely, it is not necessary to determine whether or not General Douglas MacArthur had power to annul and set aside all judgments and proceedings of the courts during the Japanese occupation. The question to be determined is whether or not it was his intention, as representative of the President of the United States, to avoid or nullify them. If the proclamation had, expressly or by necessary implication, declared null and void the judicial processes of any other government, it would be necessary for this court to decide in the present case whether or not General Douglas MacArthur had authority to declare them null and void. But the proclamation did not so provide, undoubtedly because the author thereof was fully aware of the limitations of his powers as Commander in Chief of Military Forces of liberation or subsequent conqueror.

Not only the Hague Regulations, but also the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public of conscience, constitute or from the law of nations. (Preamble of the Hague Conventions; Westlake, International Law, 2d ed., Part II, p. 61.) Article 43, section III, of the Hague Regulations or Conventions which we have already quoted in discussing the first question, imposes upon the occupant the obligation to establish courts; and Article 23 (h), section II, of the same Conventions, which prohibits the belligerent occupant "to declare . . . suspended . . . in a Court of Law the rights and action of the nationals of the hostile party," forbids him to make any declaration preventing the inhabitants from using their courts to assert or enforce their civil rights. (Decision of the Court of Appeals of England in the case of Porter vs. Fruedenburg, L.R. [1915], 1 K.B., 857.) If a belligerent occupant is required to establish courts of justice in the territory occupied, and forbidden to prevent the nationals thereof from asserting or enforcing therein their civil rights, by necessary implication, the military commander of the forces of liberation or the restored government is restrained from nullifying or setting aside the judgments rendered by said courts in their litigation during the period of occupation. Otherwise, the purpose of these precepts of the Hague Conventions would be thwarted, for to declare them null and void would be tantamount to suspending in said courts the right and action of the nationals of the territory during the military occupation thereof by the enemy. It goes without saying that a law that enjoins a person to do something will not at the same time empower another to undo the same. Although the question whether the President or commanding officer of the United States Army has violated restraints imposed by the constitution and laws of his country is obviously of a domestic nature, yet, in construing and applying limitations imposed on the executive authority, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Ochoa, vs. Hernandez (230 U.S., 139), has declared that they "arise from general rules of international law and from fundamental principles known wherever the American flag flies."

In the case of Raymond vs. Thomas (91 U.S., 712), a special order issued by the officer in command of the forces of the United States in South Carolina after the end of the Civil War, wholly annulling a decree rendered by a court of chancery in that state in a case within its jurisdiction, was declared void, and not warranted by the acts approved respectively March 2, 1867 (14 Stat., 428), and July 19 of the same year (15 id., 14), which defined the powers and duties of military officers in command of the several states then lately in rebellion. In the course of its decision the court said; "We have looked carefully through the acts of March 2, 1867 and July 19, 1867. They give very large governmental powers to the military commanders designated, within the States committed respectively to their jurisdiction; but we have found nothing to warrant the order here in question. . . . The clearest language would be necessary to satisfy us that Congress intended that the power given by these acts should be so exercised. . . . It was an arbitrary stretch of authority, needful to no good end that can be imagined. Whether Congress could have conferred the power to do such an act is a question we are not called upon to consider. It is an unbending rule of law that the exercise of military power, where the rights of the citizen are concerned, shall never be pushed beyond what the exigency requires. (Mithell vs. Harmony, 13 How., 115; Warden vs. Bailey, 4 Taunt., 67; Fabrigas vs. Moysten, 1 Cowp., 161; s.c., 1 Smith's L.C., pt. 2, p. 934.) Viewing the subject before us from the standpoint indicated, we hold that the order was void."

It is, therefore, evident that the proclamation of General MacArthur of October 23, 1944, which declared that "all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control," has not invalidated the judicial acts and proceedings, which are not a political complexion, of the courts of justice in the Philippines that were continued by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation, and that said judicial acts and proceedings were good and valid before and now good and valid after the reoccupation of liberation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces.

3. The third and last question is whether or not the courts of the Commonwealth, which are the same as those existing prior to, and continued during, the Japanese military occupation by the Philippine Executive Commission and by the so-called Republic of the Philippines, have jurisdiction to continue now the proceedings in actions pending in said courts at the time the Philippine Islands were reoccupied or liberated by the American and Filipino forces, and the Commonwealth Government was restored.

Although in theory the authority the authority of the local civil and judicial administration is suspended as a matter of course as soon as military occupation takes place, in practice the invader does not usually take the administration of justice into his own hands, but continues the ordinary courts or tribunals to administer the laws of the country which he is enjoined, unless absolutely prevented, to respect. As stated in the above-quoted Executive Order of President McKinley to the Secretary of War on May 19, 1898, "in practice, they (the municipal laws) are not usually abrogated but are allowed to remain in force and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals substantially as they were before the occupation. This enlightened practice is, so far as possible, to be adhered to on the present occasion." And Taylor in this connection says: "From a theoretical point of view it may be said that the conqueror is armed with the right to substitute his arbitrary will for all preexisting forms of government, legislative, executive and judicial. From the stand-point of actual practice such arbitrary will is restrained by the provision of the law of nations which compels the conqueror to continue local laws and institution so far as military necessity will permit." (Taylor, International Public Law, p.596.) Undoubtedly, this practice has been adopted in order that the ordinary pursuits and business of society may not be unnecessarily deranged, inasmuch as belligerent occupation is essentially provisional, and the government established by the occupant of transient character.

Following these practice and precepts of the law of nations, Commander in Chief of the Japanese Forces proclaimed on January 3, 1942, when Manila was occupied, the military administration under martial law over the territory occupied by the army, and ordered that "all the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and judicial institutions, shall continue to be affective for the time being as in the past," and "all public officials shall remain in their present post and carry on faithfully their duties as before." When the Philippine Executive Commission was organized by Order No. 1 of the Japanese Commander in Chief, on January 23, 1942, the Chairman of the Executive Commission, by Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 4 of January 30 and February 5, respectively, continued the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of First Instance, and justices of the peace of courts, with the same jurisdiction in conformity with the instructions given by the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Army in Order No. 3 of February 20, 1942. And on October 14, 1943 when the so-called Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated, the same courts were continued with no substantial change in organization and jurisdiction thereof.

If the proceedings pending in the different courts of the Islands prior to the Japanese military occupation had been continued during the Japanese military administration, the Philippine Executive Commission, and the so-called Republic of the Philippines, it stands to reason that the same courts, which had become reestablished and conceived of as having in continued existence upon the reoccupation and liberation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminy (Hall, International Law, 7th ed., p. 516), may continue the proceedings in cases then pending in said courts, without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings. As Taylor graphically points out in speaking of said

principles "a state or other governmental entity, upon the removal of a foreign military force, resumes its old place with its right and duties substantially unimpaired. . . . Such political resurrection is the result of a law analogous to that which enables elastic bodies to regain their original shape upon removal of the external force, — and subject to the same exception in case of absolute crushing of the whole fibre and content." (Taylor, International Public Law, p. 615.)

The argument advanced by the respondent judge in his resolution in support in his conclusion that the Court of First Instance of Manila presided over by him "has no authority to take cognizance of, and continue said proceedings (of this case) to final judgment until and unless the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines . . . shall have provided for the transfer of the jurisdiction of the courts of the now defunct Republic of the Philippines, and the cases commenced and the left pending therein," is "that said courts were a government alien to the Commonwealth Government. The laws they enforced were, true enough, laws of the Commonwealth prior to Japanese occupation, but they had become the laws — and the courts had become the institutions — of Japan by adoption (U.S. vs. Reiter. 27 F. Cases, No. 16146), as they became later on the laws and institutions of the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines."

The court in the said case of U.S. vs. Reiter did not and could not say that the laws and institutions of the country occupied if continued by the conqueror or occupant, become the laws and the courts, by adoption, of the sovereign nation that is militarily occupying the territory. Because, as already shown, belligerent or military occupation is essentially provisional and does not serve to transfer the sovereignty over the occupied territory to the occupant. What the court said was that, if such laws and institutions are continued in use by the occupant, they become his and derive their force from him, in the sense that he may continue or set them aside. The laws and institution or courts so continued remain the laws and institutions or courts of the occupied territory. The laws and the courts of the Philippines, therefore, did not become, by being continued as required by the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan. The provision of Article 45, section III, of the Hague Conventions of 1907 which prohibits any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power, "extends to prohibit everything which would assert or imply a change made by the invader in the legitimate sovereignty. This duty is neither to innovate in the political life of the occupied districts, nor needlessly to break the continuity of their legal life. Hence, so far as the courts of justice are allowed to continue administering the territorial laws, they must be allowed to give their sentences in the name of the legitimate sovereign " (Westlake, Int. Law, Part II, second ed., p. 102). According to Wheaton, however, the victor need not allow the use of that of the legitimate government. When in 1870, the Germans in France attempted to violate that rule by ordering, after the fall of the Emperor Napoleon, the courts of Nancy to administer justice in the name of the "High German Powers occupying Alsace and Lorraine," upon the ground that the exercise of their powers in the name of French people and government was at least an implied recognition of the Republic, the courts refused to obey and suspended their sitting. Germany originally ordered the use of the name of "High German Powers occupying Alsace and Lorraine," but later offered to allow use of the name of the Emperor or a compromise. (Wheaton, International Law, War, 7th English ed. 1944, p. 244.)

Furthermore, it is a legal maxim, that excepting that of a political nature, "Law once established continues until changed by the some competent legislative power. It is not change merely by change of sovereignty." (Joseph H. Beale, Cases on Conflict of Laws, III, Summary Section 9, citing Commonwealth vs. Chapman, 13 Met., 68.) As the same author says, in his Treatise on the Conflict on Laws (Cambridge, 1916, Section 131): "There can no break or interregnum in law. From the time the law comes into existence with the first-felt corporateness of a primitive people it must last until the final disappearance of human society. Once created, it persists until a change take place, and when changed it continues in such changed condition until the next change, and so forever. Conquest or colonization is impotent to bring law to an end; in spite of change of constitution, the law continues unchanged until the new sovereign by legislative acts creates a change."

As courts are creatures of statutes and their existence defends upon that of the laws which create and confer upon them their jurisdiction, it is evident that such laws, not being a political nature, are not abrogated by a change of sovereignty, and continue in force "ex proprio vigore" unless and until repealed by legislative acts. A proclamation that said laws and courts are expressly continued is not necessary in order that they may continue in force. Such proclamation, if made, is but a declaration of the intention of respecting and not repealing those laws. Therefore, even assuming that Japan had legally acquired sovereignty over these Islands, which she had afterwards transferred to the so-called Republic of the Philippines, and that the laws and the courts of these Islands had become the courts of Japan, as the said courts of the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until now, it necessarily follows that the same courts may continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, unless and until they are abolished or the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said government. As a consequence, enabling laws or acts providing that proceedings pending in one court be continued by or transferred to another court, are not required by the mere change of government or sovereignty. They are necessary only in case the former courts are abolished or their jurisdiction so change that they can no longer continue taking cognizance of the cases and proceedings commenced therein, in order that the new courts or the courts having jurisdiction over said cases may continue the proceedings. When the Spanish sovereignty in the Philippine Islands ceased and the Islands came into the possession of the United States, the "Audiencia" or Supreme Court was continued and did not cease to exist, and proceeded to take cognizance of the actions pending therein upon the cessation of the Spanish sovereignty until the said "Audiencia" or Supreme Court was abolished, and the Supreme Court created in Chapter II of Act No. 136 was substituted in lieu thereof. And the Courts of First Instance of the Islands during the Spanish regime continued taking cognizance of cases pending therein upon the change of sovereignty, until section 65 of the same Act No. 136 abolished them and created in its Chapter IV the present Courts of First Instance in substitution of the former. Similarly, no enabling acts were enacted during the Japanese occupation, but a mere proclamation or order that the courts in the Island were continued.

On the other hand, during the American regime, when section 78 of Act No. 136 was enacted abolishing the civil jurisdiction of the provost courts created by the military government of occupation in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War of 1898, the same section 78 provided for the transfer of all civil actions then pending in the provost courts to the proper tribunals, that is, to the justices of the peace courts, Court of First Instance, or Supreme Court having jurisdiction over them according to law. And later on, when the criminal jurisdiction of provost courts in the City of Manila was abolished by section 3 of Act No. 186, the same section provided that criminal cases pending therein within the jurisdiction of the municipal court created by Act No. 183 were transferred to the latter.

That the present courts as the same courts which had been functioning during the Japanese regime and, therefore, can continue the proceedings in cases pending therein prior to the restoration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, is confirmed by Executive Order No. 37 which we have already quoted in support of our conclusion in connection with the second question. Said Executive Order provides"(1) that the Court of Appeals created and established under Commonwealth Act No. 3 as amended, be abolished, as it is hereby abolished," and "(2) that all cases which have heretofore been duly appealed to the Court of Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final decision. . . ." In so providing, the said Order considers that the Court of Appeals abolished was the same that existed prior to, and continued after, the restoration of the Commonwealth Government; for, as we have stated in discussing the previous question, almost all, if not all, of the cases pending therein, or which had theretofore (that is, up to March 10, 1945) been duly appealed to said court, must have been cases coming from the Courts of First Instance during the so-called Republic of the Philippines. If the Court of Appeals abolished by the said Executive Order was not the same one which had been functioning during the Republic, but that which had existed up to the time of the Japanese occupation, it would have provided that all the cases which had, prior to and up to that occupation on January 2, 1942, been dully appealed to the said Court of Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final decision.

It is, therefore, obvious that the present courts have jurisdiction to continue, to final judgment, the proceedings in cases, not of political complexion, pending therein at the time of the restoration of the Commonwealth Government.

Having arrived at the above conclusions, it follows that the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case No. 3012, which involves civil rights of the parties under the laws of the Commonwealth Government, pending in said court at the time of the restoration of the said Government; and that the respondent judge of the court, having refused to act and continue him does a duty resulting from his office as presiding judge of that court, mandamus is the speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, especially taking into consideration the fact that the question of jurisdiction herein involved does affect not only this particular case, but many other cases now pending in all the courts of these Islands.

In view of all the foregoing it is adjudged and decreed that a writ of mandamus issue, directed to the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case No. 3012 of said court. No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla and Pablo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

DE JOYA, J., concurring:

The principal question involved in this case is the validity of the proceedings held in civil case No. 3012, in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, under the now defunct Philippine Republic, during Japanese occupation; and the effect on said proceedings of the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur, dated October 23, 1944. The decision of this question requires the application of principles of International Law, in connection with the municipal law in force in this country, before and during Japanese occupation.

Questions of International Law must be decided as matters of general law (Juntington vs. Attril, 146 U.S., 657; 13 Sup. Ct. 224; 36 Law. ed., 1123); and International Law is no alien in this Tribunal, as, under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, it is a part of the fundamental law of the land (Article II, section 3).

As International Law is an integral part of our laws, it must be ascertained and administered by this Court, whenever questions of right depending upon it are presented for our determination, sitting as an international as well as a domestic Tribunal (Kansas vs. Colorado, 185 U.S., 146; 22 Sup. Ct. 552; 46 Law. Ed., 838).

Since International Law is a body of rules actually accepted by nations as regulating their mutual relations, the proof of the existence of a given rule is to be found in the consent of nations to abide by that rule; and this consent is evidenced chiefly by the usages and customs of nations, and to

ascertain what these usages and customs are, the universal practice is to turn to the writings of publicists and to the decisions of the highest courts of the different countries of the world (The Habana, 175 U.S., 677; 20 Sup. Cit., 290; 44 Law. ed., 320).

But while usage is the older and original source of International Law, great international treaties are a later source of increasing importance, such as The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The Hague Conventions of 1899, respecting laws and customs of war on land, expressly declares that:

ARTICLE XLII. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation applies only to be territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.

ARTICLE XLIII. The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the later shall take all steps in his power to reestablish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. (32 Stat. II, 1821.)

The above provisions of the Hague Convention have been adopted by the nations giving adherence to them, among which is United States of America (32 Stat. II, 1821).

The commander in chief of the invading forces or military occupant may exercise governmental authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy's territory, and this authority will be exercised upon principles of international Law (New Orleans vs. Steamship Co, [1874], 20 Wall., 387; Kelly vs. Sanders [1878], 99 U.S., 441; MacLeod vs. U.S., 229 U.S. 416; 33 Sup. Ct., 955; 57 Law Ed., 1260; II Oppenheim of International Law, section 167).

There can be no question that the Philippines was under Japanese military occupation, from January, 1942, up to the time of the reconquest by the armed forces of the United States of the Island of Luzon, in February, 1945.

It will thus be readily seen that the civil laws of the invaded State continue in force, in so far as they do not affect the hostile occupant unfavorably. The regular judicial Tribunals of the occupied territory continue usual for the invader to take the whole administration into his own hands, partly because it is easier to preserve order through the agency of the native officials, and partly because it is easier to preserve order through the agency of the native officials, and partly because the latter are more competent to administer the laws in force within the territory and the military occupant generally keeps in their posts such of the judicial and administrative officers as are willing to serve under him, subjecting them only to supervision by the military authorities, or by superior civil authorities appointed by him.(Young vs. U.S., 39; 24 Law, ed., 992; Coleman vs. Tennessee, 97 U.S., 509; 24 Law ed., 1118; MacLeod vs. U.S., 229 U.S., 416; 33 Sup. Ct., 955; 57 Law. ed., 1260; Taylor on International Law, sections 576. 578; Wilson on International Law; pp. 331-37; Hall on International Law, 6th Edition [1909], pp. 464, 465, 475, 476; Lawrence on International Law, 7th ed., pp. 412, 413; Davis, Elements of International Law, 3rd ed., pp. 330-332 335; Holland on International Law pp. 356, 357, 359; Westlake on International Law, 2d ed., pp. 121-23.)

It is, therefore, evident that the establishment of the government under the so-called Philippine Republic, during Japanese occupation, respecting the laws in force in the country, and permitting the local courts to function and administer such laws, as proclaimed in the City of Manila, by the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Imperial Forces, on January 3, 1942, was in accordance with the rules and principles of International Law.

If the military occupant is thus in duly bound to establish in the territory under military occupation governmental agencies for the preservation of peace and order and for the proper administration of justice, in accordance with the laws in force within territory it must necessarily follow that the judicial proceedings conducted before the courts established by the military occupant must be considered legal and valid, even after said government establish by the military occupant has been displaced by the legitimate government of the territory.

Thus the judgments rendered by the Confederate Courts, during the American Civil War, merely settling the rights of private parties actually within their jurisdiction, not tending to defeat the legal rights of citizens of the United States, nor in furtherance of laws passed in aid of the rebellion had been declared valid and binding (Cock vs. Oliver, 1 Woods, 437; Fed. Cas., No. 3, 164; Coleman vs. Tennessee, 97 U. S., 509; 24 Law. ed., 118; Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U. S., 176; Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570; Sprott vs. United States, 20 id., 459; Texas vs. White, 7 id., 700; Ketchum vs. Buckley [1878], 99 U.S., 188); and the judgment of a court of Georgia rendered in November, 1861, for the purchase money of slaves was held valid judgment when entered, and enforceable in 1871(French vs. Tumlin, 10 Am. Law. Reg. [N.S.], 641; Fed. Case, No. 5104).

Said judgments rendered by the courts of the states constituting the Confederate States of America were considered legal and valid and enforceable, even after the termination of the American Civil War, because they had been rendered by the courts of a de facto government. The Confederate States were a de facto government in the sense that its citizens were bound to render the government obedience in civil matters, and did not become responsible, as wrong-doers, for such acts of obedience (Thorington vs. Smith, 8 Wall. [U.S.], 9; 19 Law. ed., 361).

In the case of Ketchum vs. Buckley ([1878], 99 U.S., 188), the Court held — "It is now settled law in this court that during the late civil war the same general form of government, the same general law for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights, which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the acts of the States did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the just and legal rights of the citizens, under the Constitution, they are in general to be treated as valid and binding." (William vs. Bruffy, 96 U.S., 176; Horn vs. Lockhart, 17 Wall., 570; Sprott vs. United States, 20 id., 459; Texas vs. White, 7 id., 700.)

The government established in the Philippines, during Japanese occupation, would seem to fall under the following definition of de facto government given by the Supreme Court of the United States:

But there is another description of government, called also by publicists, a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominateda government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrong doers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual government of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force. (Macleod vs. United States [1913] 229 U.S., 416.)

The government established in the Philippines, under the so-called Philippine Republic, during Japanese occupation, was and should be considered as a de facto government; and that the judicial proceedings conducted before the courts which had been established in this country, during said Japanese occupation, are to be considered legal and valid and enforceable, even after the liberation of this country by the American forces, as long as the said judicial proceedings had been conducted, under the laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

The judicial proceedings involved in the case under consideration merely refer to the settlement of property rights, under the provisions of the Civil Code, in force in this country under the Commonwealth government, before and during Japanese occupation.

Now, petitioner contends that the judicial proceedings in question are null and void, under the provisions of the proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur, dated October 23, 1944; as said proclamation "nullifies all the laws, regulations and processes of any other government of the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth of the Philippines."

In other words, petitioner demands a literal interpretation of said proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur, a contention which, in our opinion, is untenable, as it would inevitably produce judicial chaos and uncertainties.

When an act is susceptible of two or more constructions, one of which will maintain and the others destroy it, the courts will always adopt the former (U. S. vs. Coombs [1838], 12 Pet., 72; 9 Law. ed., 1004; Board of Supervisors of Granada County vs. Brown [1884], 112 U.S., 261; 28 Law. ed., 704; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep., 125; In re Guarina [1913], 24 Phil., 37; Fuentes vs. Director of Prisons [1924], 46 Phil., 385). The judiciary, always alive to the dictates of national welfare, can properly incline the scales of its decisions in favor of that solution which will most effectively promote the public policy (Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. vs. Natividad [1919], 40 Phil., 136). All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not lead to injustice, oppression or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter (U. S. vs. Kirby, 7 Wall. [U.S.], 482; 19 Law. ed., 278; Church of Holy Trinity vs. U. S., 143 U. S. 461; 12 Sup. Ct., 511; 36 Law. ed., 226; Jacobson vs. Massachussetts, 197 U. S., 39; 25 Sup. Ct., 358; 49 Law. ed., 643; 3 Ann. Cas., 765; In re Allen, 2 Phil., 630). The duty of the court in construing a statute, which is reasonably susceptible of two constructions to adopt that which saves is constitutionality, includes the duty of avoiding a construction which raises grave and doubtful constitutional questions, if it can be avoided (U. S. vs. Delaware & Hudson Co., U.S., 366; 29 Sup. Ct., 527; 53 Law. ed., 836).

According to the rules and principles of International Law, and the legal doctrines cited above, the judicial proceedings conducted before the courts of justice, established here during Japanese military occupation, merely applying the municipal law of the territory, such as the provisions of our Civil Code, which have no political or military significance, should be considered legal, valid and binding.

It is to be presumed that General Douglas MacArthur is familiar with said rules and principles, as International Law is an integral part of the fundamental law of the land, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. And it is also to be presumed that General MacArthur his acted, in accordance with said rules and principles of International Law, which have been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, as the nullification of all judicial proceedings conducted before our courts, during Japanese occupation would lead to injustice and absurd results, and would be highly detrimental to the public interests.

For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the majority opinion.

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

Law must be obeyed. To keep the bonds of society, it must not be evaded. On its supremacy depends the stability of states and nations. No government can prevail without it. The preservation of the human race itself hinges in law.

Since time immemorial, man has relied on law as an essential means of attaining his purposes, his objectives, his mission in life. More than twenty-two centuries before the Christian Era, on orders of the Assyrian King Hammurabi, the first code was engrave in black diorite with cunie form characters. Nine centuries later Emperor Hung Wu, in the cradle of the most ancient civilization, compiled the Code of the Great Ming. The laws of Manu were written in the verdic India. Moses received at Sinai the ten commandments. Draco, Lycurgus, Solon made laws in Greece. Even ruthless Genghis Khan used laws to keep discipline among the nomad hordes with which he conquered the greater part of the European and Asiastic continents.

Animal and plants species must follow the mendelian heredity rules and other biological laws to survive. Thanks to them, the chalk cliffs of the infusoria show the marvel of an animal so tiny as to be imperceptible to the naked eye creating a whole mountain. Even the inorganic world has to conform the law. Planets and stars follow the laws discovered by Kepler, known as the law-maker of heavens. If, endowed with rebellious spirit, they should happen to challenge the law of universal gravity, the immediate result would be cosmic chaos. The tiny and twinkling points of light set above us on the velvet darkness of the night will cease to inspire us with dreams of more beautiful and happier worlds.

Again we are called upon to do our duty. Here is a law that we must apply. Shall we shrink? Shall we circumvent it ? Can we ignore it?

The laws enacted by the legislators shall be useless if courts are not ready to apply them. It is actual application to real issues which gives laws the breath of life.

In the varied and confused market of human endeavor there are so many things that might induce us to forget the elementals. There are so many events, so many problem, so many preoccupations that are pushing among themselves to attract our attention, and we might miss the nearest and most familiar things, like the man who went around his house to look for a pencil perched on one of his ears.

THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION

In October, 1944, the American Armed Forces of Liberation landed successfully in Leyte.

When victory in islands was accomplished, after the most amazing and spectacular war operations, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur as a commander in Chief of the American Army, decided to reestablish, in behalf of the United States, the Commonwealth Government.

Then he was confronted with the question as to what policy to adopt in regards to the official acts of the governments established in the Philippines by the Japanese regime. He might have thought of recognizing the validity of some of said acts, but, certainly, there were acts which he should

declare null and void, whether against the policies of the American Government, whether inconsistent with military strategy and operations, whether detrimental to the interests of the American or Filipino peoples, whether for any other strong or valid reasons.

But, which to recognize, and which not? He was not in a position to gather enough information for a safe basis to distinguished and classify which acts must be nullified, and which must validated. At the same time he had to take immediate action. More pressing military matters were requiring his immediate attention. He followed the safe course: to nullify all the legislative, executive, and judicial acts and processes under the Japanese regime. After all, when the Commonwealth Government is already functioning, with proper information, he will be in a position to declare by law, through its Congress, which acts and processes must be revived and validated in the public interest.

So on October 23, 1944, the Commander in Chief issued the following proclamation:

GENERAL HEADQUARTERS

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA

OFFICE OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF

PROCLAMATION

To the People of the Philippines:

WHEREAS, the military forces under my command have landed in the Philippines soil as a prelude to the liberation of the entire territory of the Philippines; and

WHEREAS, the seat of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines has been re-established in the Philippines under President Sergio Osmeña and the members of his cabinet; and

WHEREAS, under enemy duress, a so-called government styled as the "Republic of the Philippines" was established on October 14, 1943, based upon neither the free expression of the people's will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States, and is purporting to exercise Executive, Judicial and Legislative powers of government over the people;

Now, therefore, I, Douglas MacArthur, General, United States Army, as Commander in Chief of the military forces committed to the liberation of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim and declare:

1. That the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines is, subject to the supreme authority of the Government of the United States, the sole and the only government having legal and valid jurisdiction over the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control;

2. The laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the regulation promulgated pursuant thereto are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and

3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free enemy occupation and control; and

I do hereby announce my purpose progressively to restore and extend to the people of the Philippines the sacred right of government by constitutional process under the regularly constituted Commonwealth Government as rapidly as the several occupied areas are liberated to the military situation will otherwise permit;

I do enjoin upon all loyal citizens of the Philippines full respect for and obedience to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the laws, regulations and other acts of their duly constituted government whose seat is now firmly re-established on Philippine soil.

October 23, 1944.

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR General U. S. Army Commander in Chief

IS THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION LAW?

In times of war the Commander in Chief of an army is vested with extraordinary inherent powers, as a natural result of the nature of the military operations aimed to achieve the purposes of his country in the war, victory being paramount among them.

Said Commander in Chief may establish in the occupied or reoccupied territory, under his control, a complete system of government; he may appoint officers and employees to manage the affairs of said government; he may issue proclamations, instructions, orders, all with the full force of laws enacted by a duly constituted legislature; he may set policies that should be followed by the public administration organized by him; he may abolish the said agencies. In fact, he is the supreme ruler and law-maker of the territory under his control, with powers limited only by the receipts of the fundamental laws of his country.

California, or the port of San Francisco, had been conquered by the arms of the United States as early as 1846. Shortly afterward the United States had military possession of all upper California. Early in 1847 the President, as constitutional commander in chief of the army and navy, authorized the military and naval commander of our forces in California to exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror, and form a civil government for the conquered country, and to impose duties on imports and tonnage as military contributions for the support of the government, and of the army which has the conquest in possession. . . Cross of Harrison, 16 Howard, 164, 189.)

In May, 1862, after the capture of New Orleans by the United States Army, General Butler, then in command of the army at that place, issued a general order appointing Major J. M. Bell, volunteer aide-de-camp, of the division staff, provost judge of the city, and directed that he should be obeyed and respected accordingly. The same order appointed Capt. J. H. French provost marshal of the city, the Capt. Stafford deputy provost marshal. A few days after this order the Union Bank lent to the plaintiffs the sum of $130,000, and subsequently, the loan not having been repaid, brought suit before the provost judge to recover the debt. The defense was taken that the judge had no jurisdiction over the civil cases, but judgement was given against the borrowers, and they paid the money under protest. To recover it back is the object of the present suit, and the contention of the plaintiffs is that the judgement was illegal and void, because the Provost Court had no jurisdiction of the case. The judgement of the District Court was against the plaintiffs, and this judgement was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. To this affirmance error is now assigned.

The argument of the plaintiffs in error is that the establishment of the Provost Court, the appointment of the judge, and his action as such in the case brought by the Union Bank against them were invalid, because in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which vests the judicial power of the General government in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, and under this constitutional provision they were entitled to immunity from liability imposed by the judgment of the Provost Court. Thus, it is claimed, a Federal question is presented, and the highest court of the State having decided against the immunity claimed, our jurisdiction is invoked.

Assuming that the case is thus brought within our right to review it, the controlling question is whether the commanding general of the army which captured New Orleans and held it in May 1862, had authority after the capture of the city to establish a court and appoint a judge with power to try and adjudicate civil causes. Did the Constitution of the United States prevent the creation of the civil courts in captured districts during the war of the rebellion, and their creation by military authority?

This cannot be said to be an open question. The subject came under the consideration by this court in The Grapeshot, where it was decided that when, during the late civil war, portions of the insurgent territory were occupied by the National forces, it was within the constitutional authority of the President, as commander in chief, to establish therein provisional courts for the hearing and determination of all causes arising under the laws of the States or of the United States, and it was ruled that a court instituted by President Lincoln for the State of Louisiana, with authority to hear, try, and determine civil causes, was lawfully authorized to exercise such jurisdiction. Its establishment by the military authority was held to be no violation of the constitutional provision that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may form time to time ordain and establish." That clause of the Constitution has no application to the abnormal condition of conquered territory in the occupancy of the conquering, army. It refers only to courts of United States, which military courts are not. As was said in the opinion of the court, delivered by Chief Justice Chase, in The Grapeshot, "It became the duty of the National government, wherever the insurgent power was overthrown, and the territory which had been dominated by it was occupied by the National forces, to provide, as far as possible, so long as the war continued, for the security of the persons and property and for the administration of justice. The duty of the National government in this respect was no other than that which devolves upon a regular belligerent, occupying during war the territory of another belligerent. It was a military duty, to be performed by the President, as Commander in Chief, and instructed as such with the direction of the military force by which the occupation was held."

Thus it has been determined that the power to establish by military authority courts for the administration of civil as well as criminal justice in portions of the insurgent States occupied by the National forces, is precisely the same as that which exists when foreign territory has been

conquered and is occupied by the conquerors. What that power is has several times been considered. In Leitensdorfer & Houghton vs. Webb, may be found a notable illustration. Upon the conquest of New Mexico, in 1846, the commanding officer of the conquering army, in virtue of the power of conquest and occupancy, and with the sanction and authority of the President, ordained a provisional government for the country. The ordinance created courts, with both civil and criminal jurisdiction. It did not undertake to change the municipal laws of the territory, but it established a judicial system with a superior or appellate court, and with circuit courts, the jurisdiction of which declared to embrace, first, all criminal causes that should not otherwise provided for by law; and secondly, original and exclusive cognizance of all civil cases not cognizable before the prefects and alcades. But though these courts and this judicial system were established by the military authority of the United States, without any legislation of Congress, this court ruled that they were lawfully established. And there was no express order for their establishment emanating from the President or the Commander in Chief. The ordinance was the act of the General Kearney the commanding officer of the army occupying the conquered territory.

In view of these decisions it is not to be questioned that the Constitution did not prohibit the creation by the military authority of court for the trial of civil causes during the civil war in conquered portions of the insurgent States. The establishment of such courts is but the exercise of the ordinary rights of conquest. The plaintiffs in error, therefore, had no constitutional immunity against subjection to the judgements of such courts. They argue, however, that if this be conceded, still General Butler had no authority to establish such a court; that the President alone, as a Commander in Chief, had such authority. We do not concur in this view. General Butler was in command of the conquering and the occupying army. He was commissioned to carry on the war in Louisina. He was, therefore, invested with all the powers of making war, so far as they were denied to him by the Commander in Chief, and among these powers, as we have seen, was of establishing courts in conquered territory. It must be presumed that he acted under the orders of his superior officer, the President, and that his acts, in the prosecution of the war, were the acts of his commander in chief. (Mechanics' etc. Bank vs. Union Bank, 89 U. S. [22 Wall.], 276-298.)

There is no question, therefore, that when General of the Army Douglas MacArthur issued on October Proclamation, he did it in the legitimate exercise of his powers. He did it as the official representative of the supreme authority of the United States of America. Consequently, said proclamation is legal, valid, and binding.

Said proclamation has the full force of a law. In fact, of a paramount law. Having been issued in the exercise of the American sovereignty, in case of conflict, it can even supersede, not only the ordinary laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, but also our Constitution itself while we remain under the American flag.

"PROCESS" IN THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION

In the third section of the dispositive part of the October Proclamation, it is declared that all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth, are null and void.

Does the word "processes" used in the proclamation include judicial processes?

In its broadest sense, process is synonymous with proceedings or procedures and embraces all the steps and proceedings in a judicial cause from it commencement to its conclusion.

PROCESS. In Practice. — The means of compelling a defendant to appear in court after suing out the original writ, in civil, and after indictment, in criminal cases.

The method taken by law to compel a compliance with the original writ or command as of the court.

A writ, warrant, subpoena, or other formal writing issued by authority law; also the means of accomplishing an end, including judicial proceedings; Gollobitch vs. Rainbow, 84 la., 567; 51 N. W., 48; the means or method pointed out by a statute, or used to acquire jurisdiction of the defendants, whether by writ or notice. Wilson vs. R. Co. (108 Mo., 588; 18 S. W., 286; 32 Am. St. Rep., 624). (3 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 2731.)

A. Process generally. 1. Definition. — As a legal term process is a generic word of every comprehensive signification and many meanings. It is broadest sense it is equivalent to, or synonymous with, "proceedings" or "procedure," and embraces all the steps and proceedings in a cause from its commencement to its conclusion. Sometimes the term is also broadly defined as the means whereby a court compels a compliance with it demands. "Process" and "writ" or "writs" are synonymous in the sense that every writ is a process, and in a narrow sense of the term "process" is limited to judicial writs in an action, or at least to writs or writings issued from or out of court, under the seal thereof, and returnable thereto; but it is not always necessary to construe the term so strictly as to limit it to a writ issued by a court in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction; the term is sometimes defined as a writ or other formal writing issued by authority of law or by some court, body, or official having authority to issue it; and it is frequently used to designate a means, by writ or otherwise , of acquiring jurisdiction of defendant or his property, or of bringing defendant into, or compelling him to appear in, court to answer.

As employed in the statutes the legal meaning of the word "process" varies according to the context, subject matter, and spirit of the statute in which it occurs. In some jurisdictions codes or statutes variously define "process" as signifying or including: A writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings; all writs, warrants, summonses, and orders of courts of justice or judicial officers; or any writ, declaration, summons, order, or subpoena whereby any action, suit or proceeding shall be commenced, or which shall be issued in or upon any action, suit or proceeding. (50 C. J., PP. 441, 442.)

The definition of "process" given by Lord Coke comprehends any lawful warrant, authority, or proceeding by which a man may be arrested. He says: "Process of law is two fold, namely, by the King's writ, or by proceeding and warrant, either in deed or in law, without writ." (People vs. Nevins [N. Y.] Hill, 154, 169, 170; State vs. Shaw, 50 A., 869; 73 Vt., 149.)

Baron Comyn says that process, in a large acceptance, comprehends the whole proceedings after the original and before judgement; but generally it imports the writs which issue out of any court to bring the party to answer, or for doing execution, and all process out of the King's court ought to be in the name of the King. It is called "process" because it proceeds or goes upon former matter, either original or judicial. Gilmer, vs. Bird 15 Fla., 410, 421. (34 Words and Phrases, permanent edition, 1940 edition, p. 147.)

In a broad sense the word "process" includes the means whereby a court compels the appearance of the defendant before it, or a compliance with it demands, and any every writ, rule order, notice, or decree, including any process of execution that may issue in or upon any action, suit, or legal proceedings, and it is not restricted to mesne process. In a narrow or restricted sense it is means those mandates of the court

intending to bring parties into court or to require them to answer proceedings there pending. (Colquitt Nat. Bank vs. Poitivint, 83 S. E., 198, 199; 15 Ga. App., 329. (34 Words and Phrases, permanent edition, 1940 edition, p. 148.)

A "process" is an instrument in an epistolary from running in the name of the sovereign of a state and issued out of a court of justice, or by a judge thereof, at the commencement of an action or at any time during its progress or incident thereto, usually under seal of the court, duly attested and directed to some municipal officer or to the party to be bound by it, commanding the commission of some act at or within a specified time, or prohibiting the doing of some act. The cardinal requisites are that the instrument issue from a court of justice, or a judge thereof; that it run in the name of the sovereign of the state; that it be duly attested, but not necessarily by the judge, though usually, but not always, under seal; and that it be directed to some one commanding or prohibiting the commission of an act. Watson vs. Keystone Ironworks Co., 74 P., 272, 273; 70 Kan., 43. (34 Words and Phrases, permanent edition, 1940 edition, p. 148.)

Jacobs in his Law Dictionary says: "Process" has two qualifications: First, it is largely taken for all proceedings in any action or prosecution, real or personal, civil or criminal, from the beginning to the end; secondly, that is termed the "process" by which a man is called into any temporal court, because the beginning or principal part thereof, by which the rest is directed or taken. Strictly, it is a proceeding after the original, before the judgement. A policy of fire insurance contained the condition that if the property shall be sold or transferred, or any change takes place in title or possession, whether by legal process or judicial decree or voluntary transfer or convenience, then and in every such case the policy shall be void. The term "legal process," as used in the policy, means what is known as a writ; and, as attachment or execution on the writs are usually employed to effect a change of title to property, they are or are amongst the processes contemplated by the policy. The words "legal process" mean all the proceedings in an action or proceeding. They would necessarily embrace the decree, which ordinarily includes the proceedings. Perry vs. Lorillard Fire Ins. Co., N. Y., 6 Lans., 201, 204. See, also, Tipton vs. Cordova, 1 N. M., 383, 385. (34 Words and Phrases, permanent edition, 1940 edition, p. 148.)

"Process" in a large acceptation, is nearly synonymous with "proceedings," and means the entire proceedings in an action, from the beginning to the end. In a stricter sense, it is applied to the several judicial writs issued in an action. Hanna vs. Russell, 12 Minn., 80, 86 (Gil., 43, 45). (34 Words and Phrases, permanent edition, 1940, edition 149.)

The term "process" as commonly applied, intends that proceeding by which a party is called into court, but it has more enlarged signification, and covers all the proceedings in a court, from the beginning to the end of the suit; and, in this view, all proceedings which may be had to bring testimony into court, whether viva voce or in writing, may be considered the process of the court. Rich vs. Trimple, Vt., 2 Tyler, 349, 350. Id.

"Process" in its broadest sense comprehends all proceedings to the accomplishment of an end, including judicial proceedings. Frequently its signification is limited to the means of bringing a party in court. In the Constitution process which at the common law would have run in the name of the king is intended. In the Code process issued from a court is meant. McKenna vs. Cooper, 101 P., 662, 663; 79 Kan., 847, quoting Hanna vs. Russel, 12 Minn., 80. (Gil., 43 ); Black Com. 279; Bou vs. Law. Dict. (34 Words and Phrases, permanent edition 1940 edition, p. 149.)

"Judicial process" includes the mandate of a court to its officers, and a means whereby courts compel the appearance of parties, or compliance with its commands, and includes a summons. Ex parte Hill, 51 So., 786, 787; 165 Ala., 365.

"Judicial process" comprehends all the acts of then court from the beginning of the proceeding to its end, and in a narrower sense is the means of compelling a defendant to appear in court after suing out the original writ in civil case and after the indictment in criminal cases, and in every sense is the act of the court and includes any means of acquiring jurisdiction and includes attachment, garnishment, or execution, and also a writ. Blair vs. Maxbass Security Bank of Maxbass, 176 N. W., 98, 199; 44 N. D. 12 (23 Words and Phrases, permanent edition 1940 edition, p. 328.)

There is no question that the word process, as used in the October Proclamation, includes all judicial processes or proceedings.

The intention of the author of the proclamation of including judicial processes appears clearly in the preamble of the document.

The second "Whereas," states that so-called government styled as the "Republic of the Philippines," based upon neither the free expression of the people's will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States, and is purporting to the exercise Executive, Judicial, and Legislative powers of government over the people."

It is evident from the above-mentioned words that it was the purpose of General MacArthur to declare null and void all acts of government under the Japanese regime, and he used, in section 3 of he dispositive part, the word laws, as pertaining to the legislative branch, the word regulations, as pertaining to the executive branch, and lastly, the word processes, as pertaining to the judicial branch of the government which functioned under the Japanese regime.

It is reasonable to assume that he might include in the word "process." besides those judicial character, those of executive or administrative character. At any rate, judicial processes cannot be excluded.

THE WORDS OF PROCLAMATION EXPRESS UNMISTAKABLY

THE INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR

The October Proclamation is written in such a way that it is impossible to make a mistake as to the intention of its author.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, perhaps the wisest man who had ever sat in the Supreme Court of the United States, the following:

When the words in their literal sense have a plain meaning, courts must be very cautious in allowing their imagination to give them a different one. Guild vs. Walter, 182 Mass., 225, 226 (1902)

Upon questions of construction when arbitrary rule is involved, it is always more important to consider the words and the circumstances than even strong analogies decisions. The successive neglect of a series of small distinctions, in the effort to follow precedent, is very liable to end in perverting instruments from their plain meaning. In no other branch of the law (trusts) is so much discretion required in dealing with authority. . . . There is a strong presumption in favor of giving them words their natural meaning, and against reading them as if they said something else, which they are not fitted to express. (Merrill vs. Preston, 135 Mass., 451, 455 (1883).

When the words of an instrument are free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly and distinctly the sense of the framer, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. It is not allowable to interpret what needs no interpretation.

Very strong expression have been used by the courts to emphasize the principle that they are to derive their knowledge of the legislative intention from the words or language of the statute itself which the legislature has used to express it. The language of a statute is its most natural guide. We are not liberty to imagine an intent and bind the letter to the intent.

The Supreme Court of the United States said: "The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the law-maker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator. It is true that there are cases in which the letter of the statute is not deemed controlling, but the cases are few and exceptional and only arise where there are cogent reasons for believing that the letter does not fully and accurately disclose the intent. No mere ommission, no mere failure to provide for contingencies, which it may seem wise should have specifically provided for will justify any judicial addition to the language of the statute." (United States vs. Goldenberg, 168 U. S., 95, 102, 103; 18 S. C. Rep., 3; 42 Law. ed., 394.)

That the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall be the sole and only government in our country; that our laws are in full force and effect and legally binding; that "all laws, regulations and processes of any other government are null and void and without legal effect", are provisions clearly, distinctly, unmistakably expressed in the October Proclamation, as to which there is no possibility of error, and there is absolutely no reason in trying to find different meanings of the plain words employed in the document.

As we have already seen, the annulled processes are precisely judicial processes, procedures and proceedings, including the one which is under our consideration.

THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHES A CLEAR POLICY

Although, as we have already stated, there is no possible mistakes as to the meaning of the words employed in the October Proclamation, and the text of the document expresses, in clear-cut sentences, the true purposes of its author, it might not be amiss to state here what was the policy intended to be established by said proclamation.

It is a matter of judicial knowledge that in the global war just ended on September 2, 1945, by the signatures on the document of unconditional surrender affixed by representatives of the Japanese government, the belligerents on both sides resorted to what may call war weapons of psychological character.

So Japan, since its military forces occupied Manila, had waged an intensive campaign propaganda, intended to destroy the faith of the Filipino people in America, to wipe out all manifestations of American or occidental civilization, to create interest in all things Japanese, which the imperial officers tried to present as the acme of oriental culture, and to arouse racial prejudice among orientals and occidentals, to induce the Filipinos to rally to the cause of Japan, which she tried to make us believe is the cause of the inhabitants of all East Asia.

It is, then, natural that General MacArthur should take counter-measures to neutralize or annul completely all vestiges of Japanese influence, specially those which might jeopardize in any way his military operations and his means of achieving the main objective of the campaign of the liberation, that is, to restore in our country constitutional processes and the high ideals constitute the very essence of democracy.

It was necessary to free, not only our territory, but also our spiritual patrimony. It was necessary, not only to restore to us the opportunity of enjoying the physical treasures which a beneficent Providence accumulated on this bountiful land, the true paradise in the western Pacific, but to restore the full play of our ideology, that wonderful admixture of sensible principles of human conduct, bequeathed to us by our Malayan ancestors, the moral principles of the Christianity assimilated by our people from teachers of Spain, and the common-sense rules of the American democratic way of life.

It was necessary to free that ideology from any Japanese impurity.

Undoubtedly, the author of the proclamation thought that the laws, regulations, and processes of all the branches of the governments established under the Japanese regime, if allowed to continue and to have effect, might be a means of keeping and spreading in our country the Japanese influence, with the same deadly effects as the mines planted by the retreating enemy.

The government offices and agencies which functioned during the Japanese occupation represented a sovereignty and ideology antagonistic to the sovereignty and ideology which MacArthur's forces sought to restore in our country.

Under chapter I of the Japanese Constitution, it is declared that Japan shall reigned and governed by a line Emperors unbroken for ages eternal (Article 1); that the Emperor is sacred and inviolable (Article 3); that he is the head of the Empire, combining in himself the rights of the sovereignty (Article 4); that he exercises the legislative power (Article 5); that he gives sanction to laws, and orders to be promulgated and executed (Article 6);that he has the supreme command of the Army and Navy (Article 11); that he declares war, makes peace, and concludes treaties (Article 13).

There is no reason for allowing to remain any vestige of Japanese ideology, the ideology of a people which as confessed in a book we have at our desk, written by a Japanese, insists in doing many things precisely in a way opposite to that followed by the rest of the world.

It is the ideology of a people which insists in adopting the policy of self-delusion; that believes that their Emperor is a direct descendant of gods and he himself is a god, and that the typhoon which occured on August 14, 1281, which destroyed the fleet with which Kublai Khan tried to invade Japan was the divine wind of Ise; that defies the heinous crime of the ronin, the 47 assassins who, in order to avenge the death of their master Asano Naganori, on February 3, 1703, entered stealthily into the house of Yoshinaka Kiro and killed him treacherously.

It is an ideology which dignifies harakiri or sepukku, the most bloody and repugnant from suicide, and on September 13, 1912, on the occasion of the funeral of Emperor Meiji, induced General Maresuke Nogi and his wife to practice the abhorrent "junshi", and example of which is offered to us in the following words of a historian:

When the Emperor's brother Yamato Hiko, died in 2 B. C., we are told that, following the occasion, his attendants were assembled to from the hito-bashira (pillar-men) to gird the grave. They were buried alive in circle up to the neck around the thomb and "for several days they died not, but wept and wailed day night. At last they died not, but wept and wailed day night. At last they did not rotted. Dogs and cows gathered and ate them." (Gowen, an Outline of History of Japan, p. 50.)

The practice shows that the Japanese are the spiritual descendants of the Sumerians, the ferocious inhabitants of Babylonia who, 3500 years B. C., appeared in history as the first human beings to honor their patesis by killing and entombing with him his window, his ministers, and notable men and women of his kingdom, selected by the priests to partake of such abominable honor. (Broduer, The Pageant of Civilization, pp. 62-66.)

General MacArthur sought to annul completely the officials acts of the governments under the Japanese occupation, because they were done at the shadow of the Japanese dictatorship, the same which destroyed the independence of Korea, the "Empire of Morning Frehsness"; they violated the territorial integrity of China, invaded Manchuria, and initiated therein the deceitful system of puppet governments, by designating irresponsible Pu Yi as Emperor of Manchukuo; they violated the trusteeship granted by the Treaty of Versailles by usurping tha mandated islands in the Pacific; they initiated that they call China Incident, without war declaration, and, therefore, in complete disregard of an elemental international duty; they attacked Pearl Harbor treacherously, and committed a long series of the flagrant violations of international law that have logically bestowed on Japan the title of the bandit nation in the social world.

The conduct of the Japanese during the occupation shows a shocking an anchronism of a modern world power which seems to be re-incarnation of one whose primitive social types of pre-history, whose proper place must be found in an archeological collection. It represents a backward jump in the evolution of ethical and juridical concepts, a reversion that, more than a simple pathological state, represents a characteristics and well defined case of sociological teratology.

Since they entered the threshold of our capital, the Japanese had announced that for every one of them killed they would kill ten prominent Filipinos. They promised to respect our rights by submitting us to the wholesale and indiscriminate slapping, tortures, and atrocious massacres. Driving nails in the cranium, extraction of teeth and eyes, burnings of organs, hangings, diabolical zonings, looting of properties, establishments of redlight districts, machine gunning of women and children, interment of alive persons, they are just mere preludes of the promised paradised that they called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

They promised religious liberty by compelling all protestant sects to unite, against the religious scruples and convictions of their members, in one group, and by profaning convents, seminaries, churches, and other cult centers of the Catholics, utilizing them as military barracks, munitions dumps, artillery base, deposits of bombs and gasoline, torture chambers and zone, and by compelling the government officials and employees to face and to bow in adoration before that caricature of divinity in the imperial palace of Tokyo.

The Japanese offered themselves to be our cultural mentors by depriving us of the use of our schools and colleges, by destroying our books and other means of culture, by falsifying the contents of school texts, by eliminating free press, the radio, all elemental principles of civilized conduct, by establishing classes of rudimentary Japanese so as to reduce the Filipinos to the mental level of the rude Japanese guards, and by disseminating all kinds of historical, political, and cultural falsehoods.

Invoking our geographical propinquity and race affinity, they had the insolence of calling us their brothers, without the prejuce of placing of us in the category of slaves, treating the most prominent Filipinos in a much lower social and political category than that of the most ignorant and brutal subject of the Emperor.

The civil liberties of the citizens were annulled. Witnesses and litigants were slapped and tortured during investigations. In the prosecuting attorney's offices, no one was safe. When the Japanese arrested a person, the lawyer who dared to intercede was also placed under arrest. Even courts were not

free from their dispotic members. There were judges who had to trample laws and shock their conscience in order not to disgust a Nipponese.

The most noble of all professions, so much so that the universities of the world could not conceive of higher honor that may be conferred than that of Doctor of Laws, became the most despised. It was dangerous to practice the profession by which faith in the effectiveness of law is maintained; citizens feel confident in the protection of their liberties, honor, and dignity; the weak may face the powerful; the lowest citizen is not afraid of the highest official; civil equality becomes reality; justice is admnistered with more efficiency; and democracy becomes the best system of government and the best guaranty for the welfare and happiness of the individual human being. In fact, the profession of law was annulled, and the best lawyers for the unfortunate prisoners in Fort Santiago and other centers of torture were the military police, concubines, procurers, and spies, the providers of war materials and shameful pleasures, and the accomplices in fraudulent transactions, which were the specialty of many naval and military Japanese officers.

The courts and Filipino government officials were completely helpless in the question of protecting the constitutional liberties and fundamental rights of the citizens who happen to be unfortunate enough to fall under the dragnet of the hated kempei. Even the highest government officials were not safe from arrest and imprisonment in the dreaded military dungeons, where torture or horrible death were always awaiting the defenseless victim of the Japanese brutality.

May any one be surprised if General MacArthur decided to annul all the judicial processes?

The evident policy of the author of the October Proclamation can be seen if we take into consideration the following provisions of the Japanese Constitution:

ART. 57. The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law according to law, in the name of the Emperor.

ART. 61. No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been infringed by the illegal measures of the executive authority .. shall be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Nobody dared challenge the validity of the October Proclamation.

Nobody dared challenge the authority of the military Commander in Chief who issued it.

Certainly not because of the awe aroused by the looming figure of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, the Allied Supreme Commander, the military hero, the greatest American general, the Liberator of the Philippines, the conqueror of Japan, the gallant soldier under whose authority the Emperor of the Japan, who is supposed to rule supreme for ages as a descendant of gods, is receiving orders with the humility of a prisoner of war.

No challenge has been hurled against the proclamation or the authority of the author to issue it, because everybody acknowledges the full legality of its issuance.

But because the proclamation will affect the interest and the rights of a group of individuals, and to protect the same, a way is being sought to neutralize the effect of the proclamation.

The way found is to invoke international law. The big and resounding word is considered as a shibboleth powerful enough to shield the affected persons from the annulling impact.

Even then, international law is not invoked to challenge the legality or authority of the proclamation, but only to construe it in a convenient way so that judicial processes during the Japanese occupation, through an exceptional effort of the imagination, might to segregated from the processes mentioned in the proclamation.

An author said that the law of nations, the "jus gentiun", is not a fixed nor immutable science. On the country, it is developing incessantly, it is perpetually changing in forms. In each turn it advances or recedes, according to the vicissitudes of history, and following the monotonous rythm of the ebb and rise of the tide of the sea.

Le driot des gens, en effet, n'est point une science fixe est immuable: bein au contraire, il se developpe sans cesse, il change eternellement de formes; tour il avance et il recule, selon less vicissitudes de histoire et suivan un rhythm monotone qui est comme le flux et le reflux d'un mer. (M. Revon, De l'existence du driot international sous la republique romain.)

Another author has this to say:

International law, if it is or can be a science at all, or can be, at most a regulative science, dealing with the conduct of States, that is, human beings in a certain capacity; and its principles and prescriptions are not, like those of science proper, final and unchanging. The substance of science proper is already made for man; the substance of international is actually made by man, — and different ages make differently." (Coleman Philippson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece of Rome, Vol. I, p. 50.)

"Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still." (Pound, Interpretations of Legal History., p. 1. ) Justice Cardozo adds: "Here is the great antimony confronting us at every turn. Rest and motion, unrelieved and unchecked, are equally destructive. The law, like human kind, if life is to continue, must find some path compromise." (The Growth of Law p. 2.) Law is just one of the manifestations of human life, and "Life has relations not capable of division into inflexible compartments. The moulds expand and shrink," (Glanzer vs. Shepard, 233 N.Y., 236, 241.)

The characteristic plasticity of law is very noticeable, much more than in any other department, in international law.

In a certain matters it is clear we have made substantial progress, but in other points, he (M. Revon) maintains, we have retrograded; for example, in the middle ages the oath was not always respected as faithfully as in ancient Rome; and nearer our own times, in the seventeenth century, Grotius proclaims the unquestioned right of the belligerents to massacre the women and the children of the enemy; and in our more modern age the due declaration of war which Roman always conformed to has not been invariably observed. (Coleman Philippson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome, Vol. I, p. 209.)

Now let us see if any principle of international law may effect the enforcement of the October Proclamation.

In this study we should be cautioned not to allow ourselves to be deluded by generalities and vagueness which are likely to lead us easily to error, in view of the absence of codification and statutory provisions.

Our Constitution provides:

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation. (Sec. 3, Art. II.)

There being no codified principles of international law, or enactments of its rules, we cannot rely on merely legal precepts.

With the exception of international conventions and treaties and, just recently, the Charter of the United Nations, adopted in San Francisco Conference on June 26, 1945, we have to rely on unsystemized judicial pronouncements and reasonings and on theories, theses, and propositions that we may find in the works of authors and publicists.

Due to that characteristic pliability and imprecision of international law, the drafters of our Constitution had to content themselves with "generally accepted principles."

We must insists, therefore, that the principles should be specific and unmistakably defined and that there is definite and conclusive evidence to the effect that they generally accepted among the civilized nations of the world and that they belong to the current era and no other epochs of history.

The temptation of assuming the role of a legislator is greater in international law than in any other department of law, since there are no parliaments, congresses, legislative assemblies which can enact laws and specific statutes on the subject. It must be our concern to avoid falling in so a great temptation, as its, dangers are incalculable. It would be like building castles in the thin air, or trying to find an exit in the thick dark forest where we are irretrievably lost. We must also be very careful in our logic. In so vast a field as international law, the fanciful wandering of the imagination often impair the course of dialistics.

THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Is there any principle of international law that may effect the October Proclamation?

We tried in vain to find out in the majority opinion anything as to the existence of any principle of international law under which the authority of General MacArthur to issue the proclamation can effectively be challenged.

No principle of international law has been, or could be invoked as a basis for denying the author of the document legal authority to issue the same or any part thereof.

We awaited in vain for any one to dare deny General MacArthur the authority, under international law, to declare null and void and without effect, not only the laws and regulations of the governments under the Japanese regime, but all the processes of said governments, including judicial processes.

If General MacArthur, as commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces of Liberation, had authority, full and legal, to issue the proclamation, the inescapable result will be the complete viodance and nullity of all judicial processes, procedures, and proceedings of all courts under the Japanese regime.

But those who are sponsoring the cause of said judicial processes try to achieve their aim, not by direct means, but by following a tortuous side-road.

They accept and recognize the full authority of the author of the proclamation to issue it and all its parts, but they maintain that General MacArthur did not and could not have in mind the idea of nullifying the judicial processes during the Japanese occupation, because that will be in violation of the principles of international law.

If we follow the reasoning of the majority opinion we will have to reach the conlusion that the world "processes" does not appear at all in the October Proclamation.

It is stated more than once, and reiterated with dogmatic emphasis, that under the principles of international law the judicial processes under an army occupation cannot be invalidated.

But we waited in vain for the specific principle of international law, only one of those alluded to, to be pointed out to us.

If the law exist, it can be pointed out. If the principle exists, it can stated specifically. The word is being used very often in plural, principles, but we need only one to be convinced.

The imagined principles are so shrouded in a thick maze of strained analogies and reasoning, that we confess our inability even to have a fleeting glimpse at them through their thick and invulnerable wrappers.

At every turn international law, the blatant words, are haunting us with the deafening bray of a trumpet, but after the transient sound has fled away, absorbed by the resiliency of the vast atmosphere, the announced principles, which are the very soul of international law, would disappear too with the lighting speed of a vanishing dream.

WEAKNESS OF THE MAJORITY POSITION

In the majority opinion three questions are propounded: first, whether judicial acts and proceedings during the Japanese occupation are valid even after liberation; second whether the October Proclamation had invalidated all judgement and judicial proceedings under the Japanese regime; and third, whether the present courts of the Commonwealth may continue the judicial proceedings pending at the time of liberation.

As regards the first question, it is stated that it is a legal tourism in political and international law that all acts of a de facto government are good and valid, that the governments established during the Japanese occupation. that is, the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines, were de facto governments, and that it necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of those governments, "which are not of a political complexion," were good and valid, and by virtue of the principle of postliminium, remain good and valid after the liberation.

In the above reasoning we will see right away how the alleged legal truism in political and international law, stated as a premise in a sweeping way, as an absolute rule, is immediately qualified by the exception as to judicial acts and proceedings which are of a "political complexion."

So it is the majority itself which destroys the validity of what it maintains as a legal truism in political and international law, by stating from the beginning of the absolute proposition that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto governments are good and valid.

It is be noted that no authority, absolutely no authority, has been cited to support the absolute and sweeping character of the majority proposition as stated in their opinion.

No authority could be cited, because the majority itself loses faith in the validity of such absolute and sweeping proposition, by establishing an unexplained exception as regards the judicial acts and proceedings of a "political complexion."

Besides, it is useless to try to find in the arguments of the majority anything that may challenge the power, the authority of a de jure government to annul the official acts of a de facto government, or the legal and indisputable authority of the restored legitimate government to refuse to recognize the official acts, legislative, executive and judicial, of the usurping government, once the same is ousted.

As to the second question, the majority argues that the judicial proceedings and judgments of the de facto governments under the Japanese regime being good and valid, "it should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the intention of General Douglas MacArthur to refer to judicial processes, when he used the last word in the October Proclamation, and that it only refers to government processes other than judicial processes or court proceedings."

The weakness and absolute ineffectiveness of the argument are self-evident.

It is maintained that when General MacArthur declared the processes of the governments under the Japanese regime null and void, he could not refer to judicial processes, because the same are valid and remained so under the legal truism announced by the majority to the effect that, under political and international law, all official acts of a de facto government, legislative, executive or judicial, are valid.

But we have seen already how the majority excepted from said legal truism the judicial processes of "political complexion."

And now it is stated that in annulling the processes of the governments under Japanese occupation, General MacArthur referred to "processes other than judicial processes."

That is, the legislative and executive processes.

But, did not the majority maintain that all acts and proceedings of legislative and executive departments of a de facto governments are good and valid? Did it not maintain that they are so as a "legal truism in political and international law?"

Now if the reasoning of the majority to the effect that General MacArthur could not refer to judicial processes because they are good and valid in accordance with international law, why should the same reasoning not apply to legislative and executive processes?

Why does the majority maintain that, notwithstanding the fact that, according that said legal truism, legislative and executive official acts of de facto governments are good and valid, General MacArthur referred to the latter in his annulling proclamation, but not to judicial processes?

If the argument is good so as to exclude judicial processes from the effect of the October Proclamation, we can see no logic in considering it bad with respect to legislative and executive processes.

If the argument is bad with respect to legislative and executive processes, there is no logic in holding that it is not good with respect to judicial processes.

Therefore, if the argument of the majority opinion is good, the inevitable conclusion is that General MacArthur did not declare null and void any processes, at all, whether legislative processes, executive processes, or judicial processes, and that the word "processes" used by him in the October Proclamation is a mere surplusage or an ornamental literary appendix.

The absurdity of the conclusion unmasks the utter futility of the position of the majority, which is but a mere legal pretense that cannot stand the least analysis or the test of logic.

A great legal luminary admonished that we must have courage to unmasks pretense if we are to reach a peace that will abide beyond the fleeting hour.

It is admitted that the commanding general of a belligerent army of occupation as an agent of his government, "may not unlawfully suspend existing laws and promulgate new ones in the occupied territory if and when exigencies of the military occupation demand such action," but it is doubted whether the commanding general of the army of the restored legitimate government can exercise the same broad legislative powers.

We beg to disagree with a theory so unreasonable and subversive.

We cannot accept that the commanding general of an army of occupation, of a rebellious army, of an invading army, or of a usurping army, should enjoy greater legal authority during the illegal, and in the case of the Japanese, iniquitous and bestial occupation, than the official representative of the legitimate government, once restored in the territory wrested from the brutal invaders and aggressors. We cannot agree with such legal travesty.

Broad and unlimited powers are granted and recognized in the commanding general of an army of invasion, but the shadow of the vanishing alleged principle of international law is being brandished to gag, manacle, and make completely powerless the commander of an army of liberation to wipe out the official acts of the government for usurpation, although said acts might impair the military operation or neutralize the public policies of the restored legitimate government.

We are not unmindful of the interest of the persons who might be adversely affected by the annulment of the judicial processes of the governments under the Japanese regime, but we cannot help smiling when we hear that chaos will reign or that the world will sink.

It is possible that some criminals will be let loose unpunished, but nobody has ever been alarmed that the President, in the exercise of his constitutional powers of pardon and amnesty, had in the past released many criminals from imprisonment. And let us not forget that due to human limitations, in all countries, under all governments, in peace or in war, there were, there are, and there will always be unpunished criminals, and that situation never caused despair to any one.

We can conceive of inconveniences and hardships, but they are necessary contributions to great and noble purposes. Untold sacrifices were always offered to attain high ideals and in behalf of worthy causes.

We cannot refrain from feeling a paternal emotion for those who are trembling with all sincerity because of the belief that the avoidance of judicial proceedings of the governments under the Japanese regime "would paralyze the social life of the country." To allay such fear we must remind them that the country that produced many great hereos and martyrs; that contributed some of highest morals figures that humanity has ever produced in all history; which inhabited by a race which was able to traverse in immemorial times the vast expanses of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific with inadequate means of navigation, and to inhabit in many islands so distantly located, from Madagascar to the eastern Pacific; which made possible the wonderful resistance of Bataan and Corregidor, can not have a social life so frail as to be easily paralyzed by the annulment of some judicial proceedings. The Japanese vandalisms during the last three years of nightmares and bestial oppression, during the long period of our national slavery, and the wholesale massacres and destructions in Manila and many other cities and municipalities and populated areas, were not able to paralyze the social life of our people. Let us not loss faith so easily in the inherent vitality of the social life of the people and country of Rizal and Mabini.

It is insinuated that because of the thought that the representative of the restored sovereign power may set aside all judicial processes of the army of occupation, in the case to courts of a future invasions, litigants will not summit their cases to courts whose judgement may afterwards be annulled, and criminals would not be deterred from committing offenses in the expectancy that they may escape penalty upon liberation of the country. We hope that Providence will never allow the Philippines to fall again under the arms of an invading army, but if such misfortune will happen, let the October Proclamation serve as a notice to the ruthless invaders that the official acts of the government of occupation will not merit any recognition from the legitimate government, especially if they should not conduct themselves, as exemplified by the Japanese, in accordance with the rules of action of a civilized state.

One conclusive evidence of the untenableness of the majority position is the fact that it had to resort to Executive Order No. 37, issued on March 10, 1945, providing "that all cases that have heretofore been appealed to the Court of Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final decision." The far-fetched theory is advanced that this provision impliedly recognizes the court processes during the Japanese military occupation, on the false assumption that it refers to the Court of Appeals existing during the Japanese regime. It is self-evident that the Executive Order could have referred only to the Commonwealth Court of Appeals, which is the one declared abolished in said order. Certainly no one will entertain the absurd

idea that the President of the Philippines could have thought of abolishing the Court of Appeals under the government during the Japanese occupation. Said Court of Appeals disappeared with the ouster of the Japanese military administration from which it derived its existence and powers. The Court of Appeals existing on March 10, 1945, at the time of the issuance of Executive Order No. 37, was the Commonwealth Court of Appeals and it was the only one that could be abolished.

Without discussing the correctness of principle stated the majority opinion quotes from Wheaton the following: "Moreover when it is said that occupier's acts are valid and under international law should not be abrogated by the subsequent conqueror, it must be remembered that on crucial instances exist to show that if his acts should be reversed, any international wrong would be committed. What does happen is that most matters are allowed to stand by the stored government, but the matter can hardly be put further than this." (Wheaton, International Law, War, 7th English edition of 1944, p. 245)

Then it says that there is no doubt that the subsequent conqueror has the right to abrogate most of the acts of the occupier, such as the laws, regulations and processes other than the judicial of the government established by the belligerent occupant.

It is evident that the statement just quoted is a complete diversion from the principle stated in the in an unmistakable way by Wheaton, who says in definite terms that "it must be remembered that no crucial instances exist to show that if his acts (the occupant's) should be reversed, any international wrong would be committed."

It can be clearly seen that Wheaton does not make any distinction or point out any exception.

But in the majority opinion the principle is qualified, without stating any reason therefore, by limiting the right of the restored government to annul "most of the acts of the occupier" and "processes other than judicial."

The statement made by the respondent judge after quoting the above-mentioned principle, as stated by Wheaton, to the effect that whether the acts of military occupant should be considered valid or not, is a question that is up to the restored government to decide, and that there is no rule of international law that denies to the restored government the right to exercise its discretion on the matter, is quoted without discussion in the majority opinion.

As the statement is not disputed, wee are entitled to presume that it is concurred in and, therefore, the qualifications made in the statement in the majority opinion seem to completely groundless.

THE DUTIES IMPOSED ON OCCUPANT ARMY ARE NOT LIMITATIONS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT

The majority opinion is accumulating authorities to show the many duties imposed by international law on the military occupant of an invaded country.

And from said duties it is deduced that the legitimate government, once restored in his own territory, is bound to respect all the official acts of the government established by the usurping army, except judicial processes political complexion.

The reasoning calls for immediate opposition. It is absolutely contrary to all principles of logic.

Between the duties imposed in the military occupant and the legal prerogatives of the legitimate government there are no logical relationship or connection that might bind the ones with the others.

The military occupants is duty bound to protect the civil rights of the inhabitants, but why should the legitimate government necessarily validate the measures adopted by the said occupant in the performance of this duty, if the legitimate government believes his duty to annul them for weighty reasons?

The military occupant is duty bound to establish courts of justice. Why should the legitimate government validate the acts of said courts, if it is convinced that said courts were absolutely powerless, as was the case during the Japanese occupation, to stop the horrible abuses of the military police, to give relief to the victims of zoning and Fort Santiago tortures, to protect the fundamental human rights of the Filipinos — life, property, and personal freedom?

The majority opinion recognizes in the military occupant the power to annul the official acts of the ousted and supplanted legitimate government, a privilege which is inversely denied to the last. This preference and predilection in favor of the military occupant, that is in favor of the invader and usurper, and against the legitimate government, is simply disconcerting, if we have to say the least.

PRESUMPTIONS AND SUPPOSITIONS AGAINST TRUTH AND FACTS

The invading military occupant is duty bound to establish and maintain courts of justice in the invaded territory, for the protection of the inhabitants thereof. It is presumed that the restored legitimate government will respect the acts of said courts of the army of occupation. Therefore, it is a principle of international law that said acts are valid and should be respected by the legitimate government. It is presumed that General MacArthur is acquainted with such principle, discovered or revealed through presumptive operations, and it is presumed that he had not the intention of declaring null and void the judicial processes of the government during the Japanese regime. Therefore, his October Proclamation, declaring null and void and without effect "all processes" of said governments, in fact, did not annul the Japanese regime judicial processes.

So run the logic of the majority.

They don't mind the that General MacArthur speaks in the October Proclamation as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Douglas MacArthur, General, United States Army, as Commander-in-Chief of the military forces committed to the liberation of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim and declare:

xxx           xxx           xxx

3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control. (emphasis supplied.)

General MacArthur says categorically "all processes", but the majority insists on reading differently, that, is: "NOT ALL processes." The majority presume, suppose, against the unequivocal meaning of simple and well known words, that when General MacArthur said "all processes", in fact, he said "not all processes", because it is necessary, by presumption, by supposition, to exclude judicial processes.

If where General MacArthur says "all", the majority shall insist on reading "not all", it is impossible to foresee the consequences of such so stubborn attitude, but it is possible to understand how they reached the unacceptable possible conclusion which we cannot be avoid opposing and exposing.

Are we to adopt and follow the policy of deciding cases submitted to our consideration, by presumption and suppositions putting aside truths and facts? Are we to place in the documents presented to us, such as the October Proclamation, different words than what are written therein? Are we to read "not all", where it is written "all"?

We are afraid to such procedure is not precisely the most appropriate to keep public confidence in the effectiveness of the administration of justice.

That is why we must insists that in the October Proclamation should be read what General MacArthur has written in it, that is, that, besides laws and regulations, he declared and proclaimed null and void "ALL PROCESSES", including naturally judicial processes, of the governments under the Japanese regime.

THE COMMONWEALTH COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CONTINUE JAPANESE REGIME JUDICIAL PROCESSES

Now we come to the third and last question propounded in the majority opinion.

The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth tribunals is defined, prescribed, and apportioned by legislative act.

It is provided so in our Constitution. (Section 2, Article VIII.)

The Commonwealth courts of justice are continuations of the courts established before the inauguration of the Commonwealth and before the Constitution took effect on November 15, 1935. And their jurisdiction is the same as provided by existing laws at the time of inauguration of the Commonwealth Government.

Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission, known as the Organic Act of the courts of justice of the Philippines, is the one that defines the jurisdiction of justice of the peace and municipal courts, Courts of First Instance, and the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to mention here the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, because the same has been abolished by Executive Order No. 37.

No provision may be found in Act. No. 136, nor in any other law of the Philippines, conferring on the Commonwealth tribunals jurisdiction to continue the judicial processes or proceedings of tribunals belonging to other governments, such as the governments established during the Japanese occupation.

The jurisdiction of our justice of the peace and municipal courts is provided in section 68, chapter V, of Act No. 136. The original and appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance is provided in the sections 56, 57, Chapter IV, of Act No. 136. The original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided in 17 and 18, Chapter II, of the same Act. The provisions of the above-cited do not authorize, even implicitly, any of the decisions and judgements of tribunals of the governments, nor to continue the processes or proceedings of said tribunals.

NECESSITY OF ENABLING ACT UNDER THE LEGAL DOCTRINE PREVAILING IN THE PHILIPPINES AND IN THE UNITED STATES

Taking aside the question as to whether the judicial processes of the government established during the Japanese occupation should be considered valid or not, in order that said processes could be continued and the Commonwealth tribunals could exercise proper jurisdiction to continue them, under the well- established legal doctrine, prevailing not only in the Philippines, but also in the proper enabling law.

Almost a half a century ago, in the instructions given by President McKinley on April 7, 1900, for the guidance of the Philippine Commission, it was stated that, in all the forms of the govenment and administrative provisions which they were authorized to prescribed, the Commission should bear in mind that the government which they were establishing was designed not for the satisfaction of the Americans or for the expression of their of their theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace and prosperity of the people of the Philippines, and the measures adopted should be made to conform to their customs, their habits, and even their prejudices, to the fullest extent consistent with the accomplishment of the indispensable requisites of just and effective government.

Notwithstanding the policy so outlined, it was not enough for the Philippine Commission to create and establish the courts of justice provided in Act No. 136, in order that said tribunals could take cognizance and continue the judicial proceedings of the tribunals existing in the Philippines at the time the American occupation.

It needed specific enabling provisions in order that the new tribunals might continue the processes pending in the tribunals established by the Spaniards, and which continued to function until they were substituted by the courts created by the Philippine Commission.

So it was done in regards to the transfer of the cases pending before the Spanish Audiencia to the newly created Supreme Court, in sections 38 and 39 of Act No. 136 quoted as follows:

SEC. 38. Disposition of causes, actions, proceedings, appeals, records, papers, and so forth, pending in the existing Supreme Court and in the "Contencioso Administravo." — All records, books, papers, causes, actions, proceedings, and appeals logged, deposited, or pending in the existing Audiencia or Supreme Court, or pending by appeal before the Spanish tribunal called "Contencioso Administravo," are transferred to the Supreme Court above provided for which, has the same power and jurisdiction over them as if they had been in the first instance lodged, filed, or pending therein, or, in case of appeal, appealed thereto.

SEC. 39. Abolition of existing Supreme Court. — The existing Audiencia or Supreme Court is hereby abolished, and the Supreme Court provided by this Act is substituted in place thereof.

Sections 64 and 65 of the same Act allowed the same procedure as regards the transfer of cases and processes pending in the abolished Spanish Courts of First Instance to the tribunals of the same name established by the Philippine Commission.

SEC. 64. Disposition of records, papers, causes, and appeals, now pending in the existing Courts of First Instance. — All records, books, papers, actions, proceedings, and appeals lodged, deposited, or pending in the Court of First Instance as now constituted of or any province are transferred to the Court of First Instance of such province hereby established, which shall have the same power and jurisdiction over them as if they had been primarily lodged, deposited, filed, or commenced therein, or in case of appeal, appealed thereto.

SEC. 65. Abolition of existing Courts of First Instance. — The existing Courts First Instance are hereby abolished, and the Courts of First Instance provided by this Act are substituted in place thereof.

The same procedure has been followed by the Philippine Commission eventhough the courts of origin of the judicial processes to be transferred and continued belonged to the same government and sovereignty of the courts which are empowered to continue said processes.

So section 78 of Act No. 136, after the repeal of all acts conferring upon American provost courts in the Philippines jurisdiction over civil actions, expressly provided that said civil actions shall be transferred to the newly created tribunals.

And it provided specifically that "the Supreme Court, Courts of the First Instance and courts of the justice of the peace established by this Act (No. 136) are authorized to try and determine the actions so transferred to them respectively from the provost courts, in the same manner and with the same legal effect as though such actions had originally been commenced in the courts created" by virtue of said Act.

MUNICIPAL COURTS UNDER ACT NO. 183

On July 30, 1901, the Philippine Commission enacted the Organic Act of the City of Manila, No. 183.

Two municipal courts for the city were created by section 40 of said Act, one for the northern side of Pasig River and the other for the southern side.

They were courts with criminal jurisdiction or identical cases under the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace then existing in Manila. Although both courts were of the same jurisdiction, in order that the criminal cases belonging to the justice of the peace courts may be transferred to the municipal courts just created, and the proceedings may be continued by the same, the Philippine Commission considered it necessary to pas the proper enabling act.

So on August 5, 1901, it enacted Act No. 186, section 2 of which provides that all criminal cases and proceedings pending in the justices of the peace of Manila are transferred to the municipal courts, which are conferred the jurisdiction to continue said cases and proceedings.

THE CABANTAG CASE

On August 1, 1901, Narciso Cabantag was convicted of murder by a military commission. (Cabantag vs. Wolfe, 6 Phil., 273.) The decision was confirmed on December 10, 1901, and his execution by hanging was set for January 12,1902. .

On December 26, 1901, he fled, but surrendered to the authorities on July 18, 1902. The Civil Governor on December 2, 1903, commuted the death penalty to 20 years imprisonment. The commutation was approved by the Secretary of War, following instructions of the President.

Cabantag filed later a writ of habeas corpus on the theory that, with the abolition of the military commission which convicted him, there was no existing tribunal which could order the execution of the penalty of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court denied the writ, but stated that, if the petitioner had filed the writ before the enactment of Act No. 865, the question presented to the Supreme Court would have been different.

Act No. 865, enacted on September 3, 1903, is enabling law, wherein it is provided that decisions rendered by the provost courts and military commission shall be ordered executed by the Courts of First Instance in accordance with the procedure outlined in said Act.

It is evident from the foregoing that this Supreme Court has accepted and confirmed the doctrine of the necessity of an enabling act in order that our Courts of First Instance could exercise jurisdiction to execute the decision of the abolished provost courts and military commission.

It is evident that the doctrine is applicable, with more force, to the judicial processes coming from governments deriving their authority from a foreign enemy state.

THE DOCTRINE IN THE UNITED STATES

It is also evident that the Congress of the United States, by enacting the Bill of the Philippines on July 1, 1902, confirmed also the same doctrine.

In effect, in section 9 of said Act, the Congress approved what the Philippine Commission did as to the jurisdiction of the courts established and transfer of cases and judicial processes, as provided in Acts Nos. 136, 186, and 865.

The same doctrine was adopted by the United States government as part of its international policy, as could be seen in Article XII of the Treaty concluded with Spain on December 10, 1898, in Paris.

Even in 1866 the Congress of the United States followed the same doctrine.

The suit, shown by the record, was originally instituted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, where a decree was rendered for the libellant. From the decree an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where the case was pending, when in 1861, the proceedings of the court were interrupted by the civil war. Louisiana had become involved in the rebellion, and the courts and officers of the United States were excluded from its limits. In 1862, however, the National authority had been partially reestablished in the State, though still liable to the overthrown by the vicissitudes of war. The troops of the Union occupied New Orleans, and held military possession of the city and such other portions of the State as had submitted to the General Government. The nature of this occupation and possession was fully explained in the case of The Vinice.

Whilst it continued, on the 20th of October, 1862, President Lincoln, by proclamation, instituted a Provisional Court of the State of Louisiana, with authority, among other powers, to hear, try, and determine all causes in admiralty. Subsequently, by consent of parties, this cause was transferred into the Provisional Court thus, constituted, and was heard, and a decree was again rendered in favor of the libellants. Upon the restoration of civil authority in the State, the Provincial Court, limited in duration, according to the terms of the proclamation, by the event, ceased to exist.

On the 28th of July, 1866, Congress enacted that all suits, causes and proceedings in the Provisional Court, proper for the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, should be transferred to that court, and heard, and determined therein; and that all judgements, orders, and decrees of the Provisional Court in causes transferred to the Circuit Court should at once become the orders, judgements, and decrees of that court, and might be enforced, pleaded, and proved accordingly.

It is questioned upon these facts whether the establishment by the President of a Provisional Court was warranted by the Constitution.

xxx           xxx           xxx

We have no doubt that the Provisional Court of Louisiana was properly established by the President in the exercise of this constitutional authority during war; or that Congress had power, upon the close of the war, and the dissolution of the Provisional Court, to provide for the transfer of cases pending in that court, and of its judgement and decrees, to the proper courts of the United States. (U. S. Reports, Wallace, Vol. 9, The Grapeshot, 131-133.)

JUDGEMENTS OF THE REBEL COURTS IN LOUISIANA WERE VALIDATED BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

During the civil war in 1861, the prevailing rebel forces established their own government in Louisiana.

When the rebel forces were overpowered by the Union Forces and the de facto government was replaced by the de jure government, to give effect to the judgments and other judicial acts of the rebel government, from January 26, 1861, up to the date of the adoption of the State Constitution, a provision to said effect was inserted in said document.

Section 149 of the Louisiana Constitution reads as follows:

All the rights, actions, prosecutions, claims, contracts, and all laws in force at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and not inconsistent therewith, shall continue as if it had not been adopted; all judgments and judicial sales, marriages, and executed contracts made in good faith and in accordance with existing laws in this State rendered, made, or entered into, between the 26th day of January, 1861, and the date when this constitution shall be adopted, are hereby declared to be valid, etc. (U. S. Report, Wallace, Vol. 22, Mechanics' etc. Bank vs. Union Bank, 281.)

EVEN AMONG SISTERS STATES OF THE UNITED STATES JUDGEMENTS ARE NOT EXECUTORY

The member states of the United States of America belong to the same nation, to the country, and are under the same sovereignty.

But judgements rendered in one state are not executory in other states.

To give them effect in other states it is necessary to initiate an original judicial proceedings, and therein the defendants in the domestic suit may plead bar the sister state judgement puis darrien continuance. (Wharton, on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. II, p. 1411.)

Under the Constitution of the United States, when a judgement of one state in the Union is offered in a court of a sister state as the basis of a suit nil debet cannot be pleaded. The only proper plea is nul tiel record. (Id., p. 1413.).

It is competent for the defendant, however, to an action on a judgement of a sister state, as to an action on a foreign judgement, to set up as a defense, want of jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgement; and, as indicating such want of jurisdiction, to aver by plea that the defendant was not an inhabitant of the state rendering the judgement, and had not been served with process, and did not enter his appearance; or that the attorney was without authority to appear. (Id., pp. 1414-1415.)

The inevitable consequence is that the courts of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, in the absence of an enabling act or of an express legislative grant, have no jurisdiction to take cognizance and continue the judicial processes, procedures, and proceedings of the tribunals which were created by the Japanese Military Administration and functioned under the Vargas Philippine Executive Commission of the Laurel Republic of the Philippines, deriving their authority from the Emperor, the absolute ruler of Japan, the invading enemy, and not from the Filipino people in whom, according to the Constitution, sovereignty resides, and from whom all powers of government emanate.

The position of Honorable Asenio P. Dizon, the respondent judge of the Court of the First Instance of Manila in declaring himself without jurisdiction nor authority to continue the proceedings which provoked the present controversy, being a judicial process of a Japanese sponsored government, is absolutely correct, under the legal doctrines established by the United States and the Philippine Government, and consistently, invariably, and without exception, followed by the same.

If we accept, for the sake of argument, the false hypothesis that the Commonwealth tribunals have jurisdiction to continue the judicial processes left pending by the courts of the governments established under the Japanese regime, the courts which disappeared and, automatically, ceased to function with the ouster of the enemy, the position of the Judge Dizon, in declining to continue the case, is still unassailable, because, for all legal purposes, it is the same as if the judicial processes in said case were not taken at all, as inevitable result of the sweeping and absolute annulment declared by the General MacArthur in the October Proclamation.

In said proclamation it is declared in unmistakable and definite terms that "ALL PROCESSES" of the Japanese sponsored governments "ARE NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT", and they shall remain so until the Commonwealth, through its legislative power, decides otherwise in a proper validating act.

The fact that the Japanese invaders, under international law, were in duty bound to establish courts of justice during the occupation, although they made them completely powerless to safeguard the constitutional rights of the citizens, and mere figureheads as regards the fundamental liberties of the helpless men, women and children of our people, so much so that said courts could not offer even the semblance of protection when the life, the

liberty, the honor and dignity of our individual citizens were wantonly trampled by any Japanese, military or civilian, does not change the situation. "ALL PROCESSES" of said court are declared "NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT" in the October proclamation, and we do not have any other alternative but to accept the law, as said proclamation has the full force of a law.

The fact that in the past, the legitimate governments, once restored in their own territory, condescended in many cases to recognize and to give effect to judgments rendered by courts under the governments set up by an invading military occupant or by a rebel army, does not elevate such condescension to the category of a principle, when Wheaton declares that no international wrong is done if the acts of the invader are reversed.

Many irrelevant authorities were cited to us as to the duties imposed by the international law on military occupants, but no authority has been cited to the effect that the representative of the restored legitimate government is a bound to recognize and accept as valid the acts and processes of said occupants. On the contrary, Wheaton says that if the occupant's acts are reversed "no international wrong would be committed."

Following the authority of Wheaton, undisputed by the majority, General MacArthur thought, as the wisest course, of declaring "NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT," by official proclamation, "ALL PROCESSES" under the Japanese regime, that is legislative, executive and judicial processes, which fall under the absolute adjective "ALL".

That declaration is a law. It is a law that everybody bound to accept and respect, as all laws must be accepted and respected. It is a law that the tribunals are duty bound to give effect and apply.

We are not unmindful of the adverse consequences to some individuals of the annullment of all the judicial processes under the Japanese regime, as provided in the October Proclamation, but the tribunals are not guardians of the legislative authorities, either an army commander in chief, during war, or a normal legislature, in peace time. The tribunals are not called upon to guide the legislative authorities to the wisdom of the laws to be enacted. That is the legislative responsibility. Our duty and our responsibility is to see to it that the law, once enacted, be applied and complied with.

No matter the consequences, no matter who might be adversely affected, a judge must have the firm resolve and the courage to do his duty, as, in the present case, Judge Dizon did, without fear nor favor. We cannot see any reason why we should not uphold him in his stand in upholding the law.

It is our official duty, national and international duty. Yes. Because this Supreme Court is sitting, not only as a national court, but as an international court, as is correctly stated in the concurring opinion of Justice De Joya, and we should feel the full weight of the corresponding responsibility, as the American courts with admiralty jurisdiction and the Prize Courts of England did feel. In fact, it is in the judiciary where, more than in any point of view is more pressing, more imperative, more unavoidable. Justice has no country. It is of all countries. The horizon of justice cannot be limited by the scene where our tribunals are functioning and moving. That horizon is boundless. That is why in our constitution the bill of rights has been written not for Filipinos, but for all persons. They are rights that belong to men, not as Filipinos, Americans, Russians, Chinese or Malayan, but as a members of humanity. The international character of our duty to administer justice has become more specific by the membership of our country in the United Nations. And let us not forget, as an elemental thing, that our primary duty is to uphold and apply the law, as it is; that we must not replace the words of the law with what we might be inclined to surmise; that what is clearly and definitely provided should not be substituted with conjectures and suppositions; that we should not try to deduce a contrary intention to that which is unequivocally stated in the law; that we should not hold valid what is conclusively declared null and void.

The October Proclamation declared "ALL PROCESSES" under the Japanese regime "AND VOID WITHOUT EFFECT", so they must stand. There is no possible way of evasion. "ALL PROCESSES", in view of the meaning of the absolute adjective "ALL", include "JUDICIAL PROCESSES". Allegatio contra factum non est admittenda.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons we conclude:

1. That General MacArthur had full legal authority to issue the October Proclamation, and that no principle of the international law is violated by said proclamation, no international wrong being committed by the reversal by the legitimate government of the acts of the military invader.

2. That said proclamation was issued in full conformity with the official policies to which the United States and Philippine Governments were committed, and the annulment of all the facts of the governments under the Japanese regime, legislative, executive, and judicial, is legal, and justified by the wrongs committed by the Japanese.

3. That when General MacArthur proclaimed and declared in the October Proclamation "That all laws, regulations and processes" of the Japanese sponsored governments, during enemy occupation, "are null and void and without effect", he meant exactly what he said.

4. That where General MacArthur said "all processes" we must read and understand precisely and exactly "all processes", and not "some processes". "All" and "some" have incompatible meanings and are not interchangeable.

5. That the word "processes" includes judicial procedures, proceedings, processes, and cases. Therefore, "all processes" must include "all judicial processes.".

6. That we have no right to attribute General MacArthur an intention different from what he has plainly, clearly, unmistakably expressed in unambiguous words with familiar meaning generally understood by the common man.

7. That the judicial proceedings here in question are included among those adversely affected by the October Proclamation.

8. That the Commonwealth tribunals have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of nor to continue the judicial proceedings under the Japanese regime.

9. That to exercise said jurisdiction an enabling act of the Congress is necessary.

10. That respondent Judge Dizon did not commit the error complained of in the petition, and that the petition has no merits at all.

We refuse to follow the course of action taken by the majority in the present case. It is a course based on a mistaken conception of the principles of international law and their interpretation and application, and on a pinchbeck. It is a course based on misconstruction or misunderstanding of the October Proclamation, in utter disregard of the most elemental principles of legal here meneutics. It is a course that leads to nowhere, except to the brink of disaster, because it is following the dangerous path of ignoring or disobeying the law.

Let us not allow ourselves to be deceived. The issue confronting us is not of passing importance. It is an issue of awesome magnitude and transcendency. It goes to and reaches the very bottom. It is simple. Lacking in complexities. But it may shake the very foundation of society, the cornerstone of the state, the primary pillar of the nation. It may dry the very foundation of social life, the source of vitalizing sap that nurtures the body politic. The issue is between the validity of one or more Japanese regime processes and the sanctity of the law.

That is the question, reduced to its ultimate terms. it is a simple dilemma that is facing us. It is the alpha and the omega of the whole issue. Either the processes, or the law. We have to select between two, which to uphold. It is a dilemma that does not admit of middle terms, or of middle ways where we can loiter with happy unconcern . We are in the cross road: which way shall we follow? The processes and the law are placed in the opposite ends of the balance. Shall we inclined the balance of justice to uphold the processes and defeat law, or vice versa?

We feel jittery because some judicial processes might be rescinded or annulled, but we do not tremble with sincere alarm at the thought of putting the law under the axe, of sentencing law to be executed by the guillotine. We feel uneasy, fancying chaos and paralyzation of social life, because some litigants in cases during the Japanese regime will be affected in their private interests, with the annulment of some judicial processes, but we adopt an attitude of complete nonchalance in throwing law overboard. This baffling attitude is a judicial puzzle that nobody will understand. So it is better that we should shift to a more understandable way, that which is conformable to the standard that the world expects in judicial action.

No amount of arguments and lucubration's, no amount of speculative gymnastics, no amount of juggling of immaterial principles of international law, no amount of presumptions and suppositions, surmises and conjectures, no amount of dexterity in juridical exegesis can divert our attention from the real, simple, looming, hypostasis of the issue before us: Law. It is Law with all its majestic grandeur which we are defying and intending to overthrow from the sacred pedestal where the ages had placed her as a goddess, to be enshrined, obeyed, and venerated by men, forever. Let us not dare to lay our profaning hands on her vestal virginity, lest the oracle should fling at us the thunder of his prophetic anathema.

We cannot therefore vote except for the denial of the petition.

HILADO, J., dissenting:

I dissent from the opinion of the majority and, pursuant to the Constitution, proceed to state the reason for my dissent.

The proceeding involved in the case at bar were commenced by a complaint filed by the instant petitioner, as plaintiff, on November 18, 1944, in civil case No. 3012 of the so-called Court of First Instance of Manila, the complaint bearing this heading and title: "The Republic of the Philippines — In the Court of First Instance of Manila" (Annex X of Exhibit A of petition for mandamus). The farthest that said proceedings had gone before the

record was burned or destroyed during the battle for Manila, was the filing by counsel for plaintiff therein of their opposition to a motion for dismissal filed by opposing counsel.

It is, therefore, plain that the case had not been heard on the merits when the record was burned or destroyed.

The respondent judge, in his order dated June 6, 1945, disposing of the petition dated May 25, 1945 filed by petitioner, as a plaintiff in said case, and of the petition filed by respondent Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh, as defendant therein, on May 31, 19045, held: " first, that by virtue of the proclamation of General MacArthur quoted above, all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth became null and void and without legal effect in Manila on February 3, 1945 or, at the lates, on February 27 of the same year; second that the proceedings and processes had in the present case having been before a court of the Republic of the Philippines and in accordance with the laws and regulations of said Republic, the same are now void and without legal effect; third, that this Court as one of the different courts of general jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, has no authority to take cognizance of and continue said proceedings to final judgement, until and unless the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, in the manner and form provided by law, shall have provided for the transfer of the jurisdiction of the courts of the now defunct Republic of the Philippines, and the causes commenced and left pending therein, to the courts created and organized by virtue of the provisions of Act No. 4007, as revived by Executive Order No. 36, or for the validation of all proceedings had in said courts."

Petitioner prays that this Court declare that the respondent judge should not have ordered the suspension of the proceedings in civil case No. 3012 and should continue and dispose of all the incidents in said case till its complete termination. In my opinion, the petition should denied.

In stating the reasons for this dissent, we may divide the arguments under the following propositions:

1. The proceedings in said civil case No. 3012 are null and void under General of the Army MacArthur's proclamation of October 23, 1944 (41 Off. Gaz., 147, 148);

2. (a) The government styled as, first, the "Philippine Executive Commission "and later as the Republic of the Philippines", established here by the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces or by his order was not a de-facto government — the so-called Court of First Instance of Manila was not a de facto court, and the judge who presided it was not a de facto judge; (b) the rules of International Law regarding the establishment of a de facto Government in territory belonging to a belligerent but occupied or controlled by an opposing belligerent are inapplicable to the governments thus established here by Japan;

3. The courts of those governments were entirely different from our Commonwealth courts before and after the Japanese occupation;

4. The question boils down to whether the Commonwealth Government, as now restored, is to be bound by the acts of either or both of those Japanese-sponsored governments;

5. Even consideration of policy of practical convenience militate against petitioner's contention.

I

The proceedings in said civil case No. 3012 are null and void under General of the Army MacArthur's proclamation of October 23, 1944 (41 Off. Gaz., 147, 148).

In this proclamation, after reciting certain now historic facts, among which was that the so-called government styled as the "Republic of the Philippines" was established on October 14, 1943 "under enemy duress, . . . based upon neither the free expression of the people's will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States," the great Commander-in-Chief proclaimed and declared:

xxx           xxx           xxx

3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and

xxx           xxx           xxx

I do enjoin upon all loyal citizens of the Philippines full respect for and obedience to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the laws, regulations and other acts of their duly constituted government whose seat is now firmly re-established on Philippine soil.

The evident meaning and effect of the 3rd paragraph above quoted is, I think, that as the different areas of the Philippines were progressively liberated, the declaration of nullity therein contained shall attach to the laws, regulations and processes thus condemned in so far as said areas were concerned. Mark that the proclamation did not provide that such laws, regulations and processes shall be or are annulled, but that they are null and void. Annulment implies some degree of the effectiveness in the act annulled previous to the annulment, but a declaration of nullity denotes that the act is null and void ab initio — the nullity precedes the declaration. The proclamation speaks in the present tense, not in the future. If so, the fact that the declaration of nullity as to the condemned laws, regulations, and processes in areas not yet free from enemy occupation and control upon the date of the proclamation, would attach thereto at a later date, is no argument for giving them validity or effectiveness in the interregnum. By the very terms of the proclamation itself, that nullity had to date back from the inception of such laws, regulations and processes; and to dispel any shadow of doubt which may still remain, we need only consider the concluding paragraph of the proclamation wherein the Commander in Chief of the army liberation solemnly enjoined upon all loyal citizens of the Philippines full respect for and obedience to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the laws, regulations and other acts of their duly constituted government. This is all-inclusive — it comprises not only the loyal citizens in the liberated areas but also those in areas still under enemy occupation and control. It will be noticed that the complaint in said civil case No. 3012 was filed twenty-six days after the above-quoted proclamations of General of the Army MacArthur. If the parties to said case were to consider the proceedings therein up to the date of the liberation of Manila valid and binding, they would hardly be complying with the severe injunction to render full respect for and obedience to our Constitution and the laws, regulations and other acts of our duly constituted government from October 23, 1944, onwards. Indeed, to my mind, in choosing between these two courses of action, they would be dangerously standing on the dividing line between loyalty and disloyalty to this country and its government.

The proceeding in question, having been had before the liberation of Manila, were unquestionably "processes" of the Japanese-sponsored government in the Philippines within the meaning of the aforesaid proclamation of General of the Army MacArthur and, consequently, fall within the condemnation of the proclamation. Being processes of a branch of a government which had been established in the hostility to the Commonwealth Government, as well as the United States Government, they could not very well be considered by the parties to be valid and binding, at least after October 23, 1944, without said parties incurring in disobedience and contempt of the proclamation which enjoins them to render full respect for the obedience to our Constitution and the laws, regulations and other acts of our duly constituted government. Nine days after the inauguration of the so-called "Republic of the Philippines," President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the United States declared in one of his most memorable pronouncements about the activities of the enemy in the Philippines, as follows:

One of the fourtheenth of this month, a puppet government was set up in the Philippine Island with Jose P. Laurel, formerly a justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, as "president." Jorge Vargas, formerly as a member of the Commonwealth Cabinet, and Benigno Aquino, also formerly a member of that cabinet, were closely associated with Laurel in this movement. The first act of the new puppet regime was to sign a military alliance with Japan. The second act was a hyphocritical appeal for American sympathy which was made in fraud and deceit, and was designed to confuse and mislead the Filipino people.

I wish to make it clear that neither the former collaborationist "Philippine Executive Commission" nor the present "Philippine Republic " has the recognition or sympathy of the Government of the United States. . . .

Our symphaty goes out to those who remain loyal to the United States and the Commonwealth — that great majority of the Filipino people who have not been deceived by the promises of the enemy.

October 23, 1943.

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELTPresident of the United States

(Form U.S. Naval War College International Law Documents, 1943, pp. 93, 94.).

It is a fact of contemporary history that while President Manuel L. Quezon of the Philippines was in Washington, D.C., with his exiled government, he also repeatedly condemned both the "Philippine Executive Commission" and the "Philippine Republic," as they had been established by or under orders of the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces. With these two heads of the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines condemning the "puppet regime" from its very inception, it is beyond my comprehension to see how the proceedings in question could be considered valid and binding without adopting an attitude incompatible with theirs. As President Roosevelt said in his above quoted message, "Our symphaty goes out to those remain loyal to the United States and the Commonwealth — that great majority of the Filipino people who have not been deceived by the promises of the enemy.

The most that I can concede is that while the Japanese Army of occupation was in control in the Islands and their paramount military strength gave those of our people who were within their reach no other alternative, these had to obey their orders and decrees, but the only reason for such

obedience would be that paramount military strength and not any intrinsic legal validity in the enemy's orders and decrees. And once that paramount military strength disappeared, the reason for the obedience vanished, and obedience should likewise cease.

As was stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Williams vs. Bruffy (96 U.S., 176; 24 Law. ed., 719), "In the face of an overwhelming force, obedience in such matters may often be a necessity and, in the interest of order, a duty. No concession is thus made to the rightfulness of the authority exercised." (Emphasis ours.) The court there refers to its own former decision in Thorington vs. Smith, and makes it clear that the doctrine in the Thorington case, so far as the effects of the acts of the provisional government maintained by the British in Casetine, from September, 1814 to the Treaty of Peace in 1815, and the consideration of Tampico as United States territory, were concerned, was limited to the period during which the British, in the first case, retained possession of Castine, and the United States, in the second, retained possession of Tampico. In referring to the Confederate Government during the Civil War, as mentioned in the Thorington case, the court again says in effect that the actual supremacy of the Confederate Government over a portion of the territory of the Union was the only reason for holding that its inhabitants could not but obey its authority. But the court was careful to limit this to the time when that actual supremacy existed, when it said: . . . individual resistance to its authority then would have been futile and, therefore, unjustifiable." (Emphasis ours.)

Because of its pertinence, we beg leave to quote the following paragraph from that leading decision:

There is nothing in the language used in Thorington vs. Smith (supra), which conflicts with these views. In that case, the Confederate Government is characterized as one of paramount force, and classed among the governments of which the one maintained by great Britain in Castine, from September 1814, to the Treaty of Peace in 1815, and the one maintained by the United States in Tampico, during our War with Mexico, are examples. Whilst the British retained possession of Castine, the inhabitants were held to be subject to such laws as the British Government chose to recognize and impose. Whilst the United States retained possession of Tampico, it was held that it must regarded and respected as their territory. The Confederate Government, the court observed, differed from these temporary governments in the circumstance that its authority did not justifying acts of hostility to the United States, "Made obedience to its authority in civil and local matters not only a necessity, but a duty." All that was meant by this language was, that as the actual supremancy of the Confederate Government existed over certain territory, individual resistance to its authority then would have been futile and, therefore, unjustifiable. In the face of an overwhelming force, obedience in such matters may often be a necessity and, in the interest of order, a duty. No concession is thus made to the rightfulness of the authority exercised. (Williams vs. Bruffy, 24 Law ed., 719; emphasis ours.)

The majority opinion, in considering valid the proceedings in question, invokes the rule that when a belligerent army occupies a territory belonging to the enemy, the former through its Commander in Chief, has the power to establish thereon what the decisions and treaties have variously denominated provisional or military government, and the majority holds that the Japanese-sponsored government in the Philippines was such a government. Without prejudice to later discussing the effects which the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy contained in our Commonwealth Constitution, as well as in the Briand-Kellog Pact, must have produced in this rule in so far as the Philippines is concerned, let us set forth some considerations apropos of this conclusion of the majority. If the power to establish here such a provisional government is recognized in the Commander in Chief of the invasion army, why should we not recognize at least an equal power in the Commander in Chief of the liberation army to overthrow that government will all of its acts, at least of those of an executory nature upon the time of liberation? Considering the theory maintained by the majority, it would seem that they would recognize in the Japanese Commander in Chief the power to overthrow the Commonwealth Government, and all of its acts and institutions if he had choosen to. Why should at least an equal power be denied the Commander in Chief of the United States Army to overthrow the substitute government thus erected by the enemy with all of its acts and institutions which are

still not beyond retrieve? Hereafter we shall have occasion to discuss the aspects of this question from the point of view of policy or the practical convenience of the inhabitants. If the Japanese Commander in Chief represented sovereignty of Japan, the American Commander in Chief represented the sovereignty of the United States, as well as the Government of the Commonwealth. If Japan had won this war, her paramount military supremacy would have continued to be exerted upon the Filipino people, and out of sheer physical compulsion this country would have had to bow to the continuance of the puppet regime that she had set up here for an indefinite time. In such a case, we admit that, not because the acts of that government would then have intrinsically been legal and valid, but simply because of the paramount military force to which our people would then have continued to be subjected, they would have had to recognize as binding and obligatory the acts of the different departments of that government. But fortunately for the Filipinos and for the entire civilized world, Japan was defeated. And I now ask: Now that Japan has been defeated, why should the Filipinos be still bound to respect or recognize validity in the acts of the Japanese-sponsored government which has been so severely condemned by both the heads of the United States and our Commonwealth Government throughout the duration of the war? If we were to draw a parallel between that government and that which was established by the Confederate States during the American Civil War, we will find that both met with ultimate failure. And, in my opinion, the conclusion to be drawn should be the same in both cases.

As held by the United States Supreme Court in Williams vs. Bruffy (supra), referring to the Confederate Government, its failure carried with it the dissipation of its pretentions and the breaking down in pieces of the whole fabric of its government. The Court said among other things:

The immense power exercised by the government of the Confederate States for nearly four years, the territory over which it extended, the vast resources it wielded, and the millions who acknowledged its authority, present an imposing spectacle well fitted to mislead the mind in considering the legal character of that organization. It claimed to represent an independent nation and to posses sovereign powers; as such to displace to jurisdiction and authority of the United States from nearly half of their territory and, instead of their laws, to substitute and enforce those of its own enactment. Its pretentions being resisted, they were submitted to the arbitrament of war. In that contest the Confederacy failed; and in its failure its pretentions were dissipated, its armies scattered, and the whole fabric of its government broken in pieces. (24 Law, ed., 719; emphasis ours.)

By analogy, if the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Philippines had been lawful — which, however, is not the case — and if Japan had succeeded in permanently maintaining the government that she established in the Philippines, which would have been the case had victory been hers, there would be more reason for holding the acts of that government valid, but because Japan has lost the war and, therefore, failed in giving permanence to that government, the contrary conclusion should legitimately follow.

The validity of legislation exercised by either contestant "depends not upon the existence of hostilities but upon the ultimate success of the party which it is adopted" (emphasis ours). And, referring to the overthrow of the of the Confederacy, the Court, said, "when its military forces were overthrown, it utterly perished, and with it all its enactments" (emphasis ours)

The majority cite on page 9-10 of their opinion a passage from the same case of Williams vs. Bruffy, supra, which is a mere obiter dictum. The majority opinion says that in this passage the Court was "discussing the validity of the acts of the Confederate States." In the first place, an examination of the decision will reveal that the controversy dealt with an act of the Confederate Government, not of the Confederate States individually; and in the second place, the quoted passage refers to something which was not in issue in the case, namely, the acts of the individual States composing the Confederacy. But even this passage clearly places the case at bar apart from the Court's pronouncement therein. The quoted passage commences by stating that "The same general form of government the same general laws for the administration of justice and the protection

of private rights, which has existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remanded during (its) continuance and afterwards. "In the case at bar, the same general form of the Commonwealth Government did not continue under the Japanese, for the simple reason that one of the first acts of the invaders was to overthrow the Commonwealth Constitution and, therefore, the constitutional government which existed thereunder, as an effect of the following acts and decrees of the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces:

1. Order No. 3, dated February 20, 1942 of the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces to the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission directed that, in the exercise of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the Philippines, the "activities" of the "administrative organs and judicial courts in the Philippines shall be based upon the existing status, order, ordinances and the Commonwealth Constitution (1 Official Journal of the Japanese Military Administration, page 34). Under the frame of government existing in this Commonwealth upon the date of the Japanese invasion, the Constitution was the very fountain-head of the validity and effects of all the "status, orders, and ordinances" mentioned by the Japanese Commander in Chief, and in overthrowing the Constitution he, in effect, overthrew all of them.

2. Instruction No. 6 of the Japanese Military Administration (Vol. 1, usages 36 et seq., Official Gazette, edited at the Office of the Executive Commission) gave the "Detailed Instruction Based on Guiding Principle of the Administration," and among other things required "The entire personnel shall be required to pledge their loyalty to the Imperial Japanese Forces. . . ." (This, of course, was repugnant to the frame of government existing here under the Commonwealth Constitution upon the date of invasion.)

3. Proclamation dated January 3, 19452 of the Japanese Commander in Chief provided in paragraph 3 that "The Authorities and the People of the Commonwealth should sever their relations with the U.S. o . . ." (This is, likewise, repugnant to the Commonwealth Constitution and the to the Government of that Commonwealth Constitution and to the Government of that Commonwealth which was expressly made subject to the supreme sovereignty of the United States until complete independence is granted, not by the mere will of the United States, but by virtue of an agreement between that Government and ours, under the Tydings-McDuffie Act.)

The individual States of the Confederate and their governments existed prior to the Civil War and had received the sanction and recognition of the Union Government, for which the Federal Supreme Court was speaking in the Williams-Bruffy case; while the Japanese-sponsored governments of the "Philippine Executive Commission" and the Republic of the Philippines" neither existed here before the war nor had received the recognition or sanction of either the United States or the Commonwealth Government — nay, they had received the most vigorous condemnation of both.

The Court further says in Williams vs. Bruffy (supra):

No case has been cited in argument, and we think unsuccesfully attempting to establish a separate revolutionary government have been sustained as a matter of legal right. As justly observed by the late Chief Justice in the case of Shortridge vs. Macon, I Abb. U.S., 58, decided at the circuit, and, in all material respects like the one at bar, "Those who engage in rebellion must consider the consequences. If they succeed, rebellion becomes revolution, and the new government will justify is founders. If they fail, all their acts hostile to the rightful government are violations of law, and originate no rights which can be recognized by the courts of the nation whose authority and existence have been alike assailed. S.C., Chase, Dec., 136. (Williams vs. Bruffy, 96 U.S., 176; 24 Law. ed., 716, 718.) (Emphasis ours.)

I am of opinion that the principles thus enunciated for the case of an unsuccessful rebellion should be applied with greater force to the case of a belligerent who loss the war. And since the founding of the Japanese-sponsored government in the Philippines was designed to supplant and did

actually supplant the rightful government and since all its acts could not but a hostile to the latter (however blameless the officials who acted under enemy duress might be), and since Japan failed, all said acts, particularly those of the Japanese-sponsored court in said civil case No. 3012, "are violations of law, and originate no rights which can be recognized by the courts of the nation whose authority and existence have been alike assailed", quoting the language of the court in Shortridge vs. Macon, cited by Mr. Justice Field in Williams vs. Bruffy, supra (24 Law. ed., 718).

II

(a) The government styled as, first, the "Philippine Executive Commission" and later as the Republic of the Philippines", established here by the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces or by the his order was not a de facto government--the so-called Court of First Instance of Manila was not a de facto court and the who presided it was not a de facto judge;

(b) The rules of International Law regarding the establishment of a de facto government in territory belonging to a belligerent but occupied or controlled by an opposing belligerent are inapplicable to the governments thus established here by Japan.

Under the doctrine of Williams vs. Bruffy, supra, and the pertinent cases therein cited, the short-lived provisional government thus established by the Japanese in the Philippines should be classified, at best, as a government of paramount force. But this is not all. The Constitution of this Commonwealth which has been expressly approved by the United States Government, in Article II, section 3, under the heading "Declaration of Principles", renounces war as an instrument of national policy. This renunciation of war as an instruments of national policy follows an equal renunciation in the Briand-Kellog Pact. The rules of International Law , cited in support of the power or right of a belligerent army of occupation to set up a provisional government on occupied enemy territory, were evolved prior to the first World War, but the horrors and devastations of that war convinced, at least the governments of the United States and France, that they should thereafter renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and they consequently subscribed the Briand-Kellog Pact. Those horrors and devastations were increased a hundred fold, if not more, in this second World War, but even before this war occurred, our own people, through our Constitutional delegates, who framed the Commonwealth Constitution also adopted the same doctrine, and embodied an express renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the instrument that they drafted. It is true that in section 3, Article II, above-cited, our Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of International Law as a part of the law of the Nation. But, of course, this adoption is exclusive of those principles of International Law which might involve recognition of war as an instrument of national policy. It is plain that on the side of the Allies, the present war is purely defensive. When Japan started said war, treacherously and without previous declaration, and attacked Pearl Harbor and the Philippines on those two fateful days of December 7 and 8, 1941, she employed war as an instrument of the national policy. Under the Briand-Kellog Pact and our Commonwealth Constitution, the United States and the Commonwealth Government could not possibly have recognized in Japan any right, as against them, to employ that war as an instrument of her national policy, and, consequently, they could not have recognized in Japan power to set up in the Philippines the puppet government that she later set up, because such power would be a mere incident or consequence of the war itself. The authorities agree that such a power, under the cited rules, is said to a right derived from war. (67 C.J., p. 421, sec. 171.) There can be no question that the United States and the Commonwealth Governments were free to refuse to be bound by those rules when they made their respective renunciations above referred to. Indeed, all the United Nations have exercised this free right in their Charter recently signed at San Francisco.

As necessary consequence of this, those rules of International Law were no longer applicable to the Philippines and to the United States at the time of the Japanese invasion as a corollary, it follows that we have no legal foundation on which to base the proposition that the acts of that Japanese-sponsored government in the Philippines were valid and binding. Moreover, I am of opinion, that although at the time of the Japanese invasion and

up to the present, the United States retains over the Philippines, a certain measure of sovereignty, it is only for certain specified purposes enumerated in the Tydings-McDufie Act of the Commonwealth Constitution. (Ordinance appended to the Constitution.) And our territory was at the time of the Japanese invasion not a territory of the United States, within the meaning of the laws of war governing war-like operations on enemy territory. Our territory is significantly called "The National Territory" in Article I of our Constitution and this bears the stamps of express approval of the United States Government. The Philippines has been recognized and admitted as a member of the United Nations. We, therefore, had our own national and territorial identity previous to that invasion. Our nation was not at war with the Filipinos. And line with this, the Japanese army, in time, released Filipino war prisoners captured in Bataan. Lt. Gen. Maeda, Chief of Staff, Imperial Japanese Forces, in his speech of January 2, 1942, said:

. . . we had not the slighest intensions to make your people our enemy; rather we considered them as our friends who will join us has hand-in-hand in the establishment of an orderly Greater East Asia. . . ., (Official Gazette, edited at the Office of the Executive Commission, Vol. I, p. 55.)

If the Philippines was a neutral territory when invaded by the Japanese, the following principles from Lawrence, International Law (7th ed.), p. 603, are pertinent:

The Duties of Belligerent States Towards Neutral States. — . . . To refrain from carrying on hostilities within neutral territory. — We have already seen that, though this obligation was recognized in theory during the infancy of International law, it was often very imperfectly observed in practice. But in modern times it has been strickly enforced, and any State which knowingly ordered warlike operations to be carried on in neutral territory . . . would bring down upon itself the reprobation of civilized mankind. Hostilities may be carried on in the territory of either belligerent, on the high seas, and in territory belonging to no one. Neutral land and neutral territorial waters are sacred. No acts of warfare may lawfully take place within them. . . . (Emphasis ours.)

In all the cases and authorities supporting the power or right to set up a provisional government, the belligerent had the right to invade or occupy the territory in the first instance. Such was not the case with the Philippines. President Roosevelt, in his message to the Filipino people, soon after the landing of American Forces in Leyte, on October 20, 1944, characterized Japan's invasion and occupation of the Philippines as "the barbarous, unprovoked and treacherous attack upon the Philippines," and he announced the American people's "firm determination to punish the guilty." (41 Off. Gaz., 149.) (Emphasis ours.) The illustrious leader of the United Nations could not have in more unmistakable terms the utter illegality of that invasion and occupation. If the establishment of a provinsional government in occupied territory by a belligerent is "a mere application or extension of the force by which the invasion or occupation was effected" (67 C.J., p. 421, sec 171), the illegality of the invasion, would necessarily permeate the government, which was its mere application or extention.

The fact that shortly before December 8, 1941, the date of the "barbarous, unprovoked and treacherous attack," the meager and almost untrained forces of the Philippine Army had been inducted into the American Army, did not change the neutral status of the Philippines. That military measure had been adopted for purely defensive purposes. Nothing could be farther from the minds of the government and military leaders of the United States and the Philippines in adopting it than to embark upon any aggressive or warlike enterprise against any other nation. It is an old and honored rule dating as far back as the 18th century that even solemn promises of assistance made before the war by a neutral to a nation which later becomes a belligerent, would not change the status of the neutral even if such promises were carried out, so long as they were made for purely defensive purposes. In the words of Vattel "when a sovereign furnishes the succor due in virtue of a former defensive alliance, he does not associate himself in

the war. Therefore he may fulfill his engagements and yet preserve an exact neutrality." (Lawrence, Principles of International Law [7th ed.], pp. 585, 586.)

If the Filipinos had, from contemptible cowardice and fear, allowed their shores to be invaded, and their territory occupied by the Japanese without resistance, such invasion occupation would undoubtedly have been considered in violation of International Law. Should the Filipinos be punished for having had the patriotism, bravery, and heroism to fight in defense of the sacredness of their land, the sanctity of their homes, and the honor and dignity of their government by giving validity, in whatever limited measure, to the lawless acts of the ruthless enemy who thus overran their country, and robbed them of the tranquility and happiness of their daily lives? And yet, to my mind, to give any measure of validity or binding effect to the proceedings of the Japanese-sponsored Court of First Instance of Manila, involved herein, would be to give that much validity or effect to the acts of those same invaders. To equalize the consequences of a lawful and a wrongful invasion of occupation, would be to equalize right and wrong, uphold the creed that might makes right, and adopt "the law of the jungle."

If said Japanese-sponsored government was not a de facto government, it would seem clearly to follow that its "Court of First Instance of Manila" was not a de facto court. But it should additionally be stated that for it be a de facto court, its judge had to be a de facto judge, which he could not be, as presently demonstrated.

As said by President Osmeña, in replying to the speech of General of the Army MacArthur when the latter turned over to him the full powers and responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government, on February 27, 1945:

xxx           xxx           xxx

The time has come when the world should know that when our forces surrendered in Bataan and Corregidor, resistance to the enemy was taken up by the people itself — resistance which was inarticulate and disorganized in its inception but which grew from the day to day and from island until it broke out into an open warfare against the enemy.

The fight against the enemy was truly a people's war because it counted with the wholehearted support of the masses. From the humble peasant to the barrio school teacher, from the volunteer guard to the women's auxilliary service units, from the loyal local official to the barrio folk — each and every one of those contributed his share in the great crusade for liberation.

The guerrillas knew that without the support of the civilian population, they could not survive. Whole town and villages dared enemy reprisal to oppose the hated invader openly or give assistance to the underground movement. . . . (41 Off. Gaz., 88, 89.)

Under these facts, taken together with the General of the Army MacArthur's accurate statement that the "Republic of the Philippines" had been established under enemy duress, it must be presumed — to say the least — that the judge who presided over the proceedings in question during the Japanese occupation, firstly, accepted his appointment under duress; and secondly, acted by virtue of that appointment under the same duress. In such circumstances he could not have acted in the bona fide belief that the new "courts" created by or under the orders of the Japanese Military Commander in chief had been legally created--among them the "Court of first Instance of Manila," — that the Chairman of the "Philippine Executive Commission" or the President of the "Republic of the Philippines", whoever appointed him, and conferred upon him a valid title to his office and a legitimate jurisdiction to act as such judge. Good faith is essential for the existence of a de facto judge (Tayko vs. Capistrano, 53 Phil., 866, 872). The

very idea of enemy duress would necessarily imply that but for the duress exerted upon him by the enemy he would have refused to accept the appointment and to act thereunder. And why? Because he must be presumed to know that the office to which he was thus appointed had been created by the enemy in open defiance of the Commonwealth Constitution and the laws and regulation promulgated by our Commonwealth Government, and that his acceptance of said office and his acting therein, if willfully done, would have been no less than an open hostility to the very sovereignty of the United Sates and to the Commonwealth Government, and a renunciation of his allegiance to both. There is no middle ground here. Either the judge acted purely under duress, in which case his acts would be null and void; or maliciously in defiance of said governments, in which case his acts would be null and void for more serious reasons.

The courts created here by the Japanese government had to look for the source of their supposed authority to the orders of the Japanese Military Commander in chief and the so-called Constitution of the "Republic of the Philippines," which had been adopted in a manner which would shock the conscience of democratic peoples, and which was designed to supplant the Constitution which had been duly adopted by the Filipino people in a Constitutional Convention of their duly elected Constitutional Delegates. And it was decreed that the Commander in chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces "shall exercise jurisdiction over judicial courts." (Vol. 1, p. 7, Official Journal of the Japanese Military Administration, cited on pp. 2, 3, of the order of the respondent judge complained of and marked Exhibit H of the petition for mandamus.) How can our present courts legitimately recognize any efficacy in the proceedings of such an exotic judicial system, wherein the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces possessed the highest judicial jurisdiction?

III

The courts of those governments were entirely different from our Commonwealth courts before and after the Japanese occupation.

Executive Order No. 36 of the President of the Philippines, dated March 10, 1945, in its very first paragraph, states the prime concern of the government "to re-establish the courts as fast as provinces are liberated from the Japanese occupation." If the courts under the Japanese-sponsored government of the "Republic of the Philippines" were the same Commonwealth courts that existed here under the Constitution at the time of the Japanese invasion, President Osmeña would not be speaking of re-establishing those courts in his aforesaid Executive Order. For soothe, how could those courts under the "Republic of the Philippines" be the courts of the Commonwealth of the Philippines when they were not functioning under the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the laws enacted in pursuance of said Constitution? The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth courts was defined and conferred under the Commonwealth Constitution and the pertinent legislation enacted thereunder, that of the Japanese-sponsored courts was defined and conferred by the orders and decrees of the Japanese Commander in Chief, and, perhaps, the decrees of the "Philippine Executive Commission" and the laws of the so-called Legislature under the Republic, which was not composed of the elected representatives of the people. The Justices and Judges of the Commonwealth courts had to be appointed by the President of the Commonwealth with confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, pursuant to the Commonwealth Constitution. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, under the "Philippine Executive Commission" was appointed by the Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces, and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Judges of first Instance and of all inferior courts were appointed by the Chairman of the Executive Commission, at first, and later, by the President of the Republic, of course, without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under the Commonwealth Constitution. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, the President and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, and the Judges of First Instance and of all inferior courts in the Commonwealth judicial system, had to swear to support and defend the Commonwealth Constitution, while this was impossible under the Japanese-sponsored government. In the Commonwealth judicial system, if a Justice or Judge should die or incapacitated to continue in the discharge of his official duties, his successor was appointed by the

Commonwealth President with confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and said successor had to swear to support and defend the Commonwealth Constitution; in the exotic judicial system implanted here by the Japanese, if a Justice or Judge should die or incapacitated, his successor would be appointed by the Japanese Commander in Chief, if the dead or incapacitated incumbent should be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or otherwise, by the Chairman of the "Executive Commission" or the President of the "Republic", of course without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the Commonwealth Congress, and, of course, without the successor swearing to support and defend the Commonwealth Constitution.

If, as we believe having conclusively shown, the Japanese-sponsored courts were not the same Commonwealth courts, the conclusion is unavoidable that any jurisdiction possessed by the former and any cases left pending therein, were not and could not be automatically transfered to the Commonwealth courts which we re-established under Executive Order No. 36. For the purpose, a special legislation was necessary.

Executive Order No. 37, in my humble opinion, does not, as held by the majority, imply that the President recognized as valid the proceedings in all cases appealed to the Court of Appeals. Section 2 of that order simply provides that all cases which have been duly appealed to the Court of Appeals shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final decision. The adverb "duly" would indicate that the President foresaw the possibility of appeals not having been duly taken. All cases appealed to the Court of Appeals before the war and the otherwise duly appealed, would come under the phrase "duly appealed" in this section of the Executive Order. But considering the determined and firm attitude of the Commonwealth Government towards those Japanese-sponsored governments since the beginning, it would seem inconceivable that the President Osmeña, in section 2 of Executive Order No. 37, intended to include therein appeals taken to the Japanese-sponsored Court of Appeals, or from the Japanese-sponsored inferior courts. It should be remembered that in the Executive Order immediately preceeding and issued on the same date, the President speaks of re-establishing the courts as fast as provinces were liberated from the Japanese occupation.

IV

The question boils down to whether the Commonwealth Government, as now restored, is to be bound by the acts of either or both of those Japanese-sponsored governments.

In the last analysis, in deciding the question of validity or nullity of the proceedings involved herein, we are confronted with the necessity to decide whether the Court of first Instance of Manila and this Supreme Court, as re-established under the Commonwealth Constitution, and the entire Commonwealth Government, are to be bound by the acts of the said Japanese-sponsored court and government. To propound this question is, to my mind, to answer it most decidedly in the negative, not only upon the ground of the legal principles but also for the reasons of national dignity and international decency. To answer the question in the affirmative would be nothing short for legalizing the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Philippines. Indeed, it would be virtual submission to the dictation of an invader our people's just hatred of whom gave rise to the epic Philippine resistance movement, which has won the admiration of the entire civilized world.

V

Even considerations of policy or practical convenience militate against petitioner's contention.

In this connection, the respondent judge, in his order of June 6, 1945, complained of, has the following to say:

It is contended, however, that the judicial system implanted by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic was the same as that of the Commonwealth prior to Japanese occupation; that the laws administered and enforced by said courts during the existence of said regime were the same laws on the statute books of Commonwealth before Japanese occupation, and that even the judges who presided them were, in many instances, the same persons who held the position prior to the Japanese occupation. All this may be true, but other facts are just as stubborn and pitiless. One of them is that said courts were of a government alien to the Commonwealth Government. The laws they enforced were, true enough, laws of the Commonwealth prior to Japanese occupation, but they had become the laws — and the Courts had become the institutions-of Japan by adoption (U.S. vs. Reiter, 27 F. Case No. 16,146), as they became later on the laws and institution of the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines. No amount of argument or legal fiction can obliterate this fact.

Besides, I am of the opinion that the validity of the acts of the courts in the "judicial system implanted by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic "would not depend upon the laws that they "administered and enforced", but upon the authority by virtue of which they acted. If the members of this Court were to decide the instant case in strict accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth but not by the authority that they possess in their official capacity as the Supreme Court of the Philippines, but merely as lawyers, their decision would surely be null and void. And yet, I am firmly of opinion that whoever was the "judge" of the Japanese sponsored Court of First Instance of Manila who presided over the said court when the proceedings and processes in the dispute were had, in acting by virtue of the supposed authority which he was supposed to have received from that government, did so with no more legal power than if he had acted as a mere lawyer applying the same laws to the case. If duplication of work or effort, or even if confussion, should be alleged to possibly arise from a declaration of nullity or judicial proceedings had before those Japanese-sponsored courts, it should suffice to answer that the party so complaining in voluntarily resorting to such courts should be prepared to assume the consequences of his voluntary act. On the other hand, his convenience should not be allowed to visit upon the majority of the inhabitants of this country, the dire consequences of a sweeping and wholesale validation of judicial proceedings in those courts. Let us set forth a few considerations apropos of this assertion. It is a fact of general knowledge that during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the overwhelming majority of our people and other resident inhabitants were literally afraid to go any place where there were Japanese sentries, soldiers or even civilians, and that these sentries were posted at the entrance into cities and towns and at government offices; that the feared Japanese "M. P.'s" or Kempeitai's" were a constant terror to them; and lastly, that the greater number who lived or had evacuated to places for from the Japanese, were found precisely in the cities and towns where the courts were located; and as a consequence, the great majority of the people were very strongly adverse to traveling any considerable distance from their homes and were, one might say, in constant hiding. Add to these circumstances, the fact of the practical absence of transportation facilities and the no less important fact of the economic structure having been so dislocated as to have impoverished the many in exchange for the enrichment of the few — and we shall have a fair picture of the practical difficulties which the ordinary litigant would in those days have encountered in defending his rights against anyone of the favored few who would bring him to court. It should be easy to realize how hard it was for instances, to procure the attendance of witnesses, principally because of the fact that most of them were in hiding or, at least, afraid to enter the cities and towns, and also because of then generally difficult and abnormal conditions prevailing. Under such conditions, cases or denial of a party's day in court expected. Such denial might arise from many a cause. It might be party's fear to appear before the court because in doing so, he would have had to get near the feared Japanese. It might be because he did not recognize any legal authority in that court, or it might be his down-right repugnance of the hated enemy. And I dare say that among such people would be found more than seventeen million Filipinos. These are but a few of countless cause. So that if some form of validation of such judicial proceedings were to be attempted, all necessary safeguards should be provided to avoid that in any particular case the validation should violate any litigant's constitutional right to his day in court, within the full meaning of the phrase, or any other constitutional or statutory right of his. More people, I am afraid, would be prejudiced than would be benefited by a wholesale validation of said proceedings.

Much concern has been shown for the possible confusion which might result from a decision declaring null and void the acts processes of the Japanese-sponsored governments in the Philippines. I think, this aspect of the question has been unduly stressed. The situation is not without remedy, but the remedy lies with the legislature and not with the courts. As the courts cannot create a new or special jurisdiction for themselves, which is a legislative function, and as the situation demands such new or special jurisdiction, let the legislature act in the premises. For instance, the Congress may enact a law conferring a special jurisdiction upon the courts of its selection, whereby said courts may, after hearing all the parties interested, and taking all the necessary safeguards, so that, a party's day in court or other constitutional or statutory right under the Commonwealth Government should not be prejudiced by any of said acts, processes or proceedings, particullarly, those in Japanese-sponsored courts, and subject to such other conditions as the special law may provide, validate the corresponding acts, processes or proceedings. This, to my mind, would be more conducive to a maximum of benefit and a minimum of prejudice to the inhabitants of this country, rather than the procedure favored by the majority.

Finally, let us not equalize the conditions then prevailing in Manila to that prevailing in the provinces, where the greater number of the people where then living outside the towns, in the farms and the hills. These people constitute the great majority of the eighteen million Filipinos. To them the semblance of an administration of justice which Japanese allowed, was practically unknown. But they constituted the majority of loyal citizens to whom President Roosevelt's message of October 23, 1943 refers. They — the majority of our people — had an unshaken faith in the arrival of American aid here and the final triumph of the Allied cause. They were willing to wait for the restoration of their rightful government, with its courts and other institutions, for the settlement of their differences. May in their common hardship and sufferings under yoke of foreign oppression, they had not much time to think of such differences, if they did not utterly forget them. Their undoubted hatred of the invader was enough to keep them away from the judicial system that said invader allowed to have. Those who voluntarily went to the courts in those tragic days belong to the small minority.

As to the public order — why! any public order which then existed was not due to the courts or other departments of the puppet government. It was maintained at the point of the bayonet by the Japanese army, and in their own unique fashion.

Footnotes

1 Resolution on motion for reconsideration, see p. 371, post.