8/13/2019 Digests 2nd Day
1/3
Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh
Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case,
initiated during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of
First Instance of Manila. After the Lieration of the Manila and
the American occupation, Judge Arsenio !i"on refused
to continue hearings on the case, sa#ing that a proclamation
issued # $eneral !ouglas MacArthur had invalidated
and nullified all %udicial proceedings and %udgments of the
courts of the &hilippines and, without an enaling law,
lower courts have no %urisdiction to ta'e cogni"ance of and
continue %udicial proceedings pending in the courts of thedefunct
(epulic of the &hilippines )the &hilippine government under
the Japanese*.
+he court resolved three issues:
. -hether or not %udicial proceedings and decisions made during
the Japanese occupation were valid and remained
valid even after the American occupation
/. -hether or not the 0ctoer /1, 233 proclamation MacArthur
issued in which he declared that 4all laws,
regulations and processes of an# other government in the
&hilippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null
and void and without legal effect in areas of the
&hilippines free of enem# occupation and control5 invalidated
all
%udgments and %udicial acts and proceedings of the courts
1. And whether or not if the# were not invalidated # MacArthur6s
proclamation, those courts could continue hearing
the cases pending efore them.
(atio: &olitical and international law recogni"es that all
acts and proceedings of a de facto government are good and
valid. +he &hilippine 78ecutive Commission and the (epulic
of the &hilippines under the Japanese occupation ma#
e considered de facto governments, supported # the militar#
force and deriving their authorit# from the laws of war.
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usuall# remain in
force unless suspended or changed # the con9ueror.
Civil oedience is e8pected even during war, for 4the e8istence
of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen the
onds of societ#, or do awa# with civil government or the regular
administration of the laws. And if the# were not
valid, then it would not have een necessar# for MacArthur to
come out with a proclamation arogating them.
+he second 9uestion, the court said, hinges on the
interpretation of the phrase 4processes of an# other
government5
and whether or not he intended it to annul all other %udgments
and %udicial proceedings of courts during the Japanese
militar# occupation.
IF, according to international law, nonpolitical %udgments and
%udicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid
and remain valid even after the occupied territor# has een
lierated, then it could not have een MacArthur6s
intention to refer to %udicial processes, which would e in
violation of international law.A well'nown rule of statutor#
construction is: 4A statute ought never to e construed to violate
the law of nations if
an# other possile construction remains.5
Another is that 4where great inconvenience will result from a
particular construction, or great mischief done, such
construction is to e avoided, or the court ought to presume that
such construction was not intended # the ma'ers of
the law, unless re9uired # clear and une9uivocal words.5
Annulling %udgments of courts made during the Japanese
occupation would clog the doc'ets and violate international
law, therefore what MacArthur said should not e construed to
mean that %udicial proceedings are included in the
phrase 4processes of an# other governments.5
In the case of ;< vs (eiter, the court said that if such laws
and institutions are continued in use # the occupant, the#
ecome his and derive their force from him. +he laws and courts
of the &hilippines did not ecome, # eing
continued as re9uired # the law of nations, laws and courts of
Japan.It is a legal ma8im that, e8cepting of a political nature,
4law once estalished continues until changed # some
competent legislative power. I+ I< =0+ C>A=$7! M7(7L? @?
C>A=$7 0F
