Laurel vs. Misa

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

77 PHIL 856
JANUARY 30, 1947

FACTS:

Sometime in May 1945, Anastacio Laurel, herein petitioner, a Filipino citizen, was arrested by the US Army and was interned, under a commitment order ―for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation. He was charged with treason as defined and penalized by Art. 114 of the Penal Code. However, in September 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth government and since then he has been under the custody of the Director of Prisons. Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus mainly asserting that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason 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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens were suspended during the Japanese occupation.
2. Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by giving aid and support to the enemy during the Japanese occupation.
   
   

HELD:

1. NO. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy‘s occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier 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 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; x x x 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.
   
   
2. YES. Article 114 of the 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‘s occupation. 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 a inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.