Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 856 (1947)

Laurel vs. Misa, 77 Phil. 856 (1947) FACTS: Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus. He was then charged and held for the crime of treason during the Japanese occupation. He anchors his petition based on the 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. ISSUES: 1. Whether sovereignty of the legitimate government and allegiance of citizens were suspended during the Japanese military occupation—NO 2. Whether there was a change in sovereignty over the islands—NO RATIO: A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in fidelity and obedience, to his government or sovereign. It cannot be equated to the qualified or temporary allegiance w/c a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives. In the same way, such foreigner remains liable to prosecution for treason against his own government or sovereign, to which he owes absolute and permanent allegiance. This absolute and permanent allegiance is not severed by enemy occupation because the sovereignty of the government is not transferred to the occupier, a theory adopted in the Hague Convention of 1907. Thus, it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government. The existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence at least during the period of ‘suspension’. What may be suspended is the exercise of rights of sovereignty with the passing of control of the government to the occupant. However, the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force laws unless in conflict with laws and orders of the occupier. Such laws and orders must come within the limitations prescribed by the Hague convention, meaning that such action must be (1) demanded by the exigencies of military service; (2) necessary for the control of the inhabitants; and (3) necessary for the safety and protection of his army. If the contrary were true, invaders would be able force the citizens, without fear of prosecution for treason, to be party to the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own independence and repressing the exercise of their own sovereignty—to commit a political suicide. Because the question of sovereignty is a purely political question, its determination 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. By virtue of Section 1, Article II of the 1935 Constitution, which states that “all references in such laws to the Government…shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this Constitution”, the crime of treason was made applicable not only to the sovereignty of the United States but also to the sovereignty of the Government of the Philippines. The change in form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people.