G.R. No. L-13250 October 29, 1971 THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.

ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA, respondent..

Assistant Solicitor General Jose P. Alejandro and Special Attorney Jose G. Azurin, (O.S.G.) for petitioner. Ramirez and Ortigas for respondent.

FERNANDO, J.: The basic issue posed by petitioner Collector of Internal Revenue in this appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals as to whether or not the requisites of statehood, or at least so much thereof as may be necessary for the acquisition of an international personality, must be satisfied for a "foreign country" to fall within the exemption of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code 1 is now ripe for adjudication. The Court of Tax Appeals answered the question in the negative, and thus reversed the action taken by petitioner Collector, who would hold respondent Antonio Campos Rueda, as administrator of the estate of the late Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira, liable for the sum of P161,874.95 as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes for the transfer of intangible personal properties in the Philippines, the deceased, a Spanish national having been a resident of Tangier, Morocco from 1931 up to the time of her death in 1955. In an earlier resolution promulgated May 30, 1962, this Court on the assumption that the need for resolving the principal question would be obviated, referred the matter back to the Court of Tax Appeals to determine whether the alleged law of Tangier did grant the reciprocal tax exemption required by the aforesaid Section 122. Then came an order from the Court of Tax Appeals submitting copies of legislation of Tangier that would manifest that the element of reciprocity was not lacking. It was not until July 29, 1969 that the case was deemed submitted for decision. When the petition for review was filed on January 2, 1958, the basic issue raised was impressed with an element of novelty. Four days thereafter, however, on January 6, 1958, it was held by this Court that the aforesaid provision does not require that the "foreign country" possess an international personality to come within its terms. 2 Accordingly, we have to affirm. The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, now under review, sets forth the background facts as follows: "This is an appeal interposed by petitioner Antonio Campos Rueda as administrator of the estate of the deceased Doa Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira, from the decision of the respondent Collector of Internal Revenue, assessing against and demanding from the former the sum P161,874.95 as deficiency estate and

inheritance taxes, including interest and penalties, on the transfer of intangible personal properties situated in the Philippines and belonging to said Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira. Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira (Maria Cerdeira for short) is a Spanish national, by reason of her marriage to a Spanish citizen and was a resident of Tangier, Morocco from 1931 up to her death on January 2, 1955. At the time of her demise she left, among others, intangible personal properties in the Philippines." 3 Then came this portion: "On September 29, 1955, petitioner filed a provisional estate and inheritance tax return on all the properties of the late Maria Cerdeira. On the same date, respondent, pending investigation, issued an assessment for state and inheritance taxes in the respective amounts of P111,592.48 and P157,791.48, or a total of P369,383.96 which tax liabilities were paid by petitioner ... . On November 17, 1955, an amended return was filed ... wherein intangible personal properties with the value of P396,308.90 were claimed as exempted from taxes. On November 23, 1955, respondent, pending investigation, issued another assessment for estate and inheritance taxes in the amounts of P202,262.40 and P267,402.84, respectively, or a total of P469,665.24 ... . In a letter dated January 11, 1956, respondent denied the request for exemption on the ground that the law of Tangier is not reciprocal to Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Hence, respondent demanded the payment of the sums of P239,439.49 representing deficiency estate and inheritance taxes including ad valorem penalties, surcharges, interests and compromise penalties ... . In a letter dated February 8, 1956, and received by respondent on the following day, petitioner requested for the reconsideration of the decision denying the claim for tax exemption of the intangible personal properties and the imposition of the 25% and 5% ad valorem penalties ... . However, respondent denied request, in his letter dated May 5, 1956 ... and received by petitioner on May 21, 1956. Respondent premised the denial on the grounds that there was no reciprocity [with Tangier, which was moreover] a mere principality, not a foreign country. Consequently, respondent demanded the payment of the sums of P73,851.21 and P88,023.74 respectively, or a total of P161,874.95 as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes including surcharges, interests and compromise penalties." 4 The matter was then elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals. As there was no dispute between the parties regarding the values of the properties and the mathematical correctness of the deficiency assessments, the principal question as noted dealt with the reciprocity aspect as well as the insisting by the Collector of Internal Revenue that Tangier was not a foreign country within the meaning of Section 122. In ruling against the contention of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the appealed decision states: "In fine, we believe, and so hold, that the expression "foreign country", used in the last proviso of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foreign power which, although not an international person in the sense of international law, does not impose transfer or death upon intangible person properties of our citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows a similar exemption from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that Tangier should have been recognized by our

Government order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of the proviso of Section 122 of our Tax. Code." 5 Hence appeal to this court by petitioner. The respective briefs of the parties duly submitted, but as above indicated, instead of ruling definitely on the question, this Court, on May 30, 1962, resolve to inquire further into the question of reciprocity and sent back the case to the Court of Tax Appeals for the motion of evidence thereon. The dispositive portion of such resolution reads as follows: "While section 122 of the Philippine Tax Code aforequoted speaks of 'intangible personal property' in both subdivisions (a) and (b); the alleged laws of Tangier refer to 'bienes muebles situados en Tanger', 'bienes muebles radicantes en Tanger', 'movables' and 'movable property'. In order that this Court may be able to determine whether the alleged laws of Tangier grant the reciprocal tax exemptions required by Section 122 of the Tax Code, and without, for the time being, going into the merits of the issues raised by the petitionerappellant, the case is [remanded] to the Court of Tax Appeals for the reception of evidence or proof on whether or not the words `bienes muebles', 'movables' and 'movable properties as used in the Tangier laws, include or embrace 'intangible person property', as used in the Tax Code." 6 In line with the above resolution, the Court of Tax Appeals admitted evidence submitted by the administrator petitioner Antonio Campos Rueda, consisting of exhibits of laws of Tangier to the effect that "the transfers by reason of death of movable properties, corporeal or incorporeal, including furniture and personal effects as well as of securities, bonds, shares, ..., were not subject, on that date and in said zone, to the payment of any death tax, whatever might have been the nationality of the deceased or his heirs and legatees." It was further noted in an order of such Court referring the matter back to us that such were duly admitted in evidence during the hearing of the case on September 9, 1963. Respondent presented no evidence." 7 The controlling legal provision as noted is a proviso in Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. It reads thus: "That no tax shall be collected under this Title in respect of intangible personal property (a) if the decedent at the time of his death was a resident of a foreign country which at the time of his death did not impose a transfer tax or death tax of any character in respect of intangible person property of the Philippines not residing in that foreign country, or (b) if the laws of the foreign country of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death allow a similar exemption from transfer taxes or death taxes of every character in respect of intangible personal property owned by citizens of the Philippines not residing in that foreign country." 8 The only obstacle therefore to a definitive ruling is whether or not as vigorously insisted upon by petitioner the acquisition of internal personality is a condition sine qua non to Tangier being considered a "foreign country". Deference to the De Lara ruling, as was made clear in the opening paragraph of this opinion, calls for an affirmance of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.

It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. 9 It is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience to its commands. 10 It has been referred to as a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual defense and mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. 11Correctly has it been described by Esmein as "the juridical personification of the nation." 12 This is to view it in the light of its historical development. The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying a definite territory, politically organized, exercising by means of its government its sovereign will over the individuals within it and maintaining its separate international personality. Laski could speak of it then as a territorial society divided into government and subjects, claiming within its allotted area a supremacy over all other institutions. 13 McIver similarly would point to the power entrusted to its government to maintain within its territory the conditions of a legal order and to enter into international relations. 14 With the latter requisite satisfied, international law do not exact independence as a condition of statehood. So Hyde did opine. 15 Even on the assumption then that Tangier is bereft of international personality, petitioner has not successfully made out a case. It bears repeating that four days after the filing of this petition on January 6, 1958 in Collector of Internal Revenue v. De Lara, 16 it was specifically held by us: "Considering the State of California as a foreign country in relation to section 122 of our Tax Code we believe and hold, as did the Tax Court, that the Ancilliary Administrator is entitled the exemption from the inheritance tax on the intangible personal property found in the Philippines." 17 There can be no doubt that California as a state in the American Union was in the alleged requisite of international personality. Nonetheless, it was held to be a foreign country within the meaning of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code. 18 What is undeniable is that even prior to the De Lara ruling, this Court did commit itself to the doctrine that even a tiny principality, that of Liechtenstein, hardly an international personality in the sense, did fall under this exempt category. So it appears in an opinion of the Court by the then Acting Chief Justicem Bengson who thereafter assumed that position in a permanent capacity, in Kiene v. Collector of Internal Revenue. 19 As was therein noted: 'The Board found from the documents submitted to it proof of the laws of Liechtenstein that said country does not impose estate, inheritance and gift taxes on intangible property of Filipino citizens not residing in that country. Wherefore, the Board declared that pursuant to the exemption above established, no estate or inheritance taxes were collectible, Ludwig Kiene being a resident of Liechtestein when he passed away." 20 Then came this definitive ruling: "The Collector hereafter named the respondent cites decisions of the United States Supreme Court and of this Court,

holding that intangible personal property in the Philippines belonging to a non-resident foreigner, who died outside of this country is subject to the estate tax, in disregard of the principle 'mobilia sequuntur personam'. Such property is admittedly taxable here. Without the proviso above quoted, the shares of stock owned here by the Ludwig Kiene would be concededly subject to estate and inheritance taxes. Nevertheless our Congress chose to make an exemption where conditions are such that demand reciprocity as in this case. And the exemption must be honored." 21 WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals of October 30, 1957 is affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs.

[G.R. No. L-9657. November 29, 1956.] LEOPOLDO T. BACANI and MATEO A. MATOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION and BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, DefendantsAppellants. DECISION BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First

Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for Defendant, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page. Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts paid. On January 19, 1953, the Auditor General required the Plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice wherein the opinion was expressed that the National Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question. On February 6, 1954, the Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier of the Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of Leopoldo T. Bacani the amount of P25 every payday and from the salary of Mateo A. Matoto the amount of P10 every payday beginning March 30, 1954. To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial ruling that the National

Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, this action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Defendants set up as a defense that the National Coconut Corporation is a government

entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from paying the stenographers fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. After trial, the court found for the Plaintiffs declaring (1) that Defendant National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) that the payments already made by said Defendant to Plaintiffs herein and received by the latter from the former in the total amount of P714, for copies of the stenographic transcripts in question, are valid, just and legal; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (3) that Plaintiffs are under no obligation whatsoever to make a refund of these payments already received by them. This is an appeal from said decision. Under section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Government of the Philippines is exempt from paying the legal fees provided for therein, and among these fees are those which stenographers may charge for the transcript of notes taken by them that may be requested by any interested person (section 8). The fees in question are for the transcript of notes taken during the hearing of a case in which the National Coconut Corporation is interested, and the transcript was requested by its assistant corporate counsel for the use of said corporation. On the other hand, section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines the scope of the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The Government of the Philippine Islands is a term which refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government. The question now to be determined is whether the National Coconut Corporation may be considered as included in the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. As may be noted, the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to a government entity through which the functions of government are exercised, including the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the central government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government. This requires a little digression on the nature and functions of our government as instituted in our Constitution.

To begin with, we state that the term Government may be defined as that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary 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 (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This institution, when referring to the national government, has reference to what our Constitution has established composed of three great departments, the legislative, executive, and the judicial, through which the powers and functions of government are exercised. These functions are twofold:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary constitute and ministrant. The former are those which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe latter are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and are merely optional. President Wilson enumerates the constituent functions as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery. (2) The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children. (3) The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime. (4) The determination of contract rights between individuals. (5) The definition and punishment of crime. (6) The administration of justice in civil cases. (7) The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens. (8) Dealings of the state with foreign powers:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests. (Malcolm, The Government of the Philippine Islands, p. 19.) The most important of the ministrant functions are:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary public works, public education, public charity, health and safety regulations, and regulations of trade and industry. The principles deter mining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake and (2) that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals. (Malcolm, The Government of the Philippine Islands, pp. 19-20.) From the above we may infer that, strictly speaking, there are functions which our government is required to exercise to promote its objectives as expressed in our Constitution and which are exercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty, and those which it may exercise to promote merely the welfare, progress and prosperity of the

people. To this latter class belongs the organization of those corporations owned or controlled by the government to promote certain aspects of the economic life of our people such as the National Coconut Corporation. These are what we call governmentowned or controlled corporations which may take on the form of a private enterprise or one organized with powers and formal characteristics of a private corporations under the Corporation Law. The question that now arises is:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Does the fact that these corporation perform certain functions of government make them a part of the Government of the Philippines? The answer is simple:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary they do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. Take for instance the National Coconut Corporation. While it was organized with the purpose of adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States and of providing Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. As this Court has aptly said, The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation (National Coal Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil., 586-587). By becoming a stockholder in the National Coal Company, the Government divested itself of its sovereign character so far as respects the transactions of the corporation cralaw . Unlike the Government, the corporation may be sued without its consent, and is subject to taxation. Yet the National Coal Company remains an agency or instrumentality of government. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Springer, 50 Phil., 288.) To recapitulate, we may mention that the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and of their corporate charters. They do not therefore come within the exemption clause prescribed in section 16, Rule 130 of our Rules of Court. Public corporations are those formed or organized for the government of a portion of the State. (Section 3, Republic Act No. 1459, Corporation Law).

The generally accepted definition of a municipal corporation would only include organized cities and towns, and like organizations, with political and legislative powers for the local, civil government and police regulations of the inhabitants of the particular district included in the boundaries of the corporation. Heller vs. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 309, 312. In its more general sense the phrase municipal corporation may include both towns and counties, and other public corporations created by government for political purposes. In its more common and limited signification, it embraces only incorporated villages, towns and cities. Dunn vs. Court of County Revenues, 85 Ala. 144, 146, 4 So. 661. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2nd ed., Vol. 1, p. 385.) We may, therefore, define a municipal corporation in its historical and strict sense to be the incorporation, by the authority of the government, of the inhabitants of a particular place or district, and authorizing them in their corporate capacity to exercise subordinate specified powers of legislation and regulation with respect to their local and internal concerns. This power of local government is the distinctive purpose and the distinguishing feature of a municipal corporation proper. (Dillon, Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., Vol. I, p. 59.) It is true that under section 8, Rule 130, stenographers may only charge as fees P0.30 for each page of transcript of not less than 200 words before the appeal is taken and P0.15 for each page after the filing of the appeal, but in this case the National Coconut Corporation has agreed and in fact has paid P1.00 per page for the services rendered by the Plaintiffs and has not raised any objection to the amount paid until its propriety was disputed by the Auditor General. The payment of the fees in question became therefore contractual and as such is valid even if it goes beyond the limit prescribed in section 8, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. As regards the question of procedure raised by Appellants, suffice it to say that the same is insubstantial, considering that this case refers not to a money claim disapproved by the Auditor General but to an action of prohibition the purpose of which is to restrain the officials concerned from deducting from Plaintiffs salaries the amount paid to them as stenographers fees. This case does not come under section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court relative to appeals from a decision of the Auditor General. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur. G.R No. 187167 August 16, 2011

PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY-LIST REP. RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW STUDENTS, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT, RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA

BERNARDO, VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAETE, VANN ALLEN DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO, RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI, MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT, MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON, JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA, NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and MARCELINO VELOSO III, Petitioners, vs. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HON. DIONY VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING & RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED NATIONS,Respondents. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221(RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories. The Antecedents In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their "territorial sea," the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo.

In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines7 and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones. Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as "citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,"9 as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.13 In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as "regime of islands" not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 for what it excluded and included its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal. Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners alleged lack of locus standiand (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the countrys compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the countrys security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah. Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioners assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris.

We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ. The Issues The petition raises the following issues: 1. Preliminarily 1. Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and 2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. 2. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional. The Ruling of the Court On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional.

On the Threshold Issues Petitioners Possess Locus Standi as Citizens

Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize petitioners locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing "a more direct and specific interest" to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.17

The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition Are Proper Remedies to Test the Constitutionality of Statutes
In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners.18

Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19 and indeed, of acts of other branches of government.20Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non-compliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law.

RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory
Petitioners submit that RA 9522 "dismembers a large portion of the national territory"21 because it discards the pre-UNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the United States. Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22 Petitioners theory fails to persuade us. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts. On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are

drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer: Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77). Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the "outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago."24 UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,25 not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on general international law.26

RA 9522s Use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to Determine the Maritime Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent with the Philippines Claim of Sovereignty Over these Areas
Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of

the KIG, "weakens our territorial claim" over that area.27 Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough Shoals) exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters," prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime space encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the text of RA 9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view.1avvphi1 The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS IIIs limitation on the maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines claim over the KIG, assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose. Petitioners assertion of loss of "about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters" under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles, as shown in the table below:29 Extent of maritime area using RA 3046, as amended, taking into account the Treaty of Paris delimitation (in square nautical miles) Internal or archipelagic waters Territorial Sea Exclusive Economic Zone TOTAL 440,994

Extent of maritime area using RA 9522, taking into account UNCLOS III (in square nautical miles)

166,858 274,136

171,435 32,106 382,669 586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III.30

Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal: SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands"

under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596 and b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied) Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that "[t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that "the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31 Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably "depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, took pains to emphasize the foregoing during the Senate deliberations: What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[] the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put

them inside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: "The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago." So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as our own.
This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our archipelago is defined by the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago

kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.34 (Emphasis supplied)

Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS IIIs limits.1avvphi1 The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps, became imperative as discussed by respondents: [T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to wit: 1. The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock Awash to Tongquil Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) of the [UNCLOS III], which states that "The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles." 2. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or deleted from the baselines system. This will enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of water. 3. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not established by geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on water, not on low-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35 Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as "Regime[s] of Islands under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121"36 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine States responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any "naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide," such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of "regime of islands," whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.37

Statutory Claim Over Sabah under RA 5446 Retained

Petitioners argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah: Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Actis without prejudice to the delineation of the

baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied)

UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitutions Delineation of Internal Waters
As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally "converts" internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38 Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this: Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. 1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. 2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. xxxx 4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. (Emphasis supplied) The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent with the international law principle of

freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress.41 In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law,43 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.44 No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community. The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not place them in lesser footing vis--vis continental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines,regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States territorial sovereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.47 Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies)48 must also fail. Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, "do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x."49 Article II provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation, as well as in interpreting executory provisions of the Constitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50 treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiate the claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 251 ) and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Section 752 ), are not violated by RA 9522. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-

living resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it. UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space the exclusive economic zone in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones

Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III, Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it weakens the countrys case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided. The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. SO ORDERED. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice JOSE C. MENDOZA Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

Footnotes
1

Entitled "An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 3046, as Amended by Republic Act No. 5446, to Define the Archipelagic Baselines of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes."
2

Entitled "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines."
3

The third "Whereas Clause" of RA 3046 expresses the import of treating the Philippines as an archipelagic State:

"WHEREAS, all the waters around, between, and connecting the various islands of the Philippine archipelago, irrespective of their width or dimensions, have always been considered as necessary appurtenances of the land territory, forming part of the inland waters of the Philippines."
4

One of the four conventions framed during the first United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in Geneva, this treaty, excluding the Philippines, entered into force on 10 September 1964.
5 6 7

UNCLOS III entered into force on 16 November 1994. The Philippines signed the treaty on 10 December 1982. Article 47, paragraphs 1-3, provide: 1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. 2. The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. 3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. (Emphasis supplied) xxxx

UNCLOS III entered into force on 16 November 1994. The deadline for the filing of application is mandated in Article 4, Annex II: "Where a coastal State intends to establish, in accordance with article 76, the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, it shall submit particulars of such limits to the Commission along with supporting scientific and technical data as soon as possible but in any case within 10 years of the entry into force of this Convention for that State. The coastal State shall at the same time give the names of any Commission members who have provided it with scientific and technical advice." (Underscoring supplied) In a subsequent meeting, the States parties agreed that for States which became bound by the treaty before 13 May 1999 (such as the Philippines)

the ten-year period will be counted from that date. Thus, RA 9522, which took effect on 27 March 2009, barely met the deadline.
9

Rollo, p. 34.

10

Which provides: "The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines."
11

Entered into between the Unites States and Spain on 10 December 1898 following the conclusion of the Spanish-American War. Under the terms of the treaty, Spain ceded to the United States "the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands" lying within its technical description.
12

The Treaty of Washington, between Spain and the United States (7 November 1900), transferring to the US the islands of Cagayan, Sulu, and Sibutu and the US-Great Britain Convention (2 January 1930) demarcating boundary lines between the Philippines and North Borneo.
13 14

Article II, Section 7, Section 8, and Section 16.

Allegedly in violation of Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 2 and Article XIII, Section 7 of the Constitution.
15 16

Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, 320 Phil. 171, 186 (1995).

Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 (1960); Sanidad v. COMELEC, 165 Phil. 303 (1976).
17

Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 899 (2003) citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona,Jr., G.R. No. 113375, 5 May 1994, 232 SCRA 110, 155-156 (1995) (Feliciano, J., concurring). The two other factors are: "the
character of funds or assets involved in the controversy and a clear disregard of constitutional or statutory prohibition." Id.
18 19

. Rollo, pp. 144-147.

See e.g. Aquino III v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, 7 April 2010, 617 SCRA 623 (dismissing a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716, not for the impropriety of remedy but for lack of merit); Aldaba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188078, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 137

(issuing the writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional Republic Act No. 9591); Macalintal v. COMELEC, 453 Phil. 586 (2003) (issuing the writs of certiorari and prohibition declaring unconstitutional portions of Republic Act No. 9189).
20

See e.g. Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No. 180643, 25 March 2008, 549 SCRA 77 (granting a writ of certiorari against the Philippine Senate and nullifying the Senate contempt order issued against petitioner).
21 22

Rollo, p. 31.

Respondents state in their Comment that petitioners theory "has not been accepted or recognized by either the United States or Spain," the parties to the Treaty of Paris. Respondents add that "no State is known to have supported this proposition." Rollo, p. 179.
23

UNCLOS III belongs to that larger corpus of international law of the sea, which petitioner Magallona himself defined as "a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. x x x x" (Merlin M. Magallona, Primer on the Law of the Sea 1 [1997]) (Italicization supplied).
24

Following Article 47 (1) of UNCLOS III which provides: An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of theoutermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. (Emphasis supplied)

25

Under the United Nations Charter, use of force is no longer a valid means of acquiring territory.
26

The last paragraph of the preamble of UNCLOS III states that "matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law."
27 28 29

Rollo, p. 51.
Id. at 51-52, 64-66. Based on figures respondents submitted in their Comment (id. at 182).

30 31 32 33

Under Article 74. See note 7. Presidential Decree No. 1596 classifies the KIG as a municipality of Palawan.

KIG lies around 80 nautical miles west of Palawan while Scarborough Shoal is around 123 nautical west of Zambales.
34 35 36 37

Journal, Senate 14th Congress 44th Session 1416 (27 January 2009).

Rollo, p. 159.
Section 2, RA 9522. Article 121 provides: "Regime of islands. 1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf."

38 39

Rollo, pp. 56-57, 60-64.

Paragraph 2, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution uses the term "archipelagic waters" separately from "territorial sea." Under UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State may have internal waters such as those enclosed by closing lines across bays and mouths of rivers. See Article 50, UNCLOS III. Moreover, Article 8 (2) of UNCLOS III provides: "Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters." (Emphasis supplied)
40

Mandated under Articles 52 and 53 of UNCLOS III: Article 52. Right of innocent passage.

1. Subject to article 53 and without prejudice to article 50, ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters, in accordance with Part II, section 3. 2. The archipelagic State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its archipelagic waters the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published. (Emphasis supplied) Article 53. Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. 1. An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for the continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea. 2. All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes. 3. Archipelagic sea lanes passage means the exercise in accordance with this Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. 4. Such sea lanes and air routes shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea and shall include all normal passage routes used as routes for international navigation or overflight through or over archipelagic waters and, within such routes, so far as ships are concerned, all normal navigational channels, provided that duplication of routes of similar convenience between the same entry and exit points shall not be necessary. 5. Such sea lanes and air routes shall be defined by a series of continuous axis lines from the entry points of passage routes to the exit points. Ships and aircraft in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall not deviate more than 25 nautical miles to either side of such axis lines during passage, provided that such ships and aircraft shall not navigate closer to the coasts than 10 per cent of the distance between the nearest points on islands bordering the sea lane.

6. An archipelagic State which designates sea lanes under this article may also prescribe traffic separation schemes for the safe passage of ships through narrow channels in such sea lanes. 7. An archipelagic State may, when circumstances require, after giving due publicity thereto, substitute other sea lanes or traffic separation schemes for any sea lanes or traffic separation schemes previously designated or prescribed by it. 8. Such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes shall conform to generally accepted international regulations. 9. In designating or substituting sea lanes or prescribing or substituting traffic separation schemes, an archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the competent international organization with a view to their adoption. The organization may adopt only such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may be agreed with the archipelagic State, after which the archipelagic State may designate, prescribe or substitute them. 10. The archipelagic State shall clearly indicate the axis of the sea lanes and the traffic separation schemes designated or prescribed by it on charts to which due publicity shall be given. 11. Ships in archipelagic sea lanes passage shall respect applicable sea lanes and traffic separation schemes established in accordance with this article. 12. If an archipelagic State does not designate sea lanes or air routes, the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised through the routes normally used for international navigation. (Emphasis supplied)
41

Namely, House Bill No. 4153 and Senate Bill No. 2738, identically titled "AN ACT TO ESTABLISH THE ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES IN THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS, PRESCRIBING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF FOREIGN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFTS EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES PASSAGE THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES AND PROVIDING FOR THE ASSOCIATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES THEREIN."
42

The relevant provision of UNCLOS III provides: Article 17. Right of innocent passage.

Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. (Emphasis supplied) Article 19. Meaning of innocent passage. 1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State; (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State; (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft; (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device; (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; (h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; (i) any fishing activities; (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State; (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage Article 21. Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage. 1. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following: (a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic; (b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations; (c) the protection of cables and pipelines; (d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea; (e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State; (f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof; (g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys; (h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State. 2. Such laws and regulations shall not apply to the design, construction, manning or equipment of foreign ships unless they are giving effect to generally accepted international rules or standards. 3. The coastal State shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.

4. Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea shall comply with all such laws and regulations and all generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at sea.
43

The right of innocent passage through the territorial sea applies only to ships and not to aircrafts (Article 17, UNCLOS III). The right of innocent passage of aircrafts through the sovereign territory of a State arises only under an international agreement. In contrast, the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters applies to both ships and aircrafts (Article 53 (12), UNCLOS III).
44

Following Section 2, Article II of the Constitution: "Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations." (Emphasis supplied)
45

"Archipelagic sea lanes passage is essentially the same as transit passage through straits" to which the territorial sea of continental coastal State is subject. R.R. Churabill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea 127 (1999).
46 47

Falling under Article 121 of UNCLOS III (see note 37).

Within the exclusive economic zone, other States enjoy the following rights under UNCLOS III: Article 58. Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone. 1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. 2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part. xxxx

Beyond the exclusive economic zone, other States enjoy the freedom of the high seas, defined under UNCLOS III as follows: Article 87. Freedom of the high seas. 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or landlocked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States: (a) freedom of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight; (c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII. 2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.
48 49

See note 13.

Phil. 546, 580-581 (1997).

50 51

Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, 316 Phil. 652, 698 (1995); Taada v. Angara, 338
G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993, 224 SCRA 792.

"The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens."

52

"The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources."
53

This can extend up to 350 nautical miles if the coastal State proves its right to claim an extended continental shelf (see UNCLOS III, Article 76, paragraphs 4(a), 5 and 6, in relation to Article 77).
54 55

Rollo, pp. 67-69.

Article 47 (1) provides: "An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1." (Emphasis supplied) in the Area. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

CONCURRING OPINION VELASCO, JR., J.: I concur with the ponencia and add the following complementary arguments and observations: A statute is a product of hard work and earnest studies of Congress to ensure that no constitutional provision, prescription or concept is infringed. Withal, before a law, in an appropriate proceeding, is nullified, an unequivocal breach of, or a clear conflict with, the Constitution must be demonstrated in such a way as to leave no doubt in the mind of the Court.1 In the same token, if a law runs directly afoul of the Constitution, the Courts duty on the matter should be clear and simple: Pursuant to its judicial power and as final arbiter of all legal questions,2 it should strike such law down, however laudable its purpose/s might be and regardless of the deleterious effect such action may carry in its wake.

Challenged in these proceedings is the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA 9522) entitled "An Act to Amend Certain Provisions of [RA] 3046, as Amended by [RA] 5446 to Define the Archipelagic Baselines Of The Philippines and for Other Purposes." For perspective, RA 3046, "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines, was enacted in 1961 to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) I. Eight years later, RA 5446 was enacted to amend typographical errors relating to coordinates in RA 3046. The latter law also added a provision asserting Philippine sovereignty over Sabah. As its title suggests, RA 9522 delineates archipelagic baselines of the country, amending in the process the old baselines law, RA 3046. Everybody is agreed that RA 9522 was enacted in response to the countrys commitment to conform to some 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) or UNCLOS III provisions to define new archipelagic baselines through legislation, the Philippines having signed3 and eventually ratified4 this multilateral treaty. The Court can take judicial notice that RA 9522 was registered and deposited with the UN on April 4, 2009. As indicated in its Preamble,5 1982 LOSC aims, among other things, to establish, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, "a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans." One of the measures to attain the order adverted to is to have a rule on baselines. Of particular relevance to the Philippines, as an archipelagic state, is Article 47 of UNCLOS III which deals with baselines: 1. An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outermost points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago provided that within such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. 2. The length of such baseline shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. 3. The drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. xxxx 9. The archipelagic State shall give due publicity to such charts or lists of geographical co-ordinates and shall deposit a copy of each such chart or list with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.6 (Emphasis added.) To obviate, however, the possibility that certain UNCLOS III baseline provisions would, in their implementation, undermine its sovereign and/or jurisdictional interests over

what it considers its territory,7 the Philippines, when it signed UNCLOS III on December 10, 1982, made the following "Declaration" to said treaty: The Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP] hereby manifests that in signing the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it does so with the understandings embodied in this declaration, made under the provisions of Article 310 of the Convention, to wit: The signing of the Convention by the [GRP] shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the [RP] under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines; Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the [RP] as successor of the United States of America [USA], under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of December 10, 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the [USA] and Great Britain of January 2, 1930; xxxx Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the [RP] over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto; The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamations of the Republic of the Philippines. The [GRP] maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution; The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic state over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty independence and security; The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.8 (Emphasis added.) Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 9522 on the principal ground that the law violates Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution on national territory which states: Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains,

including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied.) According to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., himself a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which drafted the 1987 Constitution, the aforequoted Section 1 on national territory was "in substance a copy of its 1973 counterpart."9 Art. I of the 1973 Constitution reads: Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Emphasis added.) As may be noted both constitutions speak of the "Philippine archipelago," and, via the last sentence of their respective provisions, assert the countrys adherence to the "archipelagic principle." Both constitutions divide the national territory into two main groups: (1) the Philippine archipelago and (2) other territories belonging to the Philippines. So what or where is Philippine archipelago contemplated in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions then? Fr. Bernas answers the poser in the following wise: Article I of the 1987 Constitution cannot be fully understood without reference to Article I of the 1973 Constitution. x x x xxxx x x x To understand [the meaning of national territory as comprising the Philippine archipelago], one must look into the evolution of [Art. I of the 1973 Constitution] from its first draft to its final form. Section 1 of the first draft submitted by the Committee on National Territory almost literally reproduced Article I of the 1935 Constitution x x x. Unlike the 1935 version, however, the draft designated the Philippines not simply as the Philippines but as "the Philippine archipelago.10 In response to the criticism that the definition was colonial in tone x x x, the second draft further designated the Philippine archipelago, as the historic home of the Filipino people from its beginning.11 After debates x x x, the Committee reported out a final draft, which became the initially approved version: "The national territory consists of the Philippine archipelago which is the ancestral home of the Filipino people and which is composed of all the islands and waters embraced therein"

What was the intent behind the designation of the Philippines as an "archipelago"? x x x Asked by Delegate Roselller Lim (Zamboanga) where this archipelago was, Committee Chairman Quintero answered that it was the area delineated in the Treaty of Paris. He said that objections to the colonial implication of mentioning the Treaty of Paris was responsible for the omission of the express mention of the Treaty of Paris. Report No. 01 of the Committee on National Territory had in fact been explicit in its delineation of the expanse of this archipelago. It said: Now if we plot on a map the boundaries of this archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris, a huge or giant rectangle will emerge, measuring about 600 miles in width and 1,200 miles in length. Inside this giant rectangle are the 7,100 islands comprising the Philippine Islands. From the east coast of Luzon to the eastern boundary of this huge rectangle in the Pacific Ocean, there is a distance of over 300 miles. From the west coast of Luzon to the western boundary of this giant rectangle in the China sea, there is a distance of over 150 miles. When the [US] Government enacted the Jones Law, the Hare-Hawes Cutting Law and the Tydings McDuffie Law, it in reality announced to the whole world that it was turning over to the Government of the Philippine Islands an archipelago (that is a big body of water studded with islands), the boundaries of which archipelago are set forth in Article III of the Treaty of Paris. It also announced to the whole world that the waters inside the giant rectangle belong to the Philippines that they are not part of the high seas. When Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, in effect she announced to the whole world that she was ceding to the [US] the Philippine archipelago x x x, that this archipelago was bounded by lines specified in the treaty, and that the archipelago consisted of the huge body of water inside the boundaries and the islands inside said boundaries. The delineation of the extent of the Philippine archipelago must be understood in the context of the modifications made both by the Treaty of Washington of November 7, 1900, and of the Convention of January 12, 1930, in order to include the Islands of Sibutu and of Cagayan de Sulu and the Turtle and Mangsee Islands. However, x x x the definition of the archipelago did not include the Batanes group[, being] outside the boundaries of the Philippine archipelago as set forth in the Treaty of Paris. In literal terms, therefore, the Batanes islands would come not under the Philippine archipelago but under the phrase "all other territories belong to the Philippines."12 x x x (Emphasis added.) From the foregoing discussions on the deliberations of the provisions on national territory, the following conclusion is abundantly evident: the "Philippine archipelago" of the 1987 Constitution is the same "Philippine archipelago" referred to in Art. I of the 1973 Constitution which in turn corresponds to the territory defined and described in Art. 1 of the 1935 Constitution,13 which pertinently reads:

Section 1. The Philippines comprises all the territory ceded to the [US] by the Treaty of Paris concluded between the [US] and Spain on the tenth day of December, [1898], the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands in the treaty concluded at Washington, between the [US] and Spain on November [7, 1900] and the treaty concluded between the [US] and Great Britain x x x. While the Treaty of Paris is not mentioned in both the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, its mention, so the nationalistic arguments went, being "a repulsive reminder of the indignity of our colonial past,"14 it is at once clear that the Treaty of Paris had been utilized as key reference point in the definition of the national territory. On the other hand, the phrase "all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction," found in the 1987 Constitution, which replaced the deleted phrase "all territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title"15 found in the 1973 Constitution, covers areas linked to the Philippines with varying degrees of certainty.16 Under this category would fall: (a) Batanes, which then 1971 Convention Delegate Eduardo Quintero, Chairperson of the Committee on National Territory, described as belonging to the Philippines in all its history;17 (b) Sabah, over which a formal claim had been filed, the so-called Freedomland (a group of islands known as Spratleys); and (c) any other territory, over which the Philippines had filed a claim or might acquire in the future through recognized modes of acquiring territory.18 As an author puts it, the deletion of the words "by historic right or legal title" is not to be interpreted as precluding future claims to areas over which the Philippines does not actually exercise sovereignty.19 Upon the foregoing perspective and going into specifics, petitioners would have RA 9522 stricken down as unconstitutional for the reasons that it deprives the Philippines of what has long been established as part and parcel of its national territory under the Treaty of Paris, as supplemented by the aforementioned 1900 Treaty of Washington or, to the same effect, revises the definition on or dismembers the national territory. Pushing their case, petitioners argue that the constitutional definition of the national territory cannot be remade by a mere statutory act.20 As another point, petitioners parlay the theory that the law in question virtually weakens the countrys territorial claim over the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and Sabah, both of which come under the category of "other territories" over the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. Petitioners would also assail the law on grounds related to territorial sea lanes and internal waters transit passage by foreign vessels. It is remarkable that petitioners could seriously argue that RA 9522 revises the Philippine territory as defined in the Constitution, or worse, constitutes an abdication of territory. It cannot be over-emphasized enough that RA 9522 is a baseline law enacted to implement the 1982 LOSC, which in turn seeks to regulate and establish an orderly sea

use rights over maritime zones. Or as the ponencia aptly states, RA 9522 aims to markout specific base points along the Philippine coast from which baselines are drawn to serve as starting points to measure the breadth of the territorial sea and maritime zones.21 The baselines are set to define the sea limits of a state, be it coastal or archipelagic, under the UNCLOS III regime. By setting the baselines to conform to the prescriptions of UNCLOS III, RA 9522 did not surrender any territory, as petitioners would insist at every turn, for UNCLOS III is concerned with setting order in the exercise of sea-use rights, not the acquisition or cession of territory. And let it be noted that under UNCLOS III, it is recognized that countries can have territories outside their baselines. Far from having a dismembering effect, then, RA 9522 has in a limited but real sense increased the countrys maritime boundaries. How this situation comes about was extensively explained by then Minister of State and head of the Philippine delegation to UNCLOS III Arturo Tolentino in his sponsorship speech22 on the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa with the LOSC: xxxx Then, we should consider, Mr. Speaker, that under the archipelagic principle, the whole area inside the archipelagic base lines become a unified whole and the waters between the islands which formerly were regarded by international law as open or international seas now become waters under the complete sovereignty of the Filipino people. In this light there would be an additional area of 141,800 square nautical miles inside the base lines that will be recognized by international law as Philippine waters, equivalent to 45,351,050 hectares. These gains in the waters of the sea, 45,211,225 hectares outside the base lines and 141,531,000 hectares inside the base lines, total 93,742,275 hectares as a total gain in the waters under Philippine jurisdiction. From a pragmatic standpoint, therefore, the advantage to our country and people not only in terms of the legal unification of land and waters of the archipelago in the light of international law, but also in terms of the vast resources that will come under the dominion and jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines, your Committee on Foreign Affairs does not hesitate to ask this august Body to concur in the Convention by approving the resolution before us today. May I say it was the unanimous view of delegations at the Conference on the Law of the Sea that archipelagos are among the biggest gainers or beneficiaries under the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Lest it be overlooked, the constitutional provision on national territory, as couched, is broad enough to encompass RA 9522s definition of the archipelagic baselines. To reiterate, the laying down of baselines is not a mode of acquiring or asserting ownership a territory over which a state exercises sovereignty. They are drawn for the purpose of defining or establishing the maritime areas over which a state can exercise sovereign rights. Baselines are used for fixing starting point from which the territorial

belt is measured seawards or from which the adjacent maritime waters are measured. Thus, the territorial sea, a marginal belt of maritime waters, is measured from the baselines extending twelve (12) nautical miles outward.23 Similarly, Art. 57 of the 1982 LOSC provides that the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) "shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured."24 Most important to note is that the baselines indicated under RA 9522 are derived from Art. 47 of the 1982 LOSC which was earlier quoted. Since the 1987 Constitutions definition of national territory does not delimit where the Philippines baselines are located, it is up to the political branches of the government to supply the deficiency. Through Congress, the Philippines has taken an official position regarding its baselines to the international community through RA 3046,25 as amended by RA 544626 and RA 9522. When the Philippines deposited a copy of RA 9522 with the UN Secretary General, we effectively complied in good faith with our obligation under the 1982 LOSC. A declaration by the Court of the constitutionality of the law will complete the bona fides of the Philippines vis-a-vis the law of the sea treaty. It may be that baseline provisions of UNCLOS III, if strictly implemented, may have an imposing impact on the signatory states jurisdiction and even their sovereignty. But this actuality, without more, can hardly provide a justifying dimension to nullify the complying RA 9522. As held by the Court in Bayan Muna v. Romulo,27 treaties and international agreements have a limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing and absolute nature of sovereignty. By their voluntary acts, states may decide to surrender or waive some aspects of their sovereignty. The usual underlying consideration in this partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or reciprocal undertaking. On the premise that the Philippines has adopted the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution. As a signatory of the 1982 LOSC, it behooves the Philippines to honor its obligations thereunder. Pacta sunt servanda, a basic international law postulate that "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith."28 The exacting imperative of this principle is such that a state may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."29 The allegation that Sabah has been surrendered by virtue of RA 9522, which supposedly repealed the hereunder provision of RA 5446, is likewise unfounded. Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.

There is nothing in RA 9522 indicating a clear intention to supersede Sec. 2 of RA 5446. Petitioners obviously have read too much into RA 9522s amendment on the baselines found in an older law. Aside from setting the countrys baselines, RA 9522 is, in its Sec. 3, quite explicit in its reiteration of the Philippines exercise of sovereignty, thus: Section 3. This Act affirms that the Republic of the Philippines has dominion, sovereignty and jurisdiction over all portions of the national territory as defined in the Constitution and by provisions of applicable laws including, without limitation, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, as amended. To emphasize, baselines are used to measure the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Having KIG and the Scarborough Shoal outside Philippine baselines will not diminish our sovereignty over these areas. Art. 46 of UNCLOS III in fact recognizes that an archipelagic state, such as the Philippines, is a state "constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands." (emphasis supplied) The "other islands" referred to in Art. 46 are doubtless islands not forming part of the archipelago but are nevertheless part of the states territory. The Philippines sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal are, thus, in no way diminished. Consider: Other countries such as Malaysia and the United States have territories that are located outside its baselines, yet there is no territorial question arising from this arrangement. 30 It may well be apropos to point out that the Senate version of the baseline bill that would become RA 9522 contained the following explanatory note: The law "reiterates our sovereignty over the Kalayaan Group of Islands declared as part of the Philippine territory under Presidential Decree No. 1596. As part of the Philippine territory, they shall be considered as a regime of islands under Article 121 of the Convention."31 Thus, instead of being in the nature of a "treasonous surrender" that petitioners have described it to be, RA 9522 even harmonizes our baseline laws with our international agreements, without limiting our territory to those confined within the countrys baselines. Contrary to petitioners contention, the classification of KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as falling under the Philippines regime of islands is not constitutionally objectionable. Such a classification serves as compliance with LOSC and the Philippines assertion of sovereignty over KIG and Scarborough Shoal. In setting the baseline in KIG and Scarborough Shoal, RA 9522 states that these are areas "over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction." It is, thus, not correct for petitioners to claim that the Philippines has lost 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters upon making this classification. Having 15,000 square nautical miles of Philippine waters outside of our baselines, to reiterate, does not translate to a surrender of these waters. The Philippines maintains its assertion of ownership over territories outside of its

baselines. Even China views RA 9522 as an assertion of ownership, as seen in its Protest32 filed with the UN Secretary-General upon the deposit of RA 9522. We take judicial notice of the effective occupation of KIG by the Philippines. Petitioners even point out that national and local elections are regularly held there. The classification of KIG as under a "regime of islands" does not in any manner affect the Philippines consistent position with regard to sovereignty over KIG. It does not affect the Philippines other acts of ownership such as occupation or amend Presidential Decree No. 1596, which declared KIG as a municipality of Palawan. The fact that the baselines of KIG and Scarborough Shoal have yet to be defined would not detract to the constitutionality of the law in question. The resolution of the problem lies with the political departments of the government. All told, the concerns raised by the petitioners about the diminution or the virtual dismemberment of the Philippine territory by the enactment of RA 9522 are, to me, not well grounded. To repeat, UNCLOS III pertains to a law on the seas, not territory. As part of its Preamble,33 LOSC recognizes "the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans x x x." This brings me to the matter of transit passage of foreign vessels through Philippine waters. Apropos thereto, petitioners allege that RA 9522 violates the nuclear weapons-free policy under Sec. 8, in relation to Sec. 16, Art. II of the Constitution, and exposes the Philippines to marine pollution hazards, since under the LOSC the Philippines supposedly must give to ships of all states the right of innocent passage and the right of archipelagic sea-lane passage. The adverted Sec. 8, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution declares the adoption and pursuit by the Philippines of "a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory." On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. l6 underscores the States firm commitment "to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." Following the allegations of petitioners, these twin provisions will supposedly be violated inasmuch as RA 9522 accedes to the right of innocent passage and the right of archipelagic sea-lane passage provided under the LOSC. Therefore, ships of all nationsbe they nuclear-carrying warships or neutral commercial vessels transporting goodscan assert the right to traverse the waters within our islands. A cursory reading of RA 9522 would belie petitioners posture. In context, RA 9522 simply seeks to conform to our international agreement on the setting of baselines and provides nothing about the designation of archipelagic sea-lane passage or the

regulation of innocent passage within our waters. Again, petitioners have read into the amendatory RA 9522 something not intended. Indeed, the 1982 LOSC enumerates the rights and obligations of archipelagic partystates in terms of transit under Arts. 51 to 53, which are explained below: To safeguard, in explicit terms, the general balance struck by [Articles 51 and 52] between the need for passage through the area (other than straits used for international navigation) and the archipelagic states need for security, Article 53 gave the archipelagic state the right to regulate where and how ships and aircraft pass through its territory by designating specific sea lanes. Rights of passage through these archipelagic sea lanes are regarded as those of transit passage: (1) An archipelagic State may designate sea lanes and air routes thereabove, suitable for safe, continuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through or over its archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea. (2) All ships and aircraft enjoy the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage in such sea lanes and air routes. (3) Archipelagic sea lanes passage is the exercise in accordance with the present Convention of the rights of navigation and overflight in the normal mode solely for the purpose of continuous, expeditious and unobstructed transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.34 But owing to the geographic structure and physical features of the country, i.e., where it is "essentially a body of water studded with islands, rather than islands with water around them,"35 the Philippines has consistently maintained the conceptual unity of land and water as a necessary element for territorial integrity,36 national security (which may be compromised by the presence of warships and surveillance ships on waters between the islands),37 and the preservation of its maritime resources. As succinctly explained by Minister Arturo Tolentino, the essence of the archipelagic concept is "the dominion and sovereignty of the archipelagic State within its baselines, which were so drawn as to preserve the territorial integrity of the archipelago by the inseparable unity of the land and water domain."38 Indonesia, like the Philippines, in terms of geographic reality, has expressed agreement with this interpretation of the archipelagic concept. So it was that in 1957, the Indonesian Government issued the Djuanda Declaration, therein stating : [H]istorically, the Indonesian archipelago has been an entity since time immemorial.1avvphi1 In view of the territorial entirety and of preserving the wealth of the Indonesian state, it is deemed necessary to consider all waters between the islands and entire entity.

x x x On the ground of the above considerations, the Government states that all waters around, between and connecting, the islands or parts of islands belonging to the Indonesian archipelago irrespective of their width or dimension are natural appurtenances of its land territory and therefore an integral part of the inland or national waters subject to the absolute sovereignty of Indonesia.39 (Emphasis supplied.) Hence, the Philippines maintains the sui generis character of our archipelagic waters as equivalent to the internal waters of continental coastal states. In other words, the landward waters embraced within the baselines determined by RA 9522, i.e., all waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.40 Accordingly, such waters are not covered by the jurisdiction of the LOSC and cannot be subjected to the rights granted to foreign states in archipelagic waters, e.g., the right of innocent passage,41 which is allowed only in the territorial seas, or that area of the ocean comprising 12 miles from the baselines of our archipelago; archipelagic sea-lane passage;42 over flight;43 and traditional fishing rights.44 Our position that all waters within our baselines are internal waters, which are outside the jurisdiction of the 1982 LOSC,45 was abundantly made clear by the Philippine Declaration at the time of the signing of the LOSC on December 10, 1982. To reiterate, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Declaration state: 5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential decrees of Proclamation of the republic of the Philippines; the Government x x x maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution; 6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security; 7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines and removes straits connecting this water with the economic zone or high seas from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation. (Emphasis supplied.)46 More importantly, by the ratification of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987, the integrity of the Philippine state as comprising both water and land was strengthened by the proviso in its first article, viz: "The waters around, between, and connecting the

islands of the [Philippine] archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (emphasis supplied) In effect, contrary to petitioners allegations, the Philippines ratification of the 1982 LOSC did not matter-of-factly open our internal waters to passage by foreign ships, either in the concept of innocent passage or archipelagic sea-lane passage, in exchange for the international communitys recognition of the Philippines as an archipelagic state. The Filipino people, by ratifying the 1987 Constitution, veritably rejected the quid pro quo petitioners take as being subsumed in that treaty. Harmonized with the Declaration and the Constitution, the designation of baselines made in RA 9522 likewise designates our internal waters, through which passage by foreign ships is not a right, but may be granted by the Philippines to foreign states but only as a dissolvable privilege. In view of the foregoing, I vote to DISMISS the Petition. G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975 PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, REUEL ABRAHAM, MILAGROS ABUEG, AVELINO ACOSTA, CAROLINA ACOSTA, MARTIN AGSALUD, JOSEFINA AGUINALDO, GLORIA ALBANO, ANTONIO ALUNING, COSME ALVAREZ, ISABEL ALZATE, AURORA APUSEN, TOMAS ARCANGEL, LOURDES ARJONELLO, MANUEL AROMIN, DIONISIO ASISTIN, JOSE AURE, NICASIO AZNAR, EUGENIO AZURIN, CLARITA BACUGAN, PIO BALAGOT, HEREDIO BALMACEDA, ESTHER BANAAG, JOVENCIO BARBERO, MONICO BARBADILLO, HERNANDO BARROZO, FILIPINA BARROZO, REMEDIO BARTOLOME, ANGELINA BASCOS, JOSE BATALLA, ALMARIO BAUTISTA, EUGENIO BAUTISTA, JR., HERMALO BAUTISTA, JUANITO BAUTISTA, SEVERINO BARBANO, CAPPIA BARGONIA, ESMERALDA BERNARDEZ, RUBEN BERNARDEZ, ALFREDO BONGER, TOMAS BOQUIREN, ANGELINA BRAVO, VIRGINIA BRINGA, ALBERTO BUNEO, SIMEON CABANAYAN, LUCRECIA CACATIAN, LEONIDES CADAY, ANGELINA CADOTTE, IGNACIO CALAYCAY, PACIFICO CALUB, RUFINO CALUZA, CALVIN CAMBA, ALFREDO CAMPOSENO, BAGUILITA CANTO, ALFREDO CARRERA, PEDRO CASES, CRESCENTE CASIS, ERNESTO CASTANEDA, HERMINIO CASTILLO, JOSE CASTRO, LEONOR CASTRO, MADEO CASTRO, MARIA PINZON CASTRO, PABLO CATURA, RESTITUTO CESPADES, FLORA CHACON, EDMUNDO CORPUZ, ESTHER CRUZ, CELIA CUARESMA, AQUILINO DACAYO, DIONISIA DASALLA, SOCORRO DELFIN, ABELARDO DIAZ, ARTHUR DIAZ, CYNTHIA DIZON, MARCIA DIZON, ISABELO DOMINGO, HONORATA DOZA, CAROLINA DUAD, JUSTINIANO EPISTOLA, ROMEO ENCARNACION, PRIMITIVO ESCANO, ELSA ESPEJO, JUAN

ESPEJO, RIZALINA ESQUILLO, YSMAEL FARINAS, LORNA FAVIS, DAN FERNANDEZ, JAIME FERNANDEZ, ALFREDO FERRER, MODESTO FERRER, JR., EUGENIO FLANDEZ, GUILLERMO FLORENDO, ALFREDO FLORES, DOMINGA FLORES, ROMEO FLORES, LIGAYA FONTANILLA, MELCHOR GASMEN, LEILA GASMENA, CONSUELO GAROLAGA, ALFONSO GOROSPE, CESAR GOROSPE, RICARDO GOROSPE, JR., CARLITO GUZMAN, ERNESTO DE GUZMAN, THELMA DE GUZMAN, FELIX HERNANDEZ, SOLIVEN HERNANDO, FRANCISCO HIDALGO, LEONILO INES, SIXTO JAQUIES, TRINIDAD JAVIER, FERMIN LAGUA, GUALBERTO LAMBINO, ROMAN LANTING, OSCAR LAZO, ROSARIO LAZO, JOSEFINA DE LARA, AMBROSIO LAZOL, NALIE LIBATIQUE, LAMBERTO LLAMAS, ANTONIO LLANES, ROMULA LOPEZ, ADRIANO LORENZANA, ANTONIO MACARAEG, ILDEFONSO MAGAT, CECILIO MAGHANOY, ALFONSO MAGSANOC, AVELINA MALLARE, AUGUSTO MANALO, DOMINADOR MANASAN, BENITO MANECLANG, JR., TIRSO MANGUMAY, EVELIA MANZANO, HONORANTE MARIANO, DOMINGO MEDINA, MARTIN MENDOZA, PERFECTO MILANA, EMILIO MILLAN, GREGORIO MONEGAS, CONSOLACION NAVALTA, NOLI OCAMPO, VICENTE CLEGARIO, ELPIDIO PALMONES, ARACELI PANGALANGAN, ISIDORO PANLASIGUI, JR., ARTEMIO PARIS, JR., FEDERICO PAYUMO, JR., NELIA PAYUMO, BITUEN PAZ, FRANCISCO PENGSON, OSCAR PERALTA, PROCORRO PERALTA, RAMON PERALTA, MINDA PICHAY, MAURO PIMENTEL, PRUDENCIO PIMENTEL, LEOPOLDO PUNO, REYNALDO RABE, ROLANDO REA, CONSTANTINO REA, CECILIA RICO, CECILIO RILLORAZA, AURORA ROMAN, MERCEDES RUBIO, URSULA RUPISAN, OLIVIA SABADO, BERNARDO SACRAMENTO, LUZ SALVADOR, JOSE SAMSON, JR., ROMULA DE LOS SANTOS, ANTONIO SAYSON, JR., FLORANTE SERIL, MARIO SISON, RUDY SISON, PROCEDIO TABIN, LUCENA TABISULA, HANNIBAL TAJANO, ENRIQUE TIANGCO, JR., JUSTINIANO TOBIAS, NYMIA TOLENTINO, CONSTANTE TOLENTINO, TEODORO TOREBIO, FEDERICO TRINIDAD, JOVENCINTO TRINIDAD, LAZARO VALDEZ, LUDRALINA VALDEZ, MAXIMINA VALDEZ, FRANCISCO VELASCO, JR., ROSITA VELASCO, SEVERO VANTANILLA, VENANCIO VENTIGAN, FELICITAS VENUS, NIEVES DE VERA, ELISEO VERSOZA, SILVESTRE VILA, GLORIA VILLAMOR, ALEJANDRO VELLANUEVA, DAVID VILLANUEVA, CAROLINA VILLASENOR ORLANDO VILLASTIQUE, MAJELLA VILORIN, ROSARIO VILORIA, MAY VIRATA, FEDERICO VIRAY, MELBA YAMBAO, MARIO ZAMORA, AUTENOR ABUEG, SOTERO ACEDO, HONRADO ALBERTO, FELIPE ALIDO, VICENTE ANCHUELO, LIBERTAD APEROCHO, MARIANO BALBAGO, MARIO BALMACEDA, DAISY BICENIO, SYLVIA BUSTAMANTE, RAYMUNDO GEMERINO, LAZARO CAPURAS, ROGELIO CARUNGCONG, ZACARIAS CAYETANO, JR., LILY CHUA, ANDRES CRUZ, ARTURO CRUZ, BIENVENIDO ESTEBAN, PABLO JARETA, MANUEL JOSE, NESTORIA KINTANAR, CLEOPATRIA LAZEM. MELCHOR LAZO, JESUS LUNA, GASPAR MARINAS, CESAR MAULSON, MANUEL MEDINA, JESUS PLURAD, LAKAMBINI RAZON, GLORIA IBANEZ, JOSE SANTOS, ELEAZAR SQUI, JOSE TAMAYO, FELIPE TENORIO, SILVINO UMALI, VICENTE ZARA, SATURNINO

GARCIA, WILLIAM GARCIA, NORMA GARINGARAO, ROSARIO ANTONIO, RUBEN BAUTISTA, QUIRINO PUESTO, NELIA M. GOMERI, OSCAR R. LANUZA, AURORA M. LINDAYA, GREGORIO MOGSINO, JACRM B. PAPA, GREGORIO R. RIEGO, TERESITA N. ROZUL, MAGTANGOL SAMALA, PORFIRIO AGOCOLIS, LEONARDO MONTE, HERMELINO PATI, ALFREDO PAYOYO, PURIFICACION ROJAS, ODANO TEANO, RICARDO SANTIAGO, and MARCELO MANGAHAS, respondents.

Gov't. Corp. Counsel Leopoldo M. Abellera, Trial Attorneys Manuel M. Lazaro and Vicente Constantine, Jr., for petitioner. Renato B. Kare and Simeon C. Sato for private respondents.

FERNANDO, J.: The principal issue that calls for resolution in this appeal by certiorari from an order of respondent Court of Industrial Relations is one of constitutional significance. It is concerned with the expanded role of government necessitated by the increased responsibility to provide for the general welfare. More specifically, it deals with the question of whether petitioner, the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, discharges governmental and not proprietary functions. The landmark opinion of the then Justice, row Chief Justice, Makalintal in Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration v. Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and offices, points the way to the right answer. 1 It interpreted the then fundamental law as hostile to the view of a limited or negative state. It is antithetical to the laissez faire concept. For as noted in an earlier decision, the welfare state concept "is not alien to the philosophy of [the 1935] Constitution." 2 It is much more so under the present Charter, which is impressed with an even more explicit recognition of social and economic rights. 3 There is manifest, to recall Laski, "a definite increase in the profundity of the social conscience," resulting in "a state which seeks to realize more fully the common good of its members." 4 It does not necessarily follow, however, just because petitioner is engaged in governmental rather than proprietary functions, that the labor controversy was beyond the jurisdiction of the now defunct respondent Court. Nor is the objection raised that petitioner does not come within the coverage of the Eight-Hour Labor Law persuasive. 5 We cannot then grant the reversal sought. We affirm. The facts are undisputed. On December 20, 1966, claimants, now private respondents, filed with respondent Court a petition wherein they alleged their employment relationship, the overtime services in excess of the regular eight hours a day rendered by them, and the failure to pay them overtime compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444. Their prayer was for the differential between the amount

actually paid to them and the amount allegedly due them. 6 There was an answer filed by petitioner Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration denying the allegations and raising the special defenses of lack of a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. 7 The issues were thereafter joined, and the case set for trial, with both parties presenting their evidence. 8 After the parties submitted the case for decision, the then Presiding Judge Arsenio T. Martinez of respondent Court issued an order sustaining the claims of private respondents for overtime services from December 23, 1963 up to the date the decision was rendered on March 21, 1970, and directing petitioner to pay the same, minus what it had already paid. 9 There was a motion for reconsideration, but respondent Court en banc denied the same. 10 Hence this petition for certiorari. Petitioner Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, as had been noted, would predicate its plea for the reversal of the order complained of on the basic proposition that it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent Court as it is exercising governmental functions and that it is exempt from the operation of Commonwealth Act No. 444. 11While, to repeat, its submission as to the governmental character of its operation is to be given credence, it is not a necessary consequence that respondent Court is devoid of jurisdiction. Nor could the challenged order be set aside on the additional argument that the Eight-Hour Labor Law is not applicable to it. So it was, at the outset, made clear. 1. A reference to the enactments creating petitioner corporation suffices to demonstrate the merit of petitioner's plea that it performs governmental and not proprietary functions. As originally established by Republic Act No. 2265, 12 its purposes and objectives were set forth thus: "(a) To promote the effective merchandising of Virginia tobacco in the domestic and foreign markets so that those engaged in the industry will be placed on a basis of economic security; (b) To establish and maintain balanced production and consumption of Virginia tobacco and its manufactured products, and such marketing conditions as will insure and stabilize the price of a level sufficient to cover the cost of production plus reasonable profit both in the local as well as in the foreign market; (c) To create, establish, maintain, and operate processing, warehousing and marketing facilities in suitable centers and supervise the selling and buying of Virginia tobacco so that the farmers will enjoy reasonable prices that secure a fair return of their investments; (d) To prescribe rules and regulations governing the grading, classifying, and inspecting of Virginia tobacco; and (e) To improve the living and economic conditions of the people engaged in the tobacco industry." 13 The amendatory statute, Republic Act No. 4155, 14 renders even more evident its nature as a governmental agency. Its first section on the declaration of policy reads: "It is declared to be the national policy, with respect to the local Virginia tobacco industry, to encourage the production of local Virginia tobacco of the qualities needed and in quantities marketable in both domestic and foreign markets, to establish this industry on an efficient and economic basis, and, to create a climate conducive to local cigarette manufacture of the qualities desired by the consuming public, blending imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco to improve the quality of locally manufactured

cigarettes." 15 The objectives are set forth thus: "To attain this national policy the following objectives are hereby adopted: 1. Financing; 2. Marketing; 3. The disposal of stocks of the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) and the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) at the best obtainable prices and conditions in order that a reinvigorated Virginia tobacco industry may be established on a sound basis; and 4. Improving the quality of locally manufactured cigarettes through blending of imported and native Virginia leaf tobacco; such importation with corresponding exportation at a ratio of one kilo of imported to four kilos of exported Virginia tobacco, purchased by the importer-exporter from the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration." 16 It is thus readily apparent from a cursory perusal of such statutory provisions why petitioner can rightfully invoke the doctrine announced in the leading Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration decision 17and why the objection of private respondents with its overtones of the distinction between constituent and ministrant functions of governments as set forth in Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation 18 if futile. The irrelevance of such a distinction considering the needs of the times was clearly pointed out by the present Chief Justice, who took note, speaking of the reconstituted Agricultural Credit Administration, that functions of that sort "may not be strictly what President Wilson described as "constituent" (as distinguished from "ministrant"),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." 19 Nonetheless, as he explained so persuasively: "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", 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." 20 Thus was laid to rest the doctrine in Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation, 21 based on the Wilsonian classification of the tasks incumbent on government into constituent and ministrant in accordance with the laissez faire principle. That concept, then dominant in economics, was carried into the governmental sphere, as noted in a textbook on political science, 22 the first edition of which was published in 1898, its author being the then

Professor, later American President, Woodrow Wilson. He took pains to emphasize that what was categorized by him as constituent functions had its basis in a recognition of what was demanded by the "strictest [concept of] laissez faire, [as they] are indeed the very bonds of society." 23 The other functions he would minimize as ministrant or optional. It is a matter of law that in the Philippines, the laissez faire principle hardly commanded the authoritative position which at one time it held in the United States. As early as 1919, Justice Malcolm in Rubi v. Provincial Board 24could affirm: "The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the individual, as axioms of economic and political theory, are of the past. The modern period has shown a widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of government activity." 25 The 1935 Constitution, as was indicated earlier, continued that approach. As noted in Edu v. Ericta: 26 "What is more, to erase any doubts, the Constitutional Convention saw to it that the concept of laissez-faire was rejected. It entrusted to our government the responsibility of coping with social and economic problems with the commensurate power of control over economic affairs. Thereby it could live up to its commitment to promote the general welfare through state action." 27 Nor did the opinion in Edu stop there: "To repeat, our Constitution which took effect in 1935 erased whatever doubts there might be on that score. Its philosophy is a repudiation of laissez-faire. One of the leading members of the Constitutional Convention, Manuel A. Roxas, later the first President of the Republic, made it clear when he disposed of the objection of Delegate Jose Reyes of Sorsogon, who noted the "vast extensions in the sphere of governmental functions" and the "almost unlimited power to interfere in the affairs of industry and agriculture as well as to compete with existing business" as "reflections of the fascination exerted by [the then] current tendencies' in other jurisdictions. He spoke thus: "My answer is that this constitution has a definite and well defined philosophy, not only political but social and economic.... If in this Constitution the gentlemen will find declarations of economic policy they are there because they are necessary to safeguard the interest and welfare of the Filipino people because we believe that the days have come when in selfdefense, a nation may provide in its constitution those safeguards, the patrimony, the freedom to grow, the freedom to develop national aspirations and national interests, not to be hampered by the artificial boundaries which a constitutional provision automatically imposes." 28 It would be then to reject what was so emphatically stressed in the Agricultural Credit Administration decision about which the observation was earlier made that it reflected the philosophy of the 1935 Constitution and is even more in consonance with the expanded role of government accorded recognition in the present Charter if the plea of petitioner that it discharges governmental function were not heeded. That path this Court is not prepared to take. That would be to go backward, to retreat rather than to advance. Nothing can thus be clearer than that there is no constitutional obstacle to a government pursuing lines of endeavor, formerly reserved for private enterprise. This is one way, in the language of Laski, by which through such activities, "the harsh contract

which [does] obtain between the levels of the rich and the poor" may be minimized. 29 It is a response to a trend noted by Justice Laurel in Calalang v. Williams 30 for the humanization of laws and the promotion of the interest of all component elements of society so that man's innate aspirations, in what was so felicitously termed by the First Lady as "a compassionate society" be attained. 31 2. The success that attended the efforts of petitioner to be adjudged as performing governmental rather than proprietary functions cannot militate against respondent Court assuming jurisdiction over this labor dispute. So it was mentioned earlier. As far back as Tabora v. Montelibano, 32 this Court, speaking through Justice Padilla, declared: The NARIC was established by the Government to protect the people against excessive or unreasonable rise in the price of cereals by unscrupulous dealers. With that main objective there is no reason why its function should not be deemed governmental. The Government owes its very existence to that aim and purpose to protect the people." 33 In a subsequent case, Naric Worker's Union v. Hon. Alvendia, 34 decided four years later, this Court, relying on Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Tan, 35 which specified the cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations, included among which is one that involves hours of employment under the Eight-Hour Labor Law, ruled that it is precisely respondent Court and not ordinary courts that should pass upon that particular labor controversy. For Justice J. B. L. Reyes, the ponente, the fact that there were judicial as well as administrative and executive pronouncements to the effect that the Naric was performing governmental functions did not suffice to confer competence on the then respondent Judge to issue a preliminary injunction and to entertain a complaint for damages, which as pointed out by the labor union, was connected with an unfair labor practice. This is emphasized by the dispositive portion of the decision: "Wherefore, the restraining orders complained of, dated May 19, 1958 and May 27, 1958, are set aside, and the complaint is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the National Rice and Corn Corporation's seeking whatever remedy it is entitled to in the Court of Industrial Relations." 36 Then, too, in a case involving petitioner itself, Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, 37 where the point in dispute was whether it was respondent Court or a court of first instance that is possessed of competence in a declaratory relief petition for the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, one that could readily be thought of as pertaining to the judiciary, the answer was that "unless the law speaks clearly and unequivocally, the choice should fall on the Court of Industrial Relations." 38 Reference to a number of decisions which recognized in the then respondent Court the jurisdiction to determine labor controversies by government-owned or controlled corporations lends to support to such an approach. 39 Nor could it be explained only on the assumption that proprietary rather than governmental functions did call for such a conclusion. It is to be admitted that such a view was not previously bereft of plausibility. With the aforecited Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration decision rendering obsolete the Bacani doctrine, it has, to use a Wilsonian phrase, now lapsed into "innocuous desuetude." 40 Respondent Court clearly was vested with jurisdiction.

3. The contention of petitioner that the Eight-Hour Labor Law 41 does not apply to it hardly deserves any extended consideration. There is an air of casualness in the way such an argument was advanced in its petition for review as well as in its brief. In both pleadings, it devoted less than a full page to its discussion. There is much to be said for brevity, but not in this case. Such a terse and summary treatment appears to be a reflection more of the inherent weakness of the plea rather than the possession of an advocate's enviable talent for concision. It did cite Section 2 of the Act, but its very language leaves no doubt that "it shall apply to all persons employed in any industry or occupation, whether public or private ... ." 42 Nor are private respondents included among the employees who are thereby barred from enjoying the statutory benefits. It cited Marcelo v. Philippine National Red Cross 43 and Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Araos. 44 Certainly, the activities to which the two above public corporations devote themselves can easily be distinguished from that engaged in by petitioner. A reference to the pertinent sections of both Republic Acts 2265 and 2155 on which it relies to obtain a ruling as to its governmental character should render clear the differentiation that exists. If as a result of the appealed order, financial burden would have to be borne by petitioner, it has only itself to blame. It need not have required private respondents to render overtime service. It can hardly be surmised that one of its chief problems is paucity of personnel. That would indeed be a cause for astonishment. It would appear, therefore, that such an objection based on this ground certainly cannot suffice for a reversal. To repeat, respondent Court must be sustained. WHEREFORE, the appealed Order of March 21, 1970 and the Resolution of respondent Court en banc of May 8, 1970 denying a motion for reconsideration are hereby affirmed. The last sentence of the Order of March 21, 1970 reads as follows: "To find how much each of them [private respondents] is entitled under this judgment, the Chief of the Examining Division, or any of his authorized representative, is hereby directed to make a reexamination of records, papers and documents in the possession of respondent PVTA pertinent and proper under the premises and to submit his report of his findings to the Court for further disposition thereof." Accordingly, as provided by the New Labor Code, this case is referred to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings conformably to law. No costs.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Barredo, Antonio, Esguerra, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Martin, JJ., concur. Makasiar, Muoz Palma, JJ., took no part. Teehankee J., is on leave.
G.R. No. L-11524 October 12, 1916

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, defendant-appellant.

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

MORELAND, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of P138,790.12, with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the 4th day of March 1915. The action is to recover internal revenue taxes assessed on the monthly deposits and the capital employed by the defendant bank in the business of banking from the first day of August, 1904, to June 30, 1914, together with the statutory penalties for refusing to pay the taxes as required by law. The case is before us on a stipulation of facts. Some evidence, both oral and documentary, was introduced. From the agreed facts it appears that the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros de Manila is an institution organized in accordance with the canon law, having been created by the the royal order of the King of Spain of July 8, 1880, made under the royal patronate powers then existing in the Crown of Spain. Various decrees affecting the organization of the defendant had been promulgated by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, as vice royal patron prior to the royal order of the 8th of July 1880, which decrees were referred to and continued in said royal order. The royal order referred to created, according to the purpose expressed therein, an institution for the safe investment of the savings of the poor classes and to assist the needy in time of need by loaning such savings to them at a low rate of interest. Its statutes and by-laws are subject to the will of the Catholic Archbishop of Manila, and may be changed by him at his pleasure. They provide for an annual interest of 4 per cent to the depositors, which is the limit to which the depositors are entitled to participate in the profits or earnings of the institution. During the entire period for which the taxes in litigation are assessed, defendant had a place of business in the city of Manila where credits were opened by the deposit or collection of money or currency subject to be paid by order. The theory on which the tax involved in this suit is assessed and sought to be collected is that the defendant institution is a bank within the definition of section 110

of Act No. 1189, known as the Internal Revenue Law, and that, as such, it is subject to a tax of one-eighteenth of one per centum each month upon the average amount of deposits of money, subject to payment by check or draft, or represented by certificates of deposit or otherwise, whether payable on demand or at some future day, imposed by section 111 of said Act, and to a further tax of one-twenty-fourth of one per centum each month upon the capital employed by the defendant in the business of banking, imposed by paragraph 2 of said section 111. The defendant seeks to escape the payment of the tax on its deposits by a claim that it is a savings bank as denied by the exception contained in paragraph 4 of section 111 which provides that: The deposits in associations or companies known as provident institutions, savings banks, savings funds, or savings institutions, having no capital stock and which do no other business than receiving deposits to be loaned or invested for the sole benefit of the parties making such deposits and without profit or compensation to the association or company, shall be exempt from this tax on so much of their deposits as such institutions have invested in securities satisfactory to the Insular Treasurer, and on all deposits, not exceeding four thousand pesos, made in the name of any person. The particular reason urged why there should be no tax on the capital employed by the defendant is that it has none. There is no real denial of the fact that defendant is engaged in banking business. Neither is there any contention as to the amount of the tax or the penalties imposed provided the right to tax be established. The amount of the deposits is admitted, as is also the amount of the accrued profits, surplus or capital of the defendant. It stands substantially conceded, therefore, that the decision of the lower court is correct in every particular, except those wherein it holds that the defendant does not fall within the exception contained in paragraph 4 of section 111 of Act No. 1189, and that the so called accrued profits or surplus falls within the definition of capital found in the Internal Revenue Law referred to. It being undenied that the defendant is engaged in the banking business and, therefore, presumptively, at least, liable to the payment of the taxes imposed on banks, the burden is on the defendant to show clearly that it falls within the exception created by the statute imposing the taxes. In the performance of this obligation an attempt was made to demonstrate that the defendant is a savings bank as denied by the exception referred to. The trial court held that it was not a savings bank for the reason that its deposits were not "to be loaned or invested for the sole benefit of the parties making such deposits and without profit or compensation to the association or company."

We are of the opinion that no successful attacks can be made on this finding. It is undisputed in this case that the defendant is a profit making institution, although it may not have been designed as such, and that the profits derived from the investment or the deposits go and belong to the institution itself. The only participation of the depositors in the results of the business of the institution is the right to a return of the deposits with interest at 4 per cent. In this particular respect the defendant is not different from any other banking institution. Whatever profit is made belongs, as in the case of an ordinary bank, to the bank itself. In that profit the depositor has no interest or participation; and it is conceded that, if the defendant institution were wound up today , the so-called surplus, or reserve, or accrued profits of P549,912.52, on which one of the taxes imposed in this case was assessed, would belong and be turned over to the defendant institution. That being the case, the defendant bank is a profit making institution and has been such during the period for which the taxes involved in this case were imposed. As a necessary result the finding of the trial court that it did not fall within the exception of the statute was correct. The appellant argues that, inasmuch as various persons holding the office of Collector of Internal Revenue during the ten years for which the taxes in suit were imposed failed to levy and assess them against the defendant, such failure is a practical construction of the statute by officials charged with its execution, and that that construction should be followed in this case. That would be a strong argument if the statute alleged to be so construed needed construction. The statute itself is perfectly clear as to what is and what is not a savings bank; and, accordingly, needs no construction to determine whether a given institution is or is not a savings bank. The constitution of the bank itself, its by-laws and its method of doing business, together with the destination of the profits made in the conduct of its business, determine whether it falls within the definition of the exception. In making that determination a construction of the statute is unnecessary. The elements which an institution must possess to be savings bank are set out with perfect clearness in the statute. The difficulty in the case is not that resulting from an ambiguity in the statute but is met in determining whether a given institution has those elements. The question is in one aspect a question of fact. The statute clearly and distinctly specifies all of the requisites of a savings bank. Whether or not an institution has those requisites does not depend upon an interpretation of the statute. If, in stating those elements, the Legislature had fallen into ambiguity of expression, or had used language the import of which is doubtful, there would then be presented an opportunity for interpretation or construction, or both. But where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous no interpretation or construction is necessary; for, the determination of whether a given institution has the requisites named by the statute, does not involve, primarily, an interpretation or a construction of the statute. Even giving this contention all the weight that is claimed for it we still would hesitate to apply it with all its force in the present case. The conditions under which the

tax laws of the Philippine Islands were administered and executed during the first years of American civil government, immediately following the change of sovereignty brought about by force of arms, were such as to relieve the government, in a measure at least, from the burden of a presumption which, under ordinary conditions, arises from the practical construction of a statute given by the officials charged with its execution. Everything was new and strange; the officials were confronted with a system of laws theretofore unknown to them;they were met by institutions they had never seen before; a strange country, a strange people, and strange laws left them, in some instances embarrassed, in others uncertain. The fact that they did not meet all of their obligations with that fullness required should not be urged too strongly against either them or the Government. lawphil.net It might be added, in this connection, that there was never a direct or press ruling on the question by any official. The mere fact that no tax was levied or assessed is the main reliance. The appellant also complains of the finding of the trial court to the effect that: The estimate and the assessment of the Collector of Internal Revenue carries with it a presumption, not only of the correctness of the taxes, but also of other matters affecting defendant's liability, thereby making it necessary for it to assume the burden of showing any illegal defect or grounds of non-liability upon which it relies to defeat the action. Even though the complaint in this regard were well founded, it would have little bearing on the result of the litigation when we take into consideration the universal rule that he who claims an exemption from his share of the common burden of taxation must justify his claim by showing that the Legislature intended to exempt him by words too plain to be mistaken. It being undisputed in this case that the defendant is a bank engaged in the banking business it immediately falls within the imposing clause of the statute placing certain taxes on banks and institutions doing a banking business. To escape that imposition the defendant must produce an Act of the Legislature showing an intention to exempt it from the operation of the imposing clause by words too plain to be mistaken. That being the case it matters little whether we say that the assessment and levy of the tax carries with it a presumption of liability, or whether we say that the admission of the defendant that it is engaged in banking business carries with it the presumption that it is liable to pay the taxes which the law imposes on all persons engaged in that business which the defendant must overcome. The argument of counsel for appellant based on the fact that certain savings banks in the United States have enormous reserve or accrued profits and that it would be a practical impossibility to distribute those profits among the depositors, we regard as without merit. The essential point is that, in those cases, the ownership of the depositors of the reserve funds or accrued profits is admitted; and their right to share in

the distribution thereof is undisputed. Here the ownership of the fund is claimed by the defendant and the right of the depositors to participate therein is denied. The question whether the P549,912.52 is capital and taxable as such is one which presents some difficulties. The word "capital" seems to have been used and understood by the Legislature of the Philippine Islands in a nontechnical sense. It is not "capital stock," or any other stated or fixed sum. It is, rather, the amount of money which the bank uses in its business; and this seems to be the sense in which the word is used in the Internal Revenue Law imposing a tax on the capital employed by a banking institution. The tax is levied by that Act "upon the capital employed by any bank . . . engaged in the business of banking." It is worthy of note that the proviso immediately following the phrase imposing the tax speaks of what is not capital, and provides that money borrowed and received from time to time in the usual course of business from any person not a partner of or interested in the bank shall not be considered as capital employed. This proviso may be viewed in two aspects. In the first place, giving a definition of what is not capital, it might, perhaps, be legitimate to assume that everything else used by the bank in the usual course of business was capital. n the second place, the phraseology would indicate that the Legislature, in speaking of capital, did not refer to a fixed sum which should be paid by the incorporators or stockholders in cash to the bank before or after it began business. If it were not for that proviso it would seem that in the word "capital" would be included "money borrowed or received from time to time in the usual course of business from any person not a partner of or interested in said bank." In other words, by the exclusion of money so borrowed the Legislature indicated that the capital upon which the tax was imposed was broad enough to cover whatever money, from whatever source except deposits, the bank used in the usual course of business. The third proviso is also not without significance in determining what the Legislature had in mind when it used the word "capital." It deals with what shall be considered capital for the purpose of taxation of banks which are branches of banks incorporated and located in foreign countries and in the United States. In the case of such branches the Legislature, by virtue of this proviso, gives no importance or significance to the actual capital of the branch bank at any given moment in levying tax upon the capital employed in the Philippine Islands; and it provides that the "capital employed" by any branch bank shall be determined by a comparison between the total amount of the earnings of the parent bank during a given period and also the total amount of the earnings of the branch bank on its business conducted in the Philippine Islands during the same period, and such a part of the total capital of the bank shall be deemed to have been employed in the Philippine Islands as the earnings in the Philippine Islands bear to the total earnings of the parent bank. Under this proviso a branch bank having an actual capital or a capital stock of one million pesos would not pay a tax on the one million. It might pay a tax on one-half million or it might pay a tax on two millions, the precise amount depending on the relation which the business of the branch bank in the Philippine Islands bore to the total business of the parent bank.

If the capital of the parent bank was twenty millions and the branch bank did a business in the Philippine Islands of 50 per cent of the total business of the parent bank, the branch bank would pay a tax on capital of ten million. This would seem to indicate that the word "capital" has not so strict and definite a meaning as is given to the words "capital stock," actual capital, or fixed capital. It seems to have the wider signification of the word which, popularly speaking, means the amount of money which one uses in his business. Upon the whole we are satisfied that the P549,912.52 involved in this litigation was money which the defendant institution used in its banking business, although it may have been held for the time being, or for a considerable length of time, for the payment of depositors in times of extraordinary withdrawals from the bank or to meet unusual demands upon its loan department. The mere fact that it is for the time being inactive is not conclusive in the determination of its nature.. The judgement appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. 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 factogovernment. 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 intowith 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. 218693; 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(Frenchvs. 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 Osmea 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 voceor 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 hitobashira (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 ade 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 factogovernments 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 socalled 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 socalled 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 ROOSEVELT

President 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 retainedpossession 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 theysucceed, 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 Shortridgevs. 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 factocourt 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 Osmea, 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 Osmea 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 Osmea, 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 Japanesesponsored 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 Japanesesponsored 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. G.R. No. L-36409 October 26, 1973 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORETA GOZO, defendant-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor Norberto P. Eduardo for plaintiff-appellee. Jose T. Nery for defendant-appellant.

FERNANDO, J.:

Appellant seeks to set aside a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, convicting her of a violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, requiring a permit from the municipal mayor for the construction or erection of a building, as well as any modification, alteration, repair or demolition thereof. She questions its validity, or at the very least, its applicability to her, by invoking due process, 1 a contention she would premise on what for her is the teaching of People v. Fajardo. 2 If such a ground were far from being impressed with solidity, she stands on quicksand when she would deny the applicability of the ordinance to her, on the pretext that her house was constructed within the naval base leased to the American armed forces. While yielding to the wellsettled doctrine that it does not thereby cease to be Philippine territory, she would, in effect, seek to emasculate our sovereign rights by the assertion that we cannot exercise therein administrative jurisdiction. To state the proposition is to make patent how much it is tinged with unorthodoxy. Clearly then, the lower court decision must be affirmed with the sole modification that she is given thirty days from the finality of a judgment to obtain a permit, failing which, she is required to demolish the same. The facts are undisputed. As set forth in the decision of the lower court: "The accused bought a house and lot located inside the United States Naval Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. She demolished the house and built another one in its place, without a building permit from the City Mayor of Olongapo City, because she was told by one Ernesto Evalle, an assistant in the City Mayor's office, as well as by her neighbors in the area, that such building permit was not necessary for the construction of the house. On December 29, 1966, Juan Malones, a building and lot inspector of the City Engineer's Office, Olongapo City, together with Patrolman Ramon Macahilas of the Olongapo City police force apprehended four carpenters working on the house of the accused and they brought the carpenters to the Olongapo City police headquarters for interrogation. ... After due investigation, Loreta Gozo was charged with violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, S. of 1964 with the City Fiscal's Office." 3 The City Court of Olongapo City found her guilty of violating Municipal Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1964 and sentenced her to an imprisonment of one month as well as to pay the costs. The Court of Instance of Zambales, on appeal, found her guilty on the above facts of violating such municipal ordinance but would sentence her merely to pay a fine of P200.00 and to demolish the house thus erected. She elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but in her brief, she would put in issue the validity of such an ordinance on constitutional ground or at the very least its applicability to her in view of the location of her dwelling within the naval base. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution of January 29, 1973, noting the constitutional question raised, certified the case to this Court. There is, as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this petition, no support in law for the stand taken by appellant. 1. It would be fruitless for her to assert that local government units are devoid of authority to require building permits. This Court, from Switzer v. Municipality of

Cebu, 4 decided in 1911, has sanctioned the validity of such measures. It is much too

late in the day to contend that such a requirement cannot be validly imposed. Even appellant, justifiably concerned about the unfavorable impression that could be created if she were to deny that such competence is vested in municipal corporations and chartered cities, had to concede in her brief: "If, at all; the questioned ordinance may be predicated under the general welfare clause ... ." 5 Its scope is wide, well-nigh all embracing, covering every aspect of public health, public morals, public safety, and the well being and good order of the community. 6 It goes without saying that such a power is subject to limitations. Certainly, if its exercise is violative of any constitutional right, then its validity could be impugned, or at the very least, its applicability to the person adversely affected could be questioned. So much is settled law. Apparently, appellant has adopted the view that a due process question may indeed be raised in view of what for her is its oppressive character. She is led to such a conclusion, relying on People v. Fajardo. 7 A more careful scrutiny of such a decision would not have led her astray, for that case is easily distinguishable. The facts as set forth in the opinion follow: "It appears that on August 15, 1950, during the incumbency of defendant-appellant Juan F. Fajardo as mayor of the municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed the ordinance in question providing as follows: "... 1. Any person or persons who will construct or repair a building should, before constructing or repairing, obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor. ... 2. A fee of not less than P2.00 should be charged for each building permit and P1.00 for each repair permit issued. ... 3. [Penalty]-Any violation of the provisions of the above, this ordinance, shall make the violator liable to pay a fine of not less than P25 nor more than P50 or imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor more than 24 days or both, at the discretion of the court. If said building destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner of the building or house. ... ." Four years later, after the term of appellant Fajardo as mayor had expired, he and his son-in-law, appellant Babilonia, filed a written request with the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo's name, located along the national highway and separated from the public plaza by a creek ... . On January 16, 1954, the request was denied, for the reason among others that the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza ... . On January 18, 1954, defendants reiterated their request for a building permit ..., but again the request was turned down by the mayor. Whereupon, appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on leased property." 8 Clearly then, the application of such an ordinance to Fajardo was oppressive. A conviction therefore for a violation thereof both in the justice of the peace court of Baao, Camarines Sur as well as in the Court of First Instance could not be sustained. In this case, on the contrary, appellant never bothered to comply with the ordinance.

Perhaps aware of such a crucial distinction, she would assert in her brief: "The evidence showed that even if the accused were to secure a permit from the Mayor, the same would not have been granted. To require the accused to obtain a permit before constructing her house would be an exercise in futility. The law will not require anyone to perform an impossibility, neither in law or in fact: ... ." 9 It would be from her own version, at the very least then, premature to anticipate such an adverse result, and thus to condemn an ordinance which certainly lends itself to an interpretation that is neither oppressive, unfair, or unreasonable. That kind of interpretation suffices to remove any possible question of its validity, as was expressly announced in Primicias v. Fugoso. 10 So it appears from this portion of the opinion of Justice Feria, speaking for the Court: "Said provision is susceptible of two constructions: one is that the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; and the other is that the applicant has the right to a permit which shall be granted by the Mayor, subject only to the latter's reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the purpose, with a view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. After a mature deliberation, we have arrived at the conclusion that we must adopt the second construction, that is, construe the provisions of the said ordinance to mean that it does not confer upon the Mayor the power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the discretion, in issuing the permit, to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or procession may pass or the meeting may be held." 11 If, in a case affecting such a preferred freedom as the right to assembly, this Court could construe an ordinance of the City of Manila so as to avoid offending against a constitutional provision, there is nothing to preclude it from a similar mode of approach in order to show the lack of merit of an attack against an ordinance requiring a permit. Appellant cannot therefore take comfort from any broad statement in the Fajardo opinion, which incidentally is taken out of context, considering the admitted oppressive application of the challenged measure in that litigation. So much then for the contention that she could not have been validly convicted for a violation of such ordinance. Nor should it be forgotten that she did suffer the same fate twice, once from the City Court and thereafter from the Court of First Instance. The reason is obvious.Such ordinance applies to her. 2. Much less is a reversal indicated because of the alleged absence of the rather novel concept of administrative jurisdiction on the part of Olongapo City. Nor is novelty the only thing that may be said against it. Far worse is the assumption at war with controlling and authoritative doctrines that the mere existence of military or naval bases of a foreign country cuts deeply into the power to govern. Two leading cases may be cited to show how offensive is such thinking to the juristic concept of sovereignty, People v. Acierto, 12 and Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 13 As was so emphatically set forth by Justice Tuason in Acierto: "By the Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the

United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of. The first proposition is implied from the fact of Philippine sovereignty over the bases; the second from the express provisions of the treaty." 14 There was a reiteration of such a view in Reagan. Thus: "Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of sovereignty." 15 Then came this paragraph dealing with the principle of auto-limitation: "It is to be admitted any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction." A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence." 16 The opinion was at pains to point out though that even then, there is at the most diminution of jurisdictional rights, not its disappearance. The words employed follow: "Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory." 17 Can there be anything clearer, therefore, than that only a turnabout, unwarranted and unjustified, from what is settled and orthodox law can lend the slightest degree of plausibility to the contention of absence of administrative jurisdiction. If it were otherwise, what was aptly referred to by Justice Tuason "as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency" becomes one of obeisance and submission. If on a concern purely domestic in its implications, devoid of any connection with national security, the Military-Bases Agreement could be thus interpreted, then sovereignty indeed becomes a mockery and an illusion. Nor does appellant's thesis rest on less shaky foundation by the mere fact that Acierto and Reagan dealt with the competence of the national government, while what is sought to be emasculated in this case is the so-called

administrative jurisdiction of a municipal corporation. Within the limits of its territory, whatever statutory powers are vested upon it may be validly exercised. Any residual authority and therein conferred, whether expressly or impliedly, belongs to the national government, not to an alien country. What is even more to be deplored in this stand of appellant is that no such claim is made by the American naval authorities, not that it would do them any good if it were so asserted. To quote from Acierto anew: "The carrying out of the provisions of the Bases Agreement is the concern of the contracting parties alone. Whether, therefore, a given case which by the treaty comes within the United States jurisdiction should be transferred to the Philippine authorities is a matter about which the accused has nothing to do or say. In other words, the rights granted to the United States by the treaty insure solely to that country and can not be raised by the offender." 18 If an accused would suffer from such disability, even if the American armed forces were the beneficiary of a treaty privilege, what is there for appellant to take hold of when there is absolutely no showing of any alleged grant of what is quaintly referred to as administrative jurisdiction? That is all, and it is more than enough, to make manifest the futility of seeking a reversal. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of November 11, 1969 is affirmed insofar as it found the accused, Loreta Gozo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, series of 1964 and sentencing her to pay a fine of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and modified insofar as she is required to demolish the house that is the subject matter of the case, she being given a period of thirty days from the finality of this decision within which to obtain the required permit. Only upon her failure to do so will that portion of the appealed decision requiringdemolition be enforced. Costs against the accused.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., took no part.
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.
RESOLUTION 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 factotherein 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 selfdefense 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 nationalharakiri. 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 Luriavs. 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. xxx xxx xxx

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 socalled 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. xxx xxx xxx

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 aninternational 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." xxx xxx xxx

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 selfsame 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 1brought 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." (Peraltavs. 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 juregovernment 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 footnote), 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 overproduction 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 bodiespolitic 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 Osmea 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. 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 courtsmartial 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.