Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-533 August 20, 1946

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.

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

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 selfevident 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 courtsmartial 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.

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

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 denomination of inferior courts under the provisions of our Constitution. Courts-martial are, likely military commissions, inferior courts. The fact that they are military tribunals does not change their essence as veritable tribunals or courts of justice, as agencies of the government in the administration of justice. Their functions are essentially judicial. Except in cases where judicial functions are specifically entrusted by the Constitution to other agencies such as impeachment to Congress, legislative electoral contests to the Electoral Tribunals all judicial functions are vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. Courts-martial are inferior courts established by law. The majority's theory is based on an authority which has no bearing or application under the Constitution of the Philippines. Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents has in mind the Constitution of the United States of America, the provisions of which regarding the judicial department are essentially different from those contained in our own Constitution. Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America is as follows: SECTION 1. The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the Supreme Court and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times, received for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. SEC. 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all cases of admirality and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a States and citizens of another State; between citizens of another State; between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme

Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. SEC. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attached. A comparison of the above provision with that of the Constitution of the Philippines will readily show that the former does not have the negative provision contained in the latter to the effect that our Supreme Court may not be deprived of certain specific judicial functions. Section 2 of Articles VIII of our Constitution is as follows: SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, nor of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify of affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulations is in question. (2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any trial courts is in issue.

(4) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. (5) All cases in which an error or question of law is involved. It is our considered opinion that the theory maintained in Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents and in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States cited therein to the effect that the trial and punishment of military and naval offenses by courts-martial are executive functions because the only legitimate object of military tribunals "is to aid the Crown to maintain the discipline and government of the Army," as applied in the Philippine, is basically wrong, being rooted in the English monarchial ideology. Military tribunals are tribunals whose functions are judicial in character and in nature. No amount of logodaedaly may change the nature of such functions. The trial and punishment of offenses, whether civil or military naval or aerial, since time immemorial, have always been considered as judicial functions. The fact that such trial and punishment are entrusted to "tribunals or courts-martial" shows the nuclear idea of the nature of the function. Tribunals and courts are the agencies employed by government to administer justice. The very fact that in this case the Supreme Court has given due course to the petition, required respondents to answer, set the case for hearing and, in fact, heard it, instead of ordering the outright dismissal of the petition as soon as it was filed, thus following the same procedure in Reyes vs. Crisologo, (L-54, 41 Off. Gaz., 1096) and in Yamashita vs. Styer (supra), is a conclusive evidence of the fact of that this Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and power to review the proceedings and decision of military tribunals, such as courts-martials, military commissions, and other similar bodies exercising judicial functions limited to military personnel. It appearing that petitioners impugning the jurisdiction of the court-martial which has tried and convicted them, we are of opinion that the petition must be granted in the sense that the records of the court-martial in question should, be elevated to the Supreme Court for revision, so that we may decide the question on the courtmartial's jurisdiction and give petitioners the justice they are claiming for.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-409 January 30, 1947

ANASTACIO LAUREL, petitioner, vs. ERIBERTO MISA, respondent. Claro M. Recto and Querube C. Makalintal for petitioner. First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Hernandez, Jr., for respondent. 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.

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

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

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 so-called Japanese occupation of the Philippines (which was nothing more than the occupation of Manila and certain other specific regions of the Islands which constituted the minor area of the Archipelago) the allegiance of the citizens of this country to their legitimate government and to the United States was not suspended, as well as the ruling that during the same period there was no change of sovereignty here; but my reasons are different and I proceed to set them forth: I. SUSPENDED ALLEGIANCE. (a) Before the horror and atrocities of World War I, which were multiplied more than a hundred-fold in World War II, the nations had evolved certain rules and principles which came to be known as International Law, governing their conduct with each other and toward their respective citizens and inhabitants, in the armed forces or civilian life, in time of peace or in time of war. During the ages which preceded that first world conflict the civilized governments had no realization of the potential excesses of which "men's inhumanity to man" could be capable. Up to that time war was, at least under certain conditions, considered as sufficiently justified, and the nations had not on that account, proscribed nor renounced it as an instrument of national policy, or as a means of settling international disputes. It is not for us now to dwell upon the reasons accounting for this historical fact. Suffice it to recognize its existence in history. But when in World War I civilized humanity saw that war could be, as it actually was, employed for entirely different reasons and from entirely different motives, compared to previous wars, and the instruments and methods of warfare had been so materially changed as not only to involve the contending armed forces on well defined battlefields or areas, on land, in the sea, and in the air, but to spread death and destruction to the innocent civilian populations and to their properties, not only in the countries engaged in the conflict but also in neutral ones, no less than 61 civilized nations and governments, among them Japan, had to formulate and solemnly subscribe to the now famous Briand-Kellogg Pact in the year 1928. As said by Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court, as chief counsel for the United States in the prosecution of "Axis war criminals," in his report to President Truman of June 7, 1945: International law is not capable of development by legislation, for there is no continuously sitting international legislature. Innovations and revisions in international law are brought about by the action of

governments designed to meet a change circumstances. It grows, as did the common law, through decisions reached from time to time in adopting settled principles to new situations. 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 reexamining 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

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

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 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. 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

person of the owner or to his property. To recognize in the first instance any legal power or right on the part of the invader, and in the second any legal power or right on the part of the burglar, the same as in case of a military occupant in the course of a justifiable war, would be nothing short of legalizing the crime itself. It would be the most monstrous and unpardonable contradiction to prosecute, condemn and hang the appropriately called war criminals of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and at the same time recognize any lawfulness in their occupation invaded. And let it not be forgotten that the Philippines is a member of the United Nations who have instituted and conducted the so-called war crimes trials. Neither should we lose sight of the further fact that this government has a representative in the international commission currently trying the Japanese war criminals in Tokyo. These facts leave no room for doubt that this government is in entire accord with the other United Nations in considering the Pacific war started by Japan as a crime. Not only this, but this country had six years before the outbreak of the Pacific war already renounced war as an instrument of national policy (Constitution, Article II, section 2), thus in consequence adopting the doctrine of the Briand-Kellogg Pact. Consequently, it is submitted that it would be absolutely wrong and improper for this Court to apply to the occupation by Japan of certain areas of the Philippines during that war the rules and principles of international law which might be applicable to a military occupation occurring in the course of a justifiable war. How can this Court recognize any lawfulness or validity in that occupation when our own government has sent a representative to said international commission in Tokyo trying the Japanese "war criminals" precisely for the "crimes against humanity and peace" committed by them during World War II of which said occupation was but part and parcel? In such circumstances how could such occupation produce no less an effect than the suspension of the allegiance of our people to their country and government? (b) But even in the hypothesis and not more than a mere hypothesis that when Japan occupied the City of Manila and certain other areas of the Philippines she was engaged in a justifiable war, still the theory of suspended allegiance would not hold good. The continuance of the allegiance owed to a notion by its citizens is one of those high privileges of citizenship which the law of nations denies to the occupant the power to interfere with. . . . His (of occupant) rights are not, however, commensurate with his power. He is thus forbidden to take certain measures which he may be able to apply, and that irrespective of their efficacy. The restrictions imposed upon him are in theory designed to protect the individual in the enjoyment of some highly important privileges. These concern his

allegiance to the de jure sovereign, his family honor and domestic relations, religious convictions, personal service, and connection with or residence in the occupied territory. The Hague Regulations declare that the occupant is forbidden to compel the inhabitants to swear allegiance to the hostile power. . . . (III Hyde, International Law, 2d revised ed., pp. 1898-1899.) . . . Nor may he (occupant) compel them (inhabitants) to take an oath of allegiance. Since the authority of the occupant is not sovereignty, the inhabitants owe no temporary allegiance to him. . . . (II Oppenheim, International Law, pp. 341-344.) The occupant's lack of the authority to exact an oath of allegiance from the inhabitants of the occupied territory is but a corollary of the continuance of their allegiance to their own lawful sovereign. This allegiance does not consist merely in obedience to the laws of the lawful sovereign, but more essentially consists in loyalty or fealty to him. In the same volume and pages of Oppenheim's work above cited, after the passage to the effect that the inhabitants of the occupied territory owe no temporary allegiance to the occupant it is said that "On the other hand, he may compel them to take an oath sometimes called an 'oath of neutrality' . . . willingly to submit to his 'legitimate commands.' Since, naturally, such "legitimate commands" include the occupant's laws, it follows that said occupant, where the rule is applicable, has the right to compel the inhabitants to take an oath of obedience to his laws; and since according to the same rule, he cannot exact from the inhabitants an oath of obedience to his laws; and since, according to the same rule, he cannot exact from the inhabitants an oath of allegiance, it follows that obedience to his laws, which he can exact from them, does not constitute allegiance. (c) The theory of suspended allegiance is unpatriotic to the last degree. To say that when the one's country is unable to afford him in its protection, he ceases to be bound to it by the sacred ties of allegiance, is to advocate the doctrine that precisely when his country is in such distress, and therefore most needs his loyalty, he is absolved from the loyalty. Love of country should be something permanent and lasting, ending only in death; loyalty should be its worth offspring. The outward manifestation of one or the other may for a time be prevented or thwarted by the irresistible action of the occupant; but this should not in the least extinguish nor obliterate the invisible feelings, and promptings of the spirit. And beyond the unavoidable consequences of the enemy's irresistible pressure, those invisible feelings and promptings of the spirit of the people should never allow them to act,

to speak, nor even to think a whit contrary to their love and loyalty to the Fatherland. For them, indicted, to face their country and say to it that, because when it was overrun and vanquished by the barbarous invader and, in consequence was disabled from affording them protection, they were released from their sacred obligation of allegiance and loyalty, and could therefore freely adhere to its enemy, giving him aid and comfort, incurring no criminal responsibility therefor, would only tend to aggravate their crime. II. CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY Article II, section 1, of the Constitution provides that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." The Filipino people are the self-same people before and after Philippine Independence, proclaimed on July 4, 1946. During the life of the Commonwealth sovereignty resided in them under the Constitution; after the proclamation of independence that sovereignty remained with them under the very same fundamental law. Article XVIII of the said Constitution stipulates that the government established thereby shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, "The Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." Under this provision the Government of the Philippines immediately prior to independence was essentially to be the identical government thereafter only the name of that government was to be changed. Both before and after the adoption of the Philippine Constitution the people of the Philippines were and are always the plaintiff in all criminal prosecutions, the case being entitled: "The People of the Philippines vs. (the defendant or defendants)." This was already true in prosecutions under the Revised Penal Code containing the law of treason. "The Government of the Philippines" spoken of in article 114 of said Code merely represents the people of the Philippines. Said code was continued, along with the other laws, by Article XVI, section 2, of the Constitution which constitutional provision further directs that "all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this Constitution" of course, meaning the Commonwealth of the Philippines before, and the Republic of the Philippines after, independence (Article XVIII). Under both governments sovereignty resided and resides in the people (Article II, section 1). Said sovereignty was never transferred from that people they are the same people who preserve it to this day. There has never been any change in its respect.

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

PARAS, J., dissenting: During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws of the Philippines were suspended. This is full harmony with the generally accepted principles of the international law adopted by our Constitution(Article II, section 3) as a part of the law of the Nation. Accordingly, we have on more than one occasion already stated that "laws of a political nature or affecting political relations, . . . are considered as suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation" (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil., 113, 124), and that the rule "that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered suspended or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory." (Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, Philippine Army, 75, Phil., 875, 881.) The principle is recognized by the United States of America, which admits that the occupant will naturally suspends all laws of a political nature and all laws which affect the welfare and safety of his command, such action to be made known to the inhabitants.(United States Rules of Land Welfare, 1940, Article 287.) As allegiance to the United States is an essential element in the crime of treason under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, and in view of its position in our political structure prior to the independence of the Philippines, the rule as interpreted and practiced in the United States necessarily has a binding force and effect in the Philippines, to the exclusion of any other construction followed elsewhere, such as may be

inferred, rightly or wrongly, from the isolated cases brought to our attention, which, moreover, have entirely different factual bases. Corresponding notice was given by the Japanese occupying army, first, in the proclamation of its Commander in chief of January 2, 1942, to the effect that as a "result of the Japanese Military operations, the sovereignty of the United States of America over the Philippines has completely disappeared and the Army hereby proclaims the Military Administration under martial law over the district occupied by the Army;" secondly, in Order No. 3 of the said Commander in Chief of February 20, 1942, providing that "activities of the administrative organs and judicial courts in the Philippines shall be based upon the existing statutes, orders, ordinances and customs until further orders provided that they are not inconsistent with the present circumstances under the Japanese Military Administration;" and, thirdly, in the explanation to Order No. 3 reminding that "all laws and regulations of the Philippines has been suspended since Japanese occupation," and excepting the application of "laws and regulations which are not proper act under the present situation of the Japanese Military Administration," especially those "provided with some political purposes." The suspension of the political law during enemy occupation is logical, wise and humane. The latter phase outweighs all other aspects of the principle aimed more or less at promoting the necessarily selfish motives and purposes of a military occupant. It thus consoling to note that the powers instrumental in the crystallization of the Hague Conventions of 1907 did not forget to declare that they were "animated by the desire to serve . . . the interest of the humanity and the over progressive needs of civilization," and that "in case not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience." These saving statements come to the aid of the inhabitants in the occupied territory in a situation wherein, even before the belligerent occupant "takes a further step and by appropriate affirmative action undertakes to acquire the right of sovereignty for himself, . . . the occupant is likely to regard to himself as clothed with freedom to endeavor to impregnate the people who inhabit the area concerned with his own political ideology, and to make that endeavor successful by various forms of pressure exerted upon enemy officials who are permitted to retain the exercise of normal governmental functions." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition, 1945, p. 1879.) The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of the invading power, whose interest and requirements are naturally in

conflict with those of the displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from the inhabitants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the maintenance of law and order, and for the proper administration of the country (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 297), and to demand all kinds of services "of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country" (Hague Regulations, article 52);and if, as we have in effect said, by the surrender the inhabitants pass under a temporary allegiance to the government of the occupant and are bound by such laws, and such only, as it chooses to recognize and impose, and the belligerent occupant `is totally independent of the constitution and the laws of the territory, since occupation is an aim of warfare, and the maintenance and safety of his forces, and the purpose of war, stand in the foreground of his interest and must be promoted under all circumstances or conditions." (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 foot-note), especially as regards laws of procedure applied to cases already terminated completely. In much the same way, we should hold that no treason could have been committed during the Japanese military occupation against the United States or the Commonwealth Government, because article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was not then in force. Nor may this penal provision be applied upon its revival at the time of the reoccupation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminium, because of the constitutional inhibition against any ex post facto law and because, under article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal laws shall have a retroactive effect only in so far as they favor the accused. Why did we refuse to enforce the Constitution, more essential to sovereignty than article 114 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforesaid of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons if, as alleged by the majority, the suspension was good only as to the military occupant? The decision in the United States vs. Rice (4 Wheaton, 246), conclusively supports our position. As analyzed and described in United States vs. Reiter (27 Fed. Cas., 773), that case "was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States the court of highest human authority on that subject and as the decision was against the United States, and in favor of the authority of Great Britain, its enemy in the war, and was made shortly after the occurrence of the war out of which it grew; and while no department of this Government was inclined to magnify the rights of Great Britain or disparage those of its own government, there can be no suspicion of bias in the mind of the court in favor of the conclusion at which it arrived, and no doubt that the law seemed to the court to warrant and demand such a decision. That case grew out of the war of 1812, between the United States and Great Britain. It appeared that in September, 1814, the British forces had taken the port of Castine, in the State of Maine, and held it in military occupation; and that while it was so held, foreign goods, by the laws of the United States subject to duty, had been introduced into that port without paying duties to the United States. At the close of the war the place by treaty restored to the United States, and after that was done Government of the United States sought to recover from the persons so introducing the goods there while in possession of the British, the duties to which by the laws of the United States, they would have been liable. The claim of the United States was that its laws were properly in force there, although the place was at the time held by the British forces in hostility to the United States, and the laws,

therefore, could not at the time be enforced there; and that a court of the United States (the power of that government there having since been restored) was bound so to decide. But this illusion of the prosecuting officer there was dispelled by the court in the most summary manner. Mr. Justice Story, that great luminary of the American bench, being the organ of the court in delivering its opinion, said: 'The single question is whether goods imported into Castine during its occupation by the enemy are liable to the duties imposed by the revenue laws upon goods imported into the United States.. We are all of opinion that the claim for duties cannot be sustained. . . . The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was, of course, suspended, and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors. By the surrender the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance of the British Government, and were bound by such laws, and such only, as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case no other laws could be obligatory upon them. . . . Castine was therefore, during this period, as far as respected our revenue laws, to be deemed a foreign port, and goods imported into it by the inhabitants were subjects to such duties only as the British Government chose to require. Such goods were in no correct sense imported into the Unites States.' The court then proceeded to say, that the case is the same as if the port of Castine had been foreign territory, ceded by treaty to the United States, and the goods had been imported there previous to its cession. In this case they say there would be no pretense to say that American duties could be demanded; and upon principles of public or municipal law, the cases are not distinguishable. They add at the conclusion of the opinion: 'The authorities cited at the bar would, if there were any doubt, be decisive of the question. But we think it too clear to require any aid from authority.' Does this case leave room for a doubt whether a country held as this was in armed belligerents occupation, is to be governed by him who holds it, and by him alone? Does it not so decide in terms as plain as can be stated? It is asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States with entire unanimity, the great and venerated Marshall presiding, and the erudite and accomplished Story delivering the opinion of the court, that such is the law, and it is so adjudged in this case. Nay, more: it is even adjudged that no other laws could be obligatory; that such country, so held, is for the purpose of the application of the law off its former government to be deemed foreign territory, and that goods imported there (and by parity of reasoning other acts done there) are in no correct sense done within the territory of its former sovereign, the United States." But it is alleged by the majority that the sovereignty spoken of in the decision of the United States vs. Rice should be construed to refer to the exercise of sovereignty, and that, if sovereignty itself was meant, the doctrine has become obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907. In answer, we may state that sovereignty can have any important significance only when it may be

exercised; and, to our way of thinking, it is immaterial whether the thing held in abeyance is the sovereignty itself or its exercise, because the point cannot nullify, vary, or otherwise vitiate the plain meaning of the doctrinal words "the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced there, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conquerors." We cannot accept the theory of the majority, without in effect violating the rule of international law, hereinabove adverted to, that the possession by the belligerent occupant of the right to control, maintain or modify the laws that are to obtain within the occupied area is an exclusive one, and that the territorial sovereign driven therefrom cannot compete with it on an even plane. Neither may the doctrine in the United States vs. Rice be said to have become obsolete, without repudiating the actual rule prescribed and followed by the United States, allowing the military occupant to suspend all laws of a political nature and even require public officials and inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 309). In fact, it is a recognized doctrine of American Constitutional Law that mere conquest or military occupation of a territory of another State does not operate to annex such territory to occupying State, but that the inhabitants of the occupied district, no longer receiving the protection of their native State, for the time being owe no allegiance to it, and, being under the control and protection of the victorious power, owe to that power fealty and obedience. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p.364.) The majority have resorted to distinctions, more apparent than real, if not immaterial, in trying to argue that the law of treason was obligatory on the Filipinos during the Japanese occupation. Thus it is insisted that a citizen or subject owes not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, and that "temporary allegiance" to the military occupant may be likened to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign to the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives therefrom. The comparison is most unfortunate. Said foreigner is in the territory of a power not hostile to or in actual war with his own government; he is in the territory of a power which has not suspended, under the rules of international law, the laws of political nature of his own government; and the protections received by him from that friendly or neutral power is real, not the kind of protection which the inhabitants of an occupied territory can expect from a belligerent army. "It is but reasonable that States, when they concede to other States the right to exercise jurisdiction over such of their own nationals as are within the territorial limits of such other States, should insist that States should provide system of law and of courts, and in actual practice, so administer them, as to furnish substantial legal justice to alien residents. This does not mean that a State must or should extend to aliens within its borders all the civil, or much less, all the political rights or privileges which it grants to its own citizens; but it does mean that aliens must or should be

given adequate opportunity to have such legal rights as are granted to them by the local law impartially and judicially determined, and, when thus determined, protected." (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p. 360.) When it is therefore said that a citizen of a sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country or, in the language of article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, "elsewhere," a territory other than one under belligerent occupation must have been contemplated. This would make sense, because treason is a crime "the direct or indirect purpose of which is the delivery, in whole or in part, of the country to a foreign power, or to pave the way for the enemy to obtain dominion over the national territory" (Albert, The Revised Penal Code, citing 3 Groizard, 14); and, very evidently, a territory already under occupation can no longer be "delivered." The majority likewise argue that the theory of suspended sovereignty or allegiance will enable the military occupant to legally recruit the inhabitants to fight against their own government, without said inhabitants being liable for treason. This argument is not correct, because the suspension does not exempt the occupant from complying with the Hague Regulations (article 52) that allows it to demand all kinds of services provided that they do not involve the population "in the obligation of taking part military operations against their own country." Neither does the suspension prevent the inhabitants from assuming a passive attitude, much less from dying and becoming heroes if compelled by the occupant to fight against their own country. Any imperfection in the present state of international law should be corrected by such world agency as the United Nations organizations. It is of common knowledge that even with the alleged cooperation imputed to the collaborators, an alarming number of Filipinos were killed or otherwise tortured by the ruthless, or we may say savage, Japanese Army. Which leads to the conclusion that if the Filipinos did not obey the Japanese commands and feign cooperation, there would not be any Filipino nation that could have been liberated. Assuming that the entire population could go to and live in the mountains, or otherwise fight as guerrillas after the formal surrender of our and the American regular fighting forces, they would have faced certain annihilation by the Japanese, considering that the latter's military strength at the time and the long period during which they were left military unmolested by America. In this connection, we hate to make reference to the atomic bomb as a possible means of destruction. If a substantial number of guerrillas were able to survive and ultimately help in the liberation of the Philippines, it was because the feigned cooperation of their countrymen enabled them to get food and other aid necessary in the resistance

movement. If they were able to survive, it was because they could camouflage themselves in the midst of the civilian population in cities and towns. It is easy to argue now that the people could have merely followed their ordinary pursuits of life or otherwise be indifferent to the occupant. The fundamental defect of this line of thought is that the Japanese assumed to be so stupid and dumb as not to notice any such attitude. During belligerent occupation, "the outstanding fact to be reckoned with is the sharp opposition between the inhabitants of the occupied areas and the hostile military force exercising control over them. At heart they remain at war with each other. Fear for their own safety may not serve to deter the inhabitants from taking advantage of opportunities to interfere with the safety and success of the occupant, and in so doing they may arouse its passions and cause to take vengeance in cruel fashion. Again, even when it is untainted by such conduct, the occupant as a means of attaining ultimate success in its major conflict may, under plea of military necessity, and regardless of conventional or customary prohibitions, proceed to utilize the inhabitants within its grip as a convenient means of military achievement." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition [1945], p. 1912.) It should be stressed that the Japanese occupation was not a matter of a few months; it extended over a little more than three years. Said occupation was a fact, in spite of the "presence of guerrilla bands in barrios and mountains, and even in towns of the Philippines whenever these towns were left by Japanese garrisons or by the detachments of troops sent on patrol to those places." (Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil., 371, 373.) The law of nations accepts belligerent occupation as a fact to be reckoned with, regardless of the merits of the occupant's cause. (Hyde, International Law, Second Revised Edition [1945], Vol. III, p. 1879.) Those who contend or fear that the doctrine herein adhere to will lead to an 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 proJapanese; but they met and will unavoidably meet the necessary consequences. The regular soldiers faced the risks of warfare; the spies and informers subjected themselves to the perils of military operations, likely received summary liquidation or punishments from the guerrillas and the parties injured by their acts, and may

be prosecuted as war spies by the military authorities of the returning sovereign; those who committed other common crimes, directly or through the Japanese army, may be prosecuted under the municipal law, and under this group even the spies and informers, Makapili or otherwise, are included, for they can be made answerable for any act offensive to person or property; the buy-and-sell opportunists have the war profits tax to reckon with. We cannot close our eyes to the conspicuous fact that, in the majority of cases, those responsible for the death of, or injury to, any Filipino or American at the hands of the Japanese, were prompted more by personal motives than by a desire to levy war against the United States or to adhere to the occupant. The alleged spies and informers found in the Japanese occupation the royal road to vengeance against personal or political enemies. The recent amnesty granted to the guerrillas for acts, otherwise criminal, committed in the furtherance of their resistance movement has in a way legalized the penal sanctions imposed by them upon the real traitors. It is only from a realistic, practical and common-sense point of view, and by remembering that the obedience and cooperation of the Filipinos were effected while the Japanese were in complete control and occupation of the Philippines, when their mere physical presence implied force and pressure and not after the American forces of liberation had restored the Philippine Government that we will come to realize that, apart from any rule of international law, it was necessary to release the Filipinos temporarily from the old political tie in the sense indicated herein. Otherwise, one is prone to dismiss the reason for such cooperation and obedience. If there were those who did not in any wise cooperate or obey, they can be counted by the fingers, and let their names adorn the pages of Philippine history. Essentially, however, everybody who took advantage, to any extent and degree, of the peace and order prevailing during the occupation, for the safety and survival of himself and his family, gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Our great liberator himself, General Douglas MacArthur, had considered the laws of the Philippines ineffective during the occupation, and restored to their full vigor and force only after the liberation. Thus, in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, he ordained that "the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines . . . are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control," and that "all laws . . . of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control." Repeating what we have said in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113, 133), "it is to be presumed that General Douglas MacArthur, who was acting as an agent or a representative of the Government and the President of the United States, constitutional Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army, did not intend to act

against the principles of the law of nations asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States from the early period of its existence, applied by the President of the United States, and later embodied in the Hague Conventions of 1907." The prohibition in the Hague Conventions (Article 45) against "any pressure on the population to take oath to the hostile power," was inserted for the moral protection and benefit of the inhabitants, and does not necessarily carry the implication that the latter continue to be bound to the political laws of the displaced government. The United States, a signatory to the Hague Conventions, has made the point clear, by admitting that the military occupant can suspend all the laws of a political nature and even require public officials and the inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 309), and as already stated, it is a doctrine of American Constitutional Law that the inhabitants, no longer receiving the protection of their native state, for the time being owe no allegiance to it, and, being under the control and protection of the victorious power, owe to that power fealty and obedience. Indeed, what is prohibited is the application of force by the occupant, from which it is fair to deduce that the Conventions do not altogether outlaw voluntary submission by the population. The only strong reason for this is undoubtedly the desire of the authors of the Conventions to give as much freedom and allowance to the inhabitants as are necessary for their survival. This is wise and humane, because the people should be in a better position to know what will save them during the military occupation than any exile government. "Before he was appointed prosecutor, Justice Jackson made a speech in which he warned against the use of judicial process for non judicial ends, and attacked cynics who "see no reason why courts, just like other agencies, should not be policy weapons. If we want to shoot Germans as a matter of policy, let it be done as such, said he, but don't hide the deed behind a court. If you are determined to execute a man in any case there is no occasion for a trial; the word yields no respect for courts that are merely organized to convict." Mussoloni may have got his just desserts, but nobody supposes he got a fair trial. . . . Let us bear that in mind as we go about punishing criminals. There are enough laws on the books to convict guilty Nazis without risking the prestige of our legal system. It is far, far better that some guilty men escape than that the idea of law be endangered. In the long run the idea of law is our best defense against Nazism in all its forms." These passages were taken from the editorial appearing in the Life, May 28, 1945, page 34, and convey ideas worthy of some reflection. If the Filipinos in fact committed any errors in feigning cooperation and obedience during the Japanese military occupation, they were at most borrowing the

famous and significant words of President Roxas errors of the mind and not of the heart. We advisedly said "feigning" not as an admission of the fallacy of the theory of suspended allegiance or sovereignty, but as an affirmation that the Filipinos, contrary to their outward attitude, had always remained loyal by feeling and conscience to their country. Assuming that article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was in force during the Japanese military occupation, the present Republic of the Philippines has no right to prosecute treason committed against the former sovereignty existing during the Commonwealth Government which was none other than the sovereignty of the United States. This court has already held that, upon a change of sovereignty, the provisions of the Penal Code having to do with such subjects as treason, rebellion and sedition are no longer in force (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil., 887). It is true that, as contended by the majority, section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines provides that "sovereignty resides in the people," but this did not make the Commonwealth Government or the Filipino people sovereign, because said declaration of principle, prior to the independence of the Philippines, was subervient to and controlled by the Ordinance appended to the Constitution under which, in addition to its many provisions essentially destructive of the concept of sovereignty, it is expressly made clear that the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines had not then been withdrawn. The framers of the Constitution had to make said declaration of principle because the document was ultimately intended for the independent Philippines. Otherwise, the Preamble should not have announced that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to secure to the Filipino people and their posterity the "blessings of independence." No one, we suppose, will dare allege that the Philippines was an independent country under the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government might have been more autonomous than that existing under the Jones Law, but its non-sovereign status nevertheless remained unaltered; and what was enjoyed was the exercise of sovereignty over the Philippines continued to be complete. The exercise of Sovereignty May be Delegated. It has already been seen that the exercise of sovereignty is conceived of as delegated by a State to the various organs which, collectively, constitute the Government. For practical political reasons which can be easily appreciated, it is desirable that the public policies of a State should be formulated and executed by governmental agencies of its own creation and which are not subject to the control of other States. There is, however, nothing in a nature of sovereignty or of State life which

prevents one State from entrusting the exercise of certain powers to the governmental agencies of another State. Theoretically, indeed, a sovereign State may go to any extent in the delegation of the exercise of its power to the governmental agencies of other States, those governmental agencies thus becoming quoad hoc parts of the governmental machinery of the State whose sovereignty is exercised. At the same time these agencies do not cease to be Instrumentalities for the expression of the will of the State by which they were originally created. By this allegation the agent State is authorized to express the will of the delegating State, and the legal hypothesis is that this State possesses the legal competence again to draw to itself the exercise, through organs of its own creation, of the powers it has granted. Thus, States may concede to colonies almost complete autonomy of government and reserve to themselves a right of control of so slight and so negative a character as to make its exercise a rare and improbable occurence; yet, so long as such right of control is recognized to exist, and the autonomy of the colonies is conceded to be founded upon a grant and the continuing consent of the mother countries the sovereignty of those mother countries over them is complete and they are to be considered as possessing only administrative autonomy and not political independence. Again, as will be more fully discussed in a later chapter, in the so-called Confederate or Composite State, the cooperating States may yield to the central Government the exercise of almost all of their powers of Government and yet retain their several sovereignties. Or, on the other hand, a State may, without parting with its sovereignty of lessening its territorial application, yield to the governing organs of particular areas such an amplitude of powers as to create of them bodies-politic endowed with almost all of the characteristics of independent States. In all States, indeed, when of any considerable size, efficiency of administration demands that certain autonomous powers of local self-government be granted to particular districts. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 74, 75.). The majority have drawn an analogy between the Commonwealth Government and the States of the American Union which, it is alleged, preserve their own sovereignty although limited by the United States. This is not true for it has been authoritatively stated that the Constituent States have no sovereignty of their own, that such autonomous powers as they now possess are had and exercised by the express will or by the constitutional forbearance of the national sovereignty, and that the sovereignty of the United States and the non-sovereign status of the individual States is no longer contested.

It is therefore plain that the constituent States have no sovereignty of their own, and that such autonomous powers as they now possess are had and exercised by the express will or by the constitutional forbearance of the national sovereignty. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, even when selecting members for the national legislature, or electing the President, or ratifying proposed amendments to the federal constitution, the States act, ad hoc, as agents of the National Government. (Willoughby, the Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], p.250.) This is the situation at the present time. The sovereignty of the United States and the non-sovereign status of the individual States is no longer contested. (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 251, 252.) Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that "The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines." From this, the deduction is made that the Government under the Republic of the Philippines and under the Commonwealth is the same. We cannot agree. While the Commonwealth Government possessed administrative autonomy and exercised the sovereignty delegated by the United States and did not cease to be an instrumentality of the latter (Willoughby, The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law [1931], pp. 74, 75), the Republic of the Philippines is an independent State not receiving its power or sovereignty from the United States. Treason committed against the United States or against its instrumentality, the Commonwealth Government, which exercised, but did not possess, sovereignty (id., p. 49), is therefore not treason against the sovereign and independent Republic of the Philippines. Article XVIII was inserted in order, merely, to make the Constitution applicable to the Republic. Reliance is also placed on section 2 of the Constitution which provides that all laws of the Philippines Islands shall remain operative, unless inconsistent therewith, until amended, altered, modified or repealed by the Congress of the Philippines, and on section 3 which is to the effect that all cases pending in courts shall be heard, tried, and determined under the laws then in force, thereby insinuating that these constitutional provisions authorize the Republic of the Philippines to enforce article 114 of the Revised Penal Code. The error is obvious. The latter article can remain operative under the present regime if it is not inconsistent with the

Constitution. The fact remains, however, that said penal provision is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, in that those liable for treason thereunder should owe allegiance to the United States or the government of the Philippines, the latter being, as we have already pointed out, a mere instrumentality of the former, whereas under the Constitution of the present Republic, the citizens of the Philippines do not and are not required to owe allegiance to the United States. To contend that article 114 must be deemed to have been modified in the sense that allegiance to the United States is deleted, and, as thus modified, should be applied to prior acts, would be to sanction the enactment and application of an ex post facto law. In reply to the contention of the respondent that the Supreme Court of the United States has held in the case of Bradford vs. Chase National Bank (24 Fed. Supp., 38), that the Philippines had a sovereign status, though with restrictions, it is sufficient to state that said case must be taken in the light of a subsequent decision of the same court in Cincinnati Soap Co. vs. United States (301 U.S., 308), rendered in May, 1937, wherein it was affirmed that the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines had not been withdrawn, with the result that the earlier case only be interpreted to refer to the exercise of sovereignty by the Philippines as delegated by the mother country, the United States. No conclusiveness may be conceded to the statement of President Roosevelt on August 12, 1943, that "the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as a government of other independent nations--in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood," since said statement was not meant as having accelerated the date, much less as a formal proclamation of, the Philippine Independence as contemplated in the Tydings-McDuffie Law, it appearing that (1) no less also than the President of the United States had to issue the proclamation of July 4, 1946, withdrawing the sovereignty of the United States and recognizing Philippine Independence; (2) it was General MacArthur, and not President 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. On September 4, 2005, Dominique died.
[1]

After almost two months, or

on November 2, 2005, Jenie, who continued to live with Dominiques parents, gave SECOND DIVISION birth to her herein co-petitioner minor child Christian Dela Cruz Aquino at the Antipolo Doctors Hospital, Antipolo City. JENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ and minor CHRISTIAN DELA CRUZ AQUINO, represented by JENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, G.R. No. 177728 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and * PERALTA, JJ. Jenie applied for registration of the childs birth, using Dominiques surname Aquino, with the Office of the City Civil Registrar, Antipolo City, in support of which she submitted the childs Certificate of Live Birth, Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father (AUSF) which she had executed and signed, and Affidavit of Acknowledgment executed
[4] [3] [2]

versus

by

Dominiques

father

Domingo

Butch

Aquino. RONALD PAUL S. GRACIA, in his capacity as City Civil Registrar of Promulgated: Antipolo City, Respondent. July 31, 2009 x------------------------------------------------x

Both affidavits attested, inter alia, that during the lifetime of Dominique,

he had continuously acknowledged his yet unborn child, and that his paternity had never been questioned. Jenie attached to the AUSF a document entitled AUTOBIOGRAPHY which Dominique, during his lifetime, wrote in his own handwriting, the pertinent portions of which read: AQUINO, CHRISTIAN DOMINIQUE S.T.

DECISION

AUTOBIOGRAPHY IM CHRISTIAN DOMINIQUE STO. TOMAS AQUINO, 19 YEARS OF AGE TURNING 20 THIS COMING OCTOBER 31, [5] 2005. I RESIDE AT PULANG-LUPA STREET BRGY. DULUMBAYAN, TERESA, RIZAL. I AM THE YOUNGEST IN OUR FAMILY. I HAVE ONE BROTHER NAMED JOSEPH BUTCH STO. TOMAS AQUINO. MY FATHERS NAME IS DOMINGO BUTCH AQUINO AND MY MOTHERS NAME IS RAQUEL STO. TOMAS AQUINO. x x x. xxxx

CARPIO MORALES, J.: For several months in 2005, then 21-year old petitioner Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz (Jenie) and then 19-year old Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino (Dominique) lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. They resided in the house of Dominiques parents Domingo B. Aquino and Raquel Sto. Tomas Aquino at Pulang-lupa, Dulumbayan, Teresa, Rizal.

AS OF NOW I HAVE MY WIFE NAMED JENIE DELA CRUZ. WE MET EACH OTHER IN OUR HOMETOWN, TEREZA RIZAL. AT FIRST WE BECAME GOOD FRIENDS, THEN WE FELL IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER, THEN WE BECAME GOOD COUPLES. AND AS OF NOW SHE IS PREGNANT AND FOR THAT WE LIVE TOGETHER IN OUR HOUSE NOW. THATS [6] ALL. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

b. Consent of the child, if 18 years old and over at the time of the filing of the document. c. Any two of the following documents showing clearly the paternity between the father and the child: 1. Employment records 2. SSS/GSIS records 3. Insurance 4. Certification of membership in any organization 5. Statement Liability 6. Income Tax Return (ITR) of Assets and

By letter dated November 11, 2005, the City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City, Ronald Paul S. Gracia (respondent), deniedJenies application for registration of the childs name in this wise: 7. Rule 7 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 *An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of their Father, Amending for the Purpose, Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise Known as the Family Code of the Philippines+) provides that: Rule 7. Requirements for the Child to Use the Surname of the Father 7.1 For Births Not Yet Registered 7.1.1 The illegitimate child shall use the surname of the father if a public document is executed by the father, either at the back of the Certificate of Live Birth or in a separate document. 7.1.2 If admission of paternity is made through a private handwritten instrument, the child shall use the surname of the father, provided the registration is supported by the following documents: a. AUSF
[8]

[7]

In summary, the child cannot use the surname of his father because he was born out of wedlock and the father unfortunately died prior to his birth and has no more capacity to acknowledge his paternity to the child (either through the back of Municipal Form No. 102 Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity or the Authority to Use the Surname of the Father). (Underscoring supplied)

Jenie

and

the of

child name

promptly against

filed

complaint for before

[9]

injunction/registration

respondent

the RegionalTrial Court of Antipolo City, docketed as SCA Case No. 06-539, which was raffled to Branch 73 thereof. The complaint alleged that,inter alia, the denial of registration of the childs name is a violation of his right to use the surname of his deceased father underArticle 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9255,
[10]

which provides:

Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by

the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

2.2 Private handwritten instrument an instrument executed in the handwriting of the father and duly signed by him where he expressly recognizes paternity to the child. (Underscoring supplied)

The trial court held that even if Dominique was the author of the handwritten They maintained that the Autobiography executed by Dominique constitutes an admission of paternity in a private handwritten instrument within the contemplation of the above-quoted provision of law. Hence, this direct resort to the Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari raising this purely legal issue of: For failure to file a responsive pleading or answer despite service of summons, respondent was declared in default. WHETHER OR NOT THE UNSIGNED HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DECEASED FATHER OF MINOR CHRISTIAN DELA CRUZ CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A RECOGNITION OF PATERNITY IN A PRIVATE HANDWRITTEN INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF ARTICLE 176 OF THE FAMILY CODE, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 9255, WHICH ENTITLES THE SAID [15] MINOR TO USE HIS FATHERS SURNAME. (Underscoring supplied) Autobiography, the same does not contain any express recognition of paternity.

Jenie thereupon presented evidence ex-parte. She testified on the circumstances of her common-law relationship with Dominique and affirmed her declarations in her AUSF that during his lifetime, he had acknowledged his yet unborn child.
[11]

She offered Dominiques handwritten Autobiography (Exhibit A)

[12]

as her documentary evidence-in-chief.

Dominiques lone brother, Joseph Butch

[13]

Petitioners contend that Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended, does not expressly require that the private handwritten instrument containing the putative fathers admission of paternity must be signed by him. They add that the

S.T. Aquino, also testified, corroborating Jenies declarations.

By Decision

[14]

of April 25, 2007, the trial court dismissed the complaint

deceaseds handwritten Autobiography, though unsigned by him, is sufficient, for the requirement in the above-quoted paragraph 2.2 of the Administrative Order that the admission/recognition must be duly signed by the father is void as it unduly expanded the earlier-quoted provision of Article 176 of the Family Code.
[16]

for lack of cause of action as the Autobiography was unsigned, citing paragraph 2.2, Rule 2 (Definition of Terms) of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 1, Series of 2004 (the Rules and Regulations Governing the Implementation of R.A. 9255) which defines private handwritten document through which a father may acknowledge an illegitimate child as follows:

Petitioners further contend that the trial court erred in not finding that Dominiques handwritten Autobiography contains a clear and unmistakable recognition of the childs paternity.
[17]

xxxx Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that respondents position, as affirmed by the trial court, is in consonance with the law and thus prays for the dismissal of the petition. It further submits that Dominiques Autobiography merely acknowledged Jenies pregnancy but not *his+ paternity of the child she was carrying in her womb.
[18]

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255, permits an illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her father if the latter had expressly recognized him/her as his offspring through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or through anadmission made in a public or private handwritten instrument. The recognition made in any of these documents is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the childs paternity; hence, no separate action for judicial approval is necessary.
[19]

That a father who acknowledges paternity of a child through a written instrument must affix his signature thereon is clearly implied in Article 176 of the Family Code. Paragraph 2.2, Rule 2 of A.O. No. 1, Series of 2004, merely articulated such requirement; it did not unduly expand the import of Article 176 as claimed by petitioners.

In the present case, however, special circumstances exist to hold that Dominiques Autobiography, though unsigned by him,substantially satisfies the

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended, does not, indeed, explicitly state that the private handwritten instrument acknowledging the childs paternity must be signed by the putative father. This provision must, however, be read in conjunction with related provisions of the Family Code which require that recognition by the father must bear his signature, thus: Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

requirement of the law.

First,

Dominique

died

about

two

months prior to

the

childs

birth. Second, the relevant matters in the Autobiography, unquestionably handwritten by Dominique, correspond to the facts culled from the testimonial evidence Jenie proffered.
[20]

Third,

Jenies

testimony

is corroborated by

the Affidavit of Acknowledgment of Dominiques father Domingo Aquino and

testimony of his brother Joseph Butch Aquino whose hereditary rights could be affected by the registration of the questioned recognition of the child.These circumstances indicating Dominiques paternity of the child give life to his statements in his Autobiography that JENIE DELA CRUZ is MY WIFE as WE FELL IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER and NOW SHE IS PREGNANT AND FOR THAT WE LIVE TOGETHER.

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections of Rule 130 provide: SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. This Court's rulings further specify what incriminating acts are acceptable as evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case petitioner often cites, we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative

In Herrera v. Alba,

[21]

the Court summarized the laws, rules, and

jurisprudence on establishing filiation, discoursing in relevant part:

Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence Establishing Filiation The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows: ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. xxxx ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

2)

Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other

relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.

Our laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall be the paramount consideration in resolving questions affecting him.
[22]

Article 3(1) of the United

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the earlier quoted statements in Dominiques Autobiography have been made and written by him. Taken together with the other relevant facts extant herein that Dominique, during his lifetime, and Jenie were living together as common-law spouses for several months in 2005 at his parents house in Pulang-lupa, Dulumbayan, Teresa, Rizal; she was pregnant when Dominique died on September 4, 2005; and about two months after his death, Jenie gave birth to the child they sufficiently establish that the child of Jenie is Dominiques.

Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child of which the Philippines is a signatory is similarly emphatic: Article 3 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary [23] consideration. (Underscoring supplied)

It is thus (t)he policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made: investigation of the paternity and filiation of children,especially of illegitimate children x x x.
[24]

Too, (t)he State as parens patriae affords special protection to

children from abuse, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development.
[25]

1)

Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of

evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and

In the eyes of society, a child with an unknown father bears the stigma of dishonor. It is to petitioner minor childs best interests to allow him to bear the surname of the now deceased Dominique and enter it in his birth certificate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City is DIRECTED to immediately enterthe surname of the late Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino as the surname of petitioner minor Christian dela Cruz in his Certificate of Live Birth, and record the same in the Register of Births.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-9959 December 13, 1916 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, represented by the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORRAS DE MANILA, defendant-appellant. William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for appellant. Attorney-General Avancea for appellee.

voluntarily contributed. After a thorough investigation and consideration, the relief board allotted $365,703.50 to the various sufferers named in its resolution, dated September 22, 1866, and, by order of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, a list of these allotments, together with the names of those entitled thereto, was published in the Official Gazette of Manila dated April 7, 1870. There was later distributed, inaccordance with the above-mentioned allotments, the sum of $30,299.65, leaving a balance of S365,403.85 for distribution. Upon the petition of the governing body of the Monte de Piedad, dated February 1, 1833, the Philippine Government, by order dated the 1st of that month, directed its treasurer to turn over to the Monte de Piedad the sum of $80,000 of the relief fund in installments of $20,000 each. These amounts were received on the following dates: February 15, March 12, April 14, and June 2, 1883, and are still in the possession of the Monte de Piedad. On account of various petitions of the persons, and heirs of others to whom the above-mentioned allotments were made by the central relief board for the payment of those amounts, the Philippine Islands to bring suit against the Monte de Piedad a recover, "through the Attorney-General and in representation of the Government of the Philippine Islands," the $80.000, together with interest, for the benefit of those persons or their heirs appearing in the list of names published in the Official Gazette instituted on May 3, 1912, by the Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by the Insular Treasurer, and after due trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $80,000 gold or its equivalent in Philippine currency, together with legal interest from February 28, 1912, and the costs of the cause. The defendant appealed and makes the following assignment of errors: 1. The court erred in not finding that the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000), give to the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros, were so given as a donation subject to one condition, to wit: the return of such sum of money to the Spanish Government of these Islands, within eight days following the day when claimed, in case the Supreme Government of Spain should not approve the action taken by the former government. 2. The court erred in not having decreed that this donation had been cleared; said eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) being at present the exclusive property of the appellant the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros. 3. That the court erred in stating that the Government of the Philippine Islands has subrogated the Spanish Government in its rights, as regards an important sum of money resulting from a national subscription opened by reason of the earthquake of June 3, 1863, in these Island.

TRENT, J.: About $400,000, were subscribed and paid into the treasury of the Philippine Islands by the inhabitants of the Spanish Dominions of the relief of those damaged by the earthquake which took place in the Philippine Islands on June 3, 1863. Subsequent thereto and on October 6 of that year, a central relief board was appointed, by authority of the King of Spain, to distribute the moneys thus

4. That the court erred in not declaring that Act Numbered 2109, passed by the Philippine Legislature on January 30, 1912, is unconstitutional. 5. That the court erred in holding in its decision that there is no title for the prescription of this suit brought by the Insular Government against the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros for the reimbursement of the eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) given to it by the late Spanish Government of these Islands. 6. That the court erred in sentencing the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros to reimburse the Philippine Government in the sum of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) gold coin, or the equivalent thereof in the present legal tender currency in circulation, with legal interest thereon from February 28th, 1912, and the costs of this suit. In the royal order of June 29, 1879, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands was directed to inform the home Government in what manner the indemnity might be paid to which, by virtue of the resolutions of the relief board, the persons who suffered damage by the earthquake might be entitled, in order to perform the sacred obligation which the Government of Spain had assumed toward the donors. The next pertinent document in order is the defendant's petition, dated February 1, 1883, addressed to the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, which reads: Board of Directors of the Monte de Piedad of Manila Presidencia. Excellency: The Board of Directors of the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros of Manila informs your Excellency, First: That the funds which it has up to the present been able to dispose of have been exhausted in loans on jewelry, and there only remains the sum of one thousand and odd pesos, which will be expended between to-day and day after tomorrow. Second: That, to maintain the credit of the establishment, which would be greatly injured were its operations suspended, it is necessary to procure money. Third: That your Excellency has proposed to His Majesty's Government to apply to the funds of theMonte de Piedad a part of the funds held in the treasury derived form the national subscription for the relief of the distress caused by the earthquake of 1863. Fourth: That in the public treasury there is held at the disposal of the central earthquake relief board over $1090,000 which was deposited in the said treasury by order of your general Government, it having been

transferred thereto from the Spanish-Filipino Bank where it had been held. fifth: That in the straightened circumstances of the moment, your Excellency can, to avert impending disaster to the Monte de Piedad, order that, out of that sum of one hundred thousand pesos held in the Treasury at the disposal of the central relief board, there be transferred to the Monte de Piedad the sum of $80,000, there to be held under the same conditions as at present in the Treasury, to wit, at the disposal of the Relief Board. Sixth: That should this transfer not be approved for any reason, either because of the failure of His Majesty's Government to approve the proposal made by your Excellency relative to the application to the needs of the Monte de Piedad of a pat of the subscription intended to believe the distress caused by the earthquake of 1863, or for any other reason, the board of directors of the Monte de Piedadobligates itself to return any sums which it may have received on account of the eighty thousand pesos, or the whole thereof, should it have received the same, by securing a loan from whichever bank or banks may lend it the money at the cheapest rate upon the security of pawned jewelry. This is an urgent measure to save the Monte de Piedad in the present crisis and the board of directors trusts to secure your Excellency's entire cooperation and that of the other officials who have take part in the transaction. The Governor-General's resolution on the foregoing petition is as follows: GENERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES. MANILA, February 1, 1883. In view of the foregoing petition addressed to me by the board of directors of the Monte de Piedad of this city, in which it is stated that the funds which the said institution counted upon are nearly all invested in loans on jewelry and that the small account remaining will scarcely suffice to cover the transactions of the next two days, for which reason it entreats the general Government that, in pursuance of its telegraphic advice to H. M. Government, the latter direct that there be turned over to said Monte de Piedad $80,000 out of the funds in the public treasury obtained from the national subscription for the relief of the distress caused by the earthquake of 1863, said board obligating itself to return this sum should H. M. Government, for any reason, not approve the said proposal, and for this purpose it will procure funds by means of loans raised on pawned jewelry; it stated further that if the aid so solicited is not furnished, it will be compelled to suspend operations, which would seriously injure the credit of so beneficient an institution; and in view of

the report upon the matter made by the Intendencia General de Hacienda; and considering the fact that the public treasury has on hand a much greater sum from the source mentioned than that solicited; and considering that this general Government has submitted for the determination of H. M. Government that the balance which, after strictly applying the proceeds obtained from the subscription referred to, may remain as a surplus should be delivered to the Monte de Piedad, either as a donation, or as a loan upon the security of the credit of the institution, believing that in so doing the wishes of the donors would be faithfully interpreted inasmuch as those wishes were no other than to relieve distress, an act of charity which is exercised in the highest degree by the Monte de Piedad, for it liberates needy person from the pernicious effects of usury; and Considering that the lofty purposes that brought about the creation of the pious institution referred to would be frustrated, and that the great and laudable work of its establishment, and that the great and laudable and valuable if the aid it urgently seeks is not granted, since the suspension of its operations would seriously and regrettably damage the ever-growing credit of the Monte de Piedad; and Considering that if such a thing would at any time cause deep distress in the public mind, it might be said that at the present juncture it would assume the nature of a disturbance of public order because of the extreme poverty of the poorer classes resulting from the late calamities, and because it is the only institution which can mitigate the effects of such poverty; and Considering that no reasonable objection can be made to granting the request herein contained, for the funds in question are sufficiently secured in the unlikely event that H> M. Government does not approve the recommendation mentioned, this general Government, in the exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred upon it and in conformity with the report of the Intendencia de Hacienda, resolves as follows: First. Authority is hereby given to deliver to the Monte de Piedad, out of the sum held in the public treasury of these Islands obtained from the national subscription opened by reason of the earthquakes of 1863, amounts up to the sum $80,000, as its needs may require, in installments of $20,000.

Second. The board of directors of the Monte de Piedad is solemnly bound to return, within eight days after demand, the sums it may have so received, if H. M. Government does not approve this resolution. Third. The Intendencia General de Hacienda shall forthwith, and in preference to all other work, proceed to prepare the necessary papers so that with the least possible delay the payment referred to may be made and the danger that menaces the Monte de Piedad of having to suspend its operations may be averted. H. M. Government shall be advised hereof.lawphi1.net (Signed) P. DE RIVERA. By the royal order of December 3, 1892, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands was ordered to "inform this ministerio what is the total sum available at the present time, taking into consideration the sums delivered to the Monte de Piedad pursuant to the decree issued by your general Government on February 1, 1883," and after the rights of the claimants, whose names were published in the Official Gazette of Manila on April 7, 1870, and their heirs had been established, as therein provided, as such persons "have an unquestionable right to be paid the donations assigned to them therein, your general Government shall convoke them all within a reasonable period and shall pay their shares to such as shall identify themselves, without regard to their financial status," and finally "that when all the proceedings and operations herein mentioned have been concluded and the Government can consider itself free from all kinds of claims on the part of those interested in the distribution of the funds deposited in the vaults of the Treasury, such action may be taken as the circumstances shall require, after first consulting the relief board and your general Government and taking account of what sums have been delivered to the Monte de Piedad and those that were expended in 1888 to relieve public calamities," and "in order that all the points in connection with the proceedings had as a result of the earthquake be clearly understood, it is indispensable that the offices hereinbefore mentioned comply with the provisions contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the royal order of June 25, 1879." On receipt of this Finance order by the Governor-General, the Department of Finance was called upon for a report in reference to the $80,000 turned over to the defendant, and that Department's report to the Governor-General dated June 28, 1893, reads: Intendencia General de Hacienda de Filipinas (General Treasury of the Philippines) Excellency. By Royal Order No. 1044 of December 3, last, it is provided that the persons who sustained losses by the earthquakes that occurred in your capital in the year 1863 shall be paid

the amounts allotted to them out of the sums sent from Spain for this purpose, with observance of the rules specified in the said royal order, one of them being that before making the payment to the interested parties the assets shall be reduced to money. These assets, during the long period of time that has elapsed since they were turned over to the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, were used to cover the general needs of the appropriation, a part besides being invested in the relief of charitable institutions and another part to meet pressing needs occasioned by public calamities. On January 30, last, your Excellency was please to order the fulfillment of that sovereign mandate and referred the same to this Intendencia for its information and the purposes desired (that is, for compliance with its directions and, as aforesaid, one of these being the liquidation, recovery, and deposit with the Treasury of the sums paid out of that fund and which were expended in a different way from that intended by the donors) and this Intendencia believed the moment had arrived to claim from the board of directors of the Monte de Piedad y Caja de Ahorros the sum of 80,000 pesos which, by decree of your general Government of the date of February 1, 1883, was loaned to it out of the said funds, the (Monte de Piedad) obligating itself to return the same within the period of eight days if H. M. Government did not approve the delivery. On this Intendencia's demanding from the Monte de Piedad the eighty thousand pesos, thus complying with the provisions of the Royal Order, it was to be supposed that no objection to its return would be made by the Monte de Piedad for, when it received the loan, it formally engaged itself to return it; and, besides, it was indisputable that the moment to do so had arrived, inasmuch as H. M. Government, in ordering that the assets of the earthquake relief fund should he collected, makes express mention of the 80,000 pesos loaned to the Monte de Piedad, without doubt considering as sufficient the period of ten years during which it has been using this large sum which lawfully belongs to their persons. This Intendencia also supposed that the Monte de Piedad no longer needed the amount of that loan, inasmuch as, far from investing it in beneficient transactions, it had turned the whole amount into the voluntary deposit funds bearing 5 per cent interests, the result of this operation being that the debtor loaned to the creditor on interest what the former had gratuitously received. But the Monte de Piedad, instead of fulfilling the promise it made on receiving the sum, after repeated demands refused to return the money on the ground that only your Excellency, and not the Intendencia (Treasury), is entitled to order the reimbursement, taking no account of the fact that this Intendencia was acting in the discharge of a sovereign command, the fulfillment of which your Excellency was pleased to order; and on the

further ground that the sum of 80,000 pesos which it received from the fund intended for the earthquake victims was not received as a loan, but as a donation, this in the opinion of this Intendencia, erroneously interpreting both the last royal order which directed the apportionment of the amount of the subscription raised in the year 1863 and the superior decree which granted the loan, inasmuch as in this letter no donation is made to the Monte de Piedad of the 80,000 pesos, but simply a loan; besides, no donation whatever could be made of funds derived from a private subscription raised for a specific purpose, which funds are already distributed and the names of the beneficiaries have been published in the Gaceta, there being lacking only the mere material act of the delivery, which has been unduly delayed. In view of the unexpected reply made by the Monte de Piedad, and believing it useless to insist further in the matter of the claim for the aforementioned loan, or to argue in support thereof, this Intendencia believes the intervention of your Excellency necessary in this matter, if the royal Order No. 1044 of December 3, last, is to be complied with, and for this purpose I beg your Excellency kindly to order the Monte de Piedad to reimburse within the period of eight days the 80,000 which it owes, and that you give this Intendencia power to carry out the provisions of the said royal order. I must call to the attention of your Excellency that the said pious establishment, during the last few days and after demand was made upon it, has endorsed to the Spanish-Filipino Bank nearly the whole of the sum which it had on deposit in the general deposit funds. The record in the case under consideration fails to disclose any further definite action taken by either the Philippine Government or the Spanish Government in regard to the $80,000 turned over to the Monte de Piedad. In the defendant's general ledger the following entries appear: "Public Treasury: February 15, 1883, $20,000; March 12, 1883, $20,000; April 14, 1883, $20,000; June 2, 1883, $20,000, total $80,000." The book entry for this total is as follows: "To the public Treasury derived from the subscription for the earthquake of 1863, $80,000 received from general Treasury as a returnable loan, and without interest." The account was carried in this manner until January 1, 1899, when it was closed by transferring the amount to an account called "Sagrada Mitra," which latter account was a loan of $15,000 made to the defendant by the Archbishop of Manila, without interest, thereby placing the "Sagrada Mitra" account at $95,000 instead of $15,000. The above-mentioned journal entry for January 1, 1899, reads: "Sagrada Mitra and subscription, balance of these two account which on this date are united in accordance with an order of the Exmo. Sr. Presidente of the Council transmitted verbally to thePresidente Gerente of these institutions, $95,000."

On March 16, 1902, the Philippine government called upon the defendant for information concerning the status of the $80,000 and received the following reply: MANILA, March 31, 1902. To the Attorney-General of the Department of Justice of the Philippine Islands. SIR: In reply to your courteous letter of the 16th inst., in which you request information from this office as to when and for what purpose the Spanish Government delivered to the Monte de Piedad eighty thousand pesos obtained from the subscription opened in connection with the earthquake of 1863, as well as any other information that might be useful for the report which your office is called upon to furnish, I must state to your department that the books kept in these Pious Institutions, and which have been consulted for the purpose, show that on the 15th of February, 1883, they received as a reimbursable loan and without interest, twenty thousand pesos, which they deposited with their own funds. On the same account and on each of the dates of March 12, April 14 and June 2 of the said year, 1883, they also received and turned into their funds a like sum of twenty thousand pesos, making a total of eighty thousand pesos. (Signed) Emilio Moreta. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a literal copy of that found in the letter book No. 2 of those Pious Institutions. Manila, November 19, 1913 (Sgd.) EMILIO LAZCANOTEGUI, Secretary (Sgd.) O. K. EMILIO MORETA, Managing Director. The foregoing documentary evidence shows the nature of the transactions which took place between the Government of Spain and the Philippine Government on the one side and the Monte de Piedad on the other, concerning the $80,000. The Monte de Piedad, after setting forth in its petition to the Governor-General its financial condition and its absolute necessity for more working capital, asked that out of the sum of $100,000 held in the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, at the disposal of the central relief board, there be transferred to it the sum of $80,000 to

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

The Spanish nation was professedly Roman Catholic and its King enjoyed the distinction of being deputy ex officio of the Holy See and Apostolic Vicar-General of the Indies, and as such it was his duty to protect all pious works and charitable institutions in his kingdoms, especially those of the Indies; among the latter was the Monte de Piedad of the Philippines, of which said King and his deputy the Governor-General of the Philippines, as royal vice-patron, were, in a special and peculiar manner, the protectors; the latter, as a result of the cession of the Philippine Islands, Implicitly renounced this high office and tacitly returned it to the Holy See, now represented by the Archbishop of Manila; the national subscription in question was a kind of foundation or pious work, for a charitable purpose in these Islands; and the entire subscription not being needed for its original purpose, the royal vice-patron, with the consent of the King, gave the surplus thereof to an analogous purpose; the fulfillment of all these things involved, in the majority, if not in all cases, faithful compliance with the duty imposed upon him by the Holy See, when it conferred upon him the royal patronage of the Indies, a thing that touched him very closely in his conscience and religion; the cessionary Government though Christian, was not Roman Catholic and prided itself on its policy of non-interference in religious matters, and inveterately maintained a complete separation between the ecclesiastical and civil powers. In view of these circumstances it must be quite clear that, even without the express provisions of the Treaty of Paris, which apparently expressly exclude such an idea, it did not befit the honor of either of the contracting parties to subrogate to the American Government in lieu of the Spanish Government anything respecting the disposition of the funds delivered by the latter to the Monte de Piedad. The same reasons that induced the Spanish Government to take over such things would result in great inconvenience to the American Government in attempting to do so. The question was such a delicate one, for the reason that it affected the conscience, deeply religious, of the King of Spain, that it cannot be believed that it was ever his intention to confide the exercise thereof to a Government like the American. (U. S. vs. Arredondo, 6 Pet. [U. S.], 711.) It is thus seen that the American Government did not subrogate the Spanish Government or rather, the King of Spain, in this regard; and as the condition annexed to the donation was lawful and possible of fulfillment at the time the contract was made, but became impossible of fulfillment by the cession made by the Spanish Government in these

Islands, compliance therewith is excused and the contract has been cleared thereof. The contention of counsel, as thus stated, in untenable for two reason, (1) because such contention is based upon the erroneous theory that the sum in question was a donation to the Monte de Piedad and not a loan, and (2) because the charity founded by the donations for the earthquake sufferers is not and never was intended to be an ecclesiastical pious work. The first proposition has already been decided adversely to the defendant's contention. As to the second, the record shows clearly that the fund was given by the donors for a specific and definite purpose the relief of the earthquake sufferers and for no other purpose. The money was turned over to the Spanish Government to be devoted to that purpose. The Spanish Government remitted the money to the Philippine Government to be distributed among the suffers. All officials, including the King of Spain and the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, who took part in the disposal of the fund, acted in their purely civil, official capacity, and the fact that they might have belonged to a certain church had nothing to do with their acts in this matter. The church, as such, had nothing to do with the fund in any way whatever until the $80,000 reached the coffers of the Monte de Piedad (an institution under the control of the church) as a loan or deposit. If the charity in question had been founded as an ecclesiastical pious work, the King of Spain and the GovernorGeneral, in their capacities as vicar-general of the Indies and as royal vice-patron, respectively, would have disposed of the fund as such and not in their civil capacities, and such functions could not have been transferred to the present Philippine Government, because the right to so act would have arisen out of the special agreement between the Government of Spain and the Holy See, based on the union of the church and state which was completely separated with the change of sovereignty. And in their supplemental brief counsel say: By the conceded facts the money in question is part of a charitable subscription. The donors were persons in Spain, the trustee was the Spanish Government, the donees, the cestuis que trustent, were certain persons in the Philippine Islands. The whole matter is one of trusteeship. This is undisputed and indisputable. It follows that the Spanish Government at no time was the owner of the fund. Not being the owner of the fund it could not transfer the ownership. Whether or not it could transfer its trusteeship it certainly never has expressly done so and the general terms of property transfer in the Treaty of Paris are wholly insufficient for such a purpose even could Spain have transferred its

trusteeship without the consent of the donors and even could the United States, as a Government, have accepted such a trust under any power granted to it by the thirteen original States in the Constitution, which is more than doubtful. It follows further that this Government is not a proper party to the action. The only persons who could claim to be damaged by this payment to the Monte, if it was unlawful, are the donors or the cestuis que trustent, and this Government is neither. If "the whole matter is one of trusteeship," and it being true that the Spanish Government could not, as counsel say, transfer the ownership of the fund to the Monte de Piedad, the question arises, who may sue to recover this loan? It needs no argument to show that the Spanish or Philippine Government, as trustee, could maintain an action for this purpose had there been no change of sovereignty and if the right of action has not prescribed. But those governments were something more than mere common law trustees of the fund. In order to determine their exact status with reference to this fund, it is necessary to examine the law in force at the time there transactions took place, which are the law of June 20, 1894, the royal decree of April 27. 1875, and the instructions promulgated on the latter date. These legal provisions were applicable to the Philippine Islands (Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil. Rep., 34) The funds collected as a result of the national subscription opened in Spain by royal order of the Spanish Government and which were remitted to the Philippine Government to be distributed among the earthquake sufferers by the Central Relief Board constituted, under article 1 of the law of June 20, 1894, and article 2 of the instructions of April 27, 1875, a special charity of a temporary nature as distinguished from a permanent public charitable institution. As the Spanish Government initiated the creation of the fund and as the donors turned their contributions over to that Government, it became the duty of the latter, under article 7 of the instructions, to exercise supervision and control over the moneys thus collected to the end that the will of the donors should be carried out. The relief board had no power whatever to dispose of the funds confided to its charge for other purposes than to distribute them among the sufferers, because paragraph 3 of article 11 of the instructions conferred the power upon the secretary of the interior of Spain, and no other, to dispose of the surplus funds, should there be any, by assigning them to some other charitable purpose or institution. The secretary could not dispose of any of the funds in this manner so long as they were necessary for the specific purpose for which they were contributed. The secretary had the power, under the law above mentioned to appoint and totally or partially change the personnel of the relief board and to authorize the board to defend the rights of the charity in the courts. The authority of the board consisted only in carrying out the will of the donors as directed by the Government whose duty it

was to watch over the acts of the board and to see that the funds were applied to the purposes for which they were contributed .The secretary of the interior, as the representative of His Majesty's Government, exercised these powers and duties through the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands. The Governments of Spain and of the Philippine Islands in complying with their duties conferred upon them by law, acted in their governmental capacities in attempting to carry out the intention of the contributors. It will this be seen that those governments were something more, as we have said, than mere trustees of the fund. It is further contended that the obligation on the part of the Monte de Piedad to return the $80,000 to the Government, even considering it a loan, was wiped out on the change of sovereignty, or inn other words, the present Philippine Government cannot maintain this action for that reason. This contention, if true, "must result from settled principles of rigid law," as it cannot rest upon any title to the fund in the Monte de Piedad acquired prior to such change. While the obligation to return the $80,000 to the Spanish Government was still pending, war between the United States and Spain ensued. Under the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, the Archipelago, known as the Philippine Islands, was ceded to the United States, the latter agreeing to pay Spain the sum of $20,000,000. Under the first paragraph of the eighth article, Spain relinquished to the United States "all buildings, wharves, barracks, forts, structures, public highways, and other immovable property which, in conformity with law, belonged to the public domain, and as such belonged to the crown of Spain." As the $80,000 were not included therein, it is said that the right to recover this amount did not, therefore, pass to the present sovereign. This, in our opinion, does not follow as a necessary consequence, as the right to recover does not rest upon the proposition that the $80,000 must be "other immovable property" mentioned in article 8 of the treaty, but upon contractual obligations incurred before the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States. We will not inquire what effect his cession had upon the law of June 20, 1849, the royal decree of April 27, 1875, and the instructions promulgated on the latter date. In Vilas vs. Manila (220 U. S., 345), the court said: That there is a total abrogation of the former political relations of the inhabitants of the ceded region is obvious. That all laws theretofore in force which are in conflict with the political character, constitution, or institutions of the substituted sovereign, lose their force, is also plain. (Alvarez y Sanchez vs. United States, 216 U. S., 167.) But it is equally settled in the same public law that the great body of municipal law which regulates private and domestic rights continues in force until abrogated or changed by the new ruler.

If the above-mentioned legal provisions are in conflict with the political character, constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, they became inoperative or lost their force upon the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States, but if they are among "that great body of municipal law which regulates private and domestic rights," they continued in force and are still in force unless they have been repealed by the present Government. That they fall within the latter class is clear from their very nature and character. They are laws which are not political in any sense of the word. They conferred upon the Spanish Government the right and duty to supervise, regulate, and to some extent control charities and charitable institutions. The present sovereign, in exempting "provident institutions, savings banks, etc.," all of which are in the nature of charitable institutions, from taxation, placed such institutions, in so far as the investment in securities are concerned, under the general supervision of the Insular Treasurer (paragraph 4 of section 111 of Act No. 1189; see also Act No. 701). Furthermore, upon the cession of the Philippine Islands the prerogatives of he crown of Spain devolved upon he United States. In Magill vs. Brown (16 Fed. Cas., 408), quoted with approval in Mormon Charch vs. United States (136 U. S.,1, 57), the court said: The Revolution devolved on the State all the transcendent power of Parliament, and the prerogative of the crown, and gave their Acts the same force and effect. In Fontain vs. Ravenel (17 Hw., 369, 384), Mr. Justice McLean, delivering the opinion of the court in a charity case, said: When this country achieved its independence, the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the States. And this power still remains with them except so fact as they have delegated a portion of it to the Federal Government. The sovereign will is made known to us by legislative enactment. The State as a sovereign, is the parens patriae. Chancelor Kent says: In this country, the legislature or government of the State, as parens patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no other person is entrusted with it. (4 Kent Com., 508, note.)

The Supreme Court of the United States in Mormon Church vs. United States, supra, after approving also the last quotations, said: This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties. On the contrary, it is a most beneficient functions, and often necessary to be exercised in the interest of humanity, and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect themselves. The court in the same case, after quoting from Sohier vs. Mass. General Hospital (3 Cush., 483, 497), wherein the latter court held that it is deemed indispensible that there should be a power in the legislature to authorize the same of the estates of in facts, idiots, insane persons, and persons not known, or not in being, who cannot act for themselves, said: These remarks in reference to in facts, insane persons and person not known, or not in being, apply to the beneficiaries of charities, who are often in capable of vindicating their rights, and justly look for protection to the sovereign authority, acting as parens patriae. They show that this beneficient functions has not ceased t exist under the change of government from a monarchy to a republic; but that it now resides in the legislative department, ready to be called into exercise whenever required for the purposes of justice and right, and is a clearly capable of being exercised in cases of charities as in any other cases whatever. In People vs. Cogswell (113 Cal. 129, 130), it was urged that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest; that the Attorney-General had no power to institute the action; and that there must be an allegation and proof of a distinct right of the people as a whole, as distinguished from the rights of individuals, before an action could be brought by the Attorney-General in the name of the people. The court, in overruling these contentions, held that it was not only the right but the duty of the Attorney-General to prosecute the action, which related to charities, and approved the following quotation from Attorney-General vs. Compton (1 Younge & C. C., 417): Where property affected by a trust for public purposes is in the hands of those who hold it devoted to that trust, it is the privilege of the public that the crown should be entitled to intervene by its officers for the

purpose of asserting, on behalf on the public generally, the public interest and the public right, which, probably, no individual could be found effectually to assert, even if the interest were such as to allow it. (2 Knet's Commentaries, 10th ed., 359; Lewin on Trusts, sec. 732.) It is further urged, as above indicated, that "the only persons who could claim to be damaged by this payment to the Monte, if it was unlawful, are the donors or the cestuis que trustent, and this Government is neither. Consequently, the plaintiff is not the proper party to bring the action." The earthquake fund was the result or the accumulation of a great number of small contributions. The names of the contributors do not appear in the record. Their whereabouts are unknown. They parted with the title to their respective contributions. The beneficiaries, consisting of the original sufferers and their heirs, could have been ascertained. They are quite numerous also. And no doubt a large number of the original sufferers have died, leaving various heirs. It would be impracticable for them to institute an action or actions either individually or collectively to recover the $80,000. The only course that can be satisfactorily pursued is for the Government to again assume control of the fund and devote it to the object for which it was originally destined. The impracticability of pursuing a different course, however, is not the true ground upon which the right of the Government to maintain the action rests. The true ground is that the money being given to a charity became, in a measure, public property, only applicable, it is true, to the specific purposes to which it was intended to be devoted, but within those limits consecrated to the public use, and became part of the public resources for promoting the happiness and welfare of the Philippine Government. (Mormon Church vs. U. S., supra.) To deny the Government's right to maintain this action would be contrary to sound public policy, as tending to discourage the prompt exercise of similar acts of humanity and Christian benevolence in like instances in the future. As to the question raised in the fourth assignment of error relating to the constitutionality of Act No. 2109, little need be said for the reason that we have just held that the present Philippine Government is the proper party to the action. The Act is only a manifestation on the part of the Philippine Government to exercise the power or right which it undoubtedly had. The Act is not, as contended by counsel, in conflict with the fifth section of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, because it does not take property without due process of law. In fact, the defendant is not the owner of the $80,000, but holds it as a loan subject to the disposal of the central relief board. Therefor, there can be nothing in the Act which transcends the power of the Philippine Legislature.

In Vilas vs. Manila, supra, the plaintiff was a creditor of the city of Manila as it existed before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States by the Treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898. The action was brought upon the theory that the city, under its present charter from the Government of the Philippine Islands, was the same juristic person, and liable upon the obligations of the old city. This court held that the present municipality is a totally different corporate entity and in no way liable for the debts of the Spanish municipality. The Supreme Court of the United States, in reversing this judgment and in holding the city liable for the old debt, said: The juristic identity of the corporation has been in no wise affected, and, in law, the present city is, in every legal sense, the successor of the old. As such it is entitled to the property and property rights of the predecessor corporation, and is, in law, subject to all of its liabilities. In support of the fifth assignment of error counsel for the defendant argue that as the Monte de Piedad declined to return the $80,000 when ordered to do so by the Department of Finance in June, 1893, the plaintiff's right of action had prescribed at the time this suit was instituted on May 3, 1912, citing and relying upon article 1961, 1964 and 1969 of the Civil Code. While on the other hand, the AttorneyGeneral contends that the right of action had not prescribed (a) because the defense of prescription cannot be set up against the Philippine Government, (b) because the right of action to recover a deposit or trust funds does not prescribe, and (c) even if the defense of prescription could be interposed against the Government and if the action had, in fact, prescribed, the same was revived by Act No. 2109. The material facts relating to this question are these: The Monte de Piedad received the $80,000 in 1883 "to be held under the same conditions as at present in the treasury, to wit, at the disposal of the relief board." In compliance with the provisions of the royal order of December 3, 1892, the Department of Finance called upon theMonte de Piedad in June, 1893, to return the $80,000. The Monte declined to comply with this order upon the ground that only the GovernorGeneral of the Philippine Islands and not the Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement. The amount was carried on the books of the Monte as a returnable loan until January 1, 1899, when it was transferred to the account of the "Sagrada Mitra." On March 31, 1902, the Monte, through its legal representative, stated in writing that the amount in question was received as a reimbursable loan, without interest. Act No. 2109 became effective January 30, 1912, and the action was instituted on May 3rd of that year.

Counsel for the defendant treat the question of prescription as if the action was one between individuals or corporations wherein the plaintiff is seeking to recover an ordinary loan. Upon this theory June, 1893, cannot be taken as the date when the statute of limitations began to run, for the reason that the defendant acknowledged in writing on March 31, 1902, that the $80,000 were received as a loan, thereby in effect admitting that it still owed the amount. (Section 50, Code of Civil Procedure.) But if counsels' theory is the correct one the action may have prescribed on May 3, 1912, because more than ten full years had elapsed after March 31, 1902. (Sections 38 and 43, Code of Civil Procedure.) Is the Philippine Government bound by the statute of limitations? The Supreme Court of the United States in U. S.vs. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. (118 U. S., 120, 125), said: It is settled beyond doubt or controversy upon the foundation of the great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided that the United States, asserting rights vested in it as a sovereign government, is not bound by any statute of limitations, unless Congress has clearly manifested its intention that it should be so bound. (Lindsey vs. Miller, 6 Pet. 666; U. S. vs.Knight, 14 Pet., 301; Gibson vs. Chouteau, 13 Wall., 92; U. S. vs. Thompson, 98 U. S., 486; Fink vs. O'Neil, 106 U. S., 272, 281.) In Gibson vs. Choteau, supra, the court said: It is a matter of common knowledge that statutes of limitation do not run against the State. That no laches can be imputed to the King, and that no time can bar his rights, was the maxim of the common laws, and was founded on the principle of public policy, that as he was occupied with the cares of government he ought not to suffer from the negligence of his officer and servants. The principle is applicable to all governments, which must necessarily act through numerous agents, and is essential to a preservation of the interests and property of the public. It is upon this principle that in this country the statutes of a State prescribing periods within which rights must be prosecuted are not held to embrace the State itself, unless it is expressly designated or the mischiefs to be remedied are of such a nature that it must necessarily be included. As legislation of a State can only apply to persons and thing over which the State has jurisdiction, the United States are also necessarily excluded from the operation of such statutes.

In 25 Cyc., 1006, the rule, supported by numerous authorities, is stated as follows: In the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary, statute of limitations do not as a general rule run against the sovereign or government, whether state or federal. But the rule is otherwise where the mischiefs to be remedied are of such a nature that the state must necessarily be included, where the state goes into business in concert or in competition with her citizens, or where a party seeks to enforces his private rights by suit in the name of the state or government, so that the latter is only a nominal party. In the instant case the Philippine Government is not a mere nominal party because it, in bringing and prosecuting this action, is exercising its sovereign functions or powers and is seeking to carry out a trust developed upon it when the Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States. The United States having in 1852, purchased as trustee for the Chickasaw Indians under treaty with that tribe, certain bonds of the State of Tennessee, the right of action of the Government on the coupons of such bonds could not be barred by the statute of limitations of Tennessee, either while it held them in trust for the Indians, or since it became the owner of such coupons. (U. S.vs. Nashville, etc., R. Co., supra.) So where lands are held in trust by the state and the beneficiaries have no right to sue, a statute does not run against the State's right of action for trespass on the trust lands. (Greene Tp. vs.Campbell, 16 Ohio St., 11; see also Atty.-Gen. vs. Midland R. Co., 3 Ont., 511 [following Reg. vs. Williams, 39 U. C. Q. B., 397].) These principles being based "upon the foundation of the great principle of public policy" are, in the very nature of things, applicable to the Philippine Government. Counsel in their argument in support of the sixth and last assignments of error do not question the amount of the judgment nor do they question the correctness of the judgment in so far as it allows interest, and directs its payment in gold coin or in the equivalent in Philippine currency. For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. Torres, Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur. Moreland, J., did not sign.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-5 September 17, 1945

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;

CO KIM CHAM (alias CO KIM CHAM), petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH and ARSENIO P. DIZON, Judge of First Instance of 1 Manila, respondents. 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

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. 2186-93; Hall, International Law, 7th ed., p. 505, note 2.) The so-called Republic of the Philippines, apparently established and organized as a sovereign state independent from any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth and reality, a government established by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese forces of occupation. It was of the same character as the Philippine Executive Commission, and the ultimate source of its authority was the same the Japanese military authority and government. As General MacArthur stated in his proclamation of October 23, 1944, a portion of which has been already quoted, "under enemy duress, a so-called government styled as the 'Republic of the Philippines' was established on October 14, 1943, based upon neither the free expression of the people's will nor the sanction of the Government of the United States." Japan had no legal power to grant independence to the Philippines or transfer the sovereignty of the United States to, or recognize the latent sovereignty of, the Filipino people, before its military occupation and possession of the Islands had matured into an absolute and permanent dominion or sovereignty by a treaty of peace or other means recognized in the law of nations. For it is a wellestablished 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 socalled 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 wrongdoers, 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.

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.

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.

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 hito-bashira (pillar-men) to gird the grave. They were buried alive in circle up to the neck around the thomb and "for several days they died not, but wept and wailed day night. At last they died not, but wept and wailed day night. At last they did not rotted. Dogs and cows gathered and ate them." (Gowen, an Outline of History of Japan, p. 50.) The practice shows that the Japanese are the spiritual descendants of the Sumerians, the ferocious inhabitants of Babylonia who, 3500 years B. C., appeared in history as the first human beings to honor their patesis by killing and entombing with him his window, his ministers, and notable men and women of his kingdom, selected by the priests to partake of such abominable honor. (Broduer, The Pageant of Civilization, pp. 62-66.) General MacArthur sought to annul completely the officials acts of the governments under the Japanese occupation, because they were done at the shadow of the Japanese dictatorship, the same which destroyed the independence of Korea, the "Empire of Morning Frehsness"; they violated the territorial integrity of China, invaded Manchuria, and initiated therein the deceitful system of puppet governments, by designating irresponsible Pu Yi as Emperor of Manchukuo; they violated the trusteeship granted by the Treaty of Versailles by usurping tha mandated islands in the Pacific; they initiated that they call China Incident, without war declaration, and, therefore, in complete disregard of an elemental international duty; they attacked Pearl Harbor treacherously, and committed a long series of the flagrant violations of international law that have logically bestowed on Japan the title of the bandit nation in the social world.

The conduct of the Japanese during the occupation shows a shocking an anchronism of a modern world power which seems to be re-incarnation of one whose primitive social types of pre-history, whose proper place must be found in an archeological collection. It represents a backward jump in the evolution of ethical and juridical concepts, a reversion that, more than a simple pathological state, represents a characteristics and well defined case of sociological teratology. Since they entered the threshold of our capital, the Japanese had announced that for every one of them killed they would kill ten prominent Filipinos. They promised to respect our rights by submitting us to the wholesale and indiscriminate slapping, tortures, and atrocious massacres. Driving nails in the cranium, extraction of teeth and eyes, burnings of organs, hangings, diabolical zonings, looting of properties, establishments of redlight districts, machine gunning of women and children, interment of alive persons, they are just mere preludes of the promised paradised that they called "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". They promised religious liberty by compelling all protestant sects to unite, against the religious scruples and convictions of their members, in one group, and by profaning convents, seminaries, churches, and other cult centers of the Catholics, utilizing them as military barracks, munitions dumps, artillery base, deposits of bombs and gasoline, torture chambers and zone, and by compelling the government officials and employees to face and to bow in adoration before that caricature of divinity in the imperial palace of Tokyo. The Japanese offered themselves to be our cultural mentors by depriving us of the use of our schools and colleges, by destroying our books and other means of culture, by falsifying the contents of school texts, by eliminating free press, the radio, all elemental principles of civilized conduct, by establishing classes of rudimentary Japanese so as to reduce the Filipinos to the mental level of the rude Japanese guards, and by disseminating all kinds of historical, political, and cultural falsehoods. Invoking our geographical propinquity and race affinity, they had the insolence of calling us their brothers, without the prejuce of placing of us in the category of slaves, treating the most prominent Filipinos in a much lower social and political category than that of the most ignorant and brutal subject of the Emperor. The civil liberties of the citizens were annulled. Witnesses and litigants were slapped and tortured during investigations. In the prosecuting attorney's offices, no one was safe. When the Japanese arrested a person, the lawyer who dared to intercede was also placed under arrest. Even courts were not free from their

dispotic members. There were judges who had to trample laws and shock their conscience in order not to disgust a Nipponese. The most noble of all professions, so much so that the universities of the world could not conceive of higher honor that may be conferred than that of Doctor of Laws, became the most despised. It was dangerous to practice the profession by which faith in the effectiveness of law is maintained; citizens feel confident in the protection of their liberties, honor, and dignity; the weak may face the powerful; the lowest citizen is not afraid of the highest official; civil equality becomes reality; justice is admnistered with more efficiency; and democracy becomes the best system of government and the best guaranty for the welfare and happiness of the individual human being. In fact, the profession of law was annulled, and the best lawyers for the unfortunate prisoners in Fort Santiago and other centers of torture were the military police, concubines, procurers, and spies, the providers of war materials and shameful pleasures, and the accomplices in fraudulent transactions, which were the specialty of many naval and military Japanese officers. The courts and Filipino government officials were completely helpless in the question of protecting the constitutional liberties and fundamental rights of the citizens who happen to be unfortunate enough to fall under the dragnet of the hated kempei. Even the highest government officials were not safe from arrest and imprisonment in the dreaded military dungeons, where torture or horrible death were always awaiting the defenseless victim of the Japanese brutality. May any one be surprised if General MacArthur decided to annul all the judicial processes? The evident policy of the author of the October Proclamation can be seen if we take into consideration the following provisions of the Japanese Constitution: ART. 57. The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law according to law, in the name of the Emperor. ART. 61. No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been infringed by the illegal measures of the executive authority .. shall be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law. INTERNATIONAL LAW Nobody dared challenge the validity of the October Proclamation.

Nobody dared challenge the authority of the military Commander in Chief who issued it. Certainly not because of the awe aroused by the looming figure of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, the Allied Supreme Commander, the military hero, the greatest American general, the Liberator of the Philippines, the conqueror of Japan, the gallant soldier under whose authority the Emperor of the Japan, who is supposed to rule supreme for ages as a descendant of gods, is receiving orders with the humility of a prisoner of war. No challenge has been hurled against the proclamation or the authority of the author to issue it, because everybody acknowledges the full legality of its issuance. But because the proclamation will affect the interest and the rights of a group of individuals, and to protect the same, a way is being sought to neutralize the effect of the proclamation. The way found is to invoke international law. The big and resounding word is considered as a shibboleth powerful enough to shield the affected persons from the annulling impact. Even then, international law is not invoked to challenge the legality or authority of the proclamation, but only to construe it in a convenient way so that judicial processes during the Japanese occupation, through an exceptional effort of the imagination, might to segregated from the processes mentioned in the proclamation. An author said that the law of nations, the "jus gentiun", is not a fixed nor immutable science. On the country, it is developing incessantly, it is perpetually changing in forms. In each turn it advances or recedes, according to the vicissitudes of history, and following the monotonous rythm of the ebb and rise of the tide of the sea. Le driot des gens, en effet, n'est point une science fixe est immuable: bein au contraire, il se developpe sans cesse, il change eternellement de formes; tour il avance et il recule, selon less vicissitudes de histoire et suivan un rhythm monotone qui est comme le flux et le reflux d'un mer. (M. Revon, De l'existence du driot international sous la republique romain.)

Another author has this to say: International law, if it is or can be a science at all, or can be, at most a regulative science, dealing with the conduct of States, that is, human beings in a certain capacity; and its principles and prescriptions are not, like those of science proper, final and unchanging. The substance of science proper is already made for man; the substance of international is actually made by man, and different ages make differently." (Coleman Philippson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece of Rome, Vol. I, p. 50.) "Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still." (Pound, Interpretations of Legal History., p. 1. ) Justice Cardozo adds: "Here is the great antimony confronting us at every turn. Rest and motion, unrelieved and unchecked, are equally destructive. The law, like human kind, if life is to continue, must find some path compromise." (The Growth of Law p. 2.) Law is just one of the manifestations of human life, and "Life has relations not capable of division into inflexible compartments. The moulds expand and shrink," (Glanzer vs. Shepard, 233 N.Y., 236, 241.) The characteristic plasticity of law is very noticeable, much more than in any other department, in international law. In a certain matters it is clear we have made substantial progress, but in other points, he (M. Revon) maintains, we have retrograded; for example, in the middle ages the oath was not always respected as faithfully as in ancient Rome; and nearer our own times, in the seventeenth century, Grotius proclaims the unquestioned right of the belligerents to massacre the women and the children of the enemy; and in our more modern age the due declaration of war which Roman always conformed to has not been invariably observed. (Coleman Philippson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome, Vol. I, p. 209.) Now let us see if any principle of international law may effect the enforcement of the October Proclamation. In this study we should be cautioned not to allow ourselves to be deluded by generalities and vagueness which are likely to lead us easily to error, in view of the absence of codification and statutory provisions.

Our Constitution provides: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation. (Sec. 3, Art. II.) There being no codified principles of international law, or enactments of its rules, we cannot rely on merely legal precepts. With the exception of international conventions and treaties and, just recently, the Charter of the United Nations, adopted in San Francisco Conference on June 26, 1945, we have to rely on unsystemized judicial pronouncements and reasonings and on theories, theses, and propositions that we may find in the works of authors and publicists. Due to that characteristic pliability and imprecision of international law, the drafters of our Constitution had to content themselves with "generally accepted principles." We must insists, therefore, that the principles should be specific and unmistakably defined and that there is definite and conclusive evidence to the effect that they generally accepted among the civilized nations of the world and that they belong to the current era and no other epochs of history. The temptation of assuming the role of a legislator is greater in international law than in any other department of law, since there are no parliaments, congresses, legislative assemblies which can enact laws and specific statutes on the subject. It must be our concern to avoid falling in so a great temptation, as its, dangers are incalculable. It would be like building castles in the thin air, or trying to find an exit in the thick dark forest where we are irretrievably lost. We must also be very careful in our logic. In so vast a field as international law, the fanciful wandering of the imagination often impair the course of dialistics. THE OCTOBER PROCLAMATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW Is there any principle of international law that may effect the October Proclamation?

We tried in vain to find out in the majority opinion anything as to the existence of any principle of international law under which the authority of General MacArthur to issue the proclamation can effectively be challenged. No principle of international law has been, or could be invoked as a basis for denying the author of the document legal authority to issue the same or any part thereof. We awaited in vain for any one to dare deny General MacArthur the authority, under international law, to declare null and void and without effect, not only the laws and regulations of the governments under the Japanese regime, but all the processes of said governments, including judicial processes. If General MacArthur, as commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces of Liberation, had authority, full and legal, to issue the proclamation, the inescapable result will be the complete viodance and nullity of all judicial processes, procedures, and proceedings of all courts under the Japanese regime. But those who are sponsoring the cause of said judicial processes try to achieve their aim, not by direct means, but by following a tortuous side-road. They accept and recognize the full authority of the author of the proclamation to issue it and all its parts, but they maintain that General MacArthur did not and could not have in mind the idea of nullifying the judicial processes during the Japanese occupation, because that will be in violation of the principles of international law. If we follow the reasoning of the majority opinion we will have to reach the conlusion that the world "processes" does not appear at all in the October Proclamation. It is stated more than once, and reiterated with dogmatic emphasis, that under the principles of international law the judicial processes under an army occupation cannot be invalidated. But we waited in vain for the specific principle of international law, only one of those alluded to, to be pointed out to us.

If the law exist, it can be pointed out. If the principle exists, it can stated specifically. The word is being used very often in plural, principles, but we need only one to be convinced. The imagined principles are so shrouded in a thick maze of strained analogies and reasoning, that we confess our inability even to have a fleeting glimpse at them through their thick and invulnerable wrappers. At every turn international law, the blatant words, are haunting us with the deafening bray of a trumpet, but after the transient sound has fled away, absorbed by the resiliency of the vast atmosphere, the announced principles, which are the very soul of international law, would disappear too with the lighting speed of a vanishing dream. WEAKNESS OF THE MAJORITY POSITION In the majority opinion three questions are propounded: first, whether judicial acts and proceedings during the Japanese occupation are valid even after liberation; second whether the October Proclamation had invalidated all judgement and judicial proceedings under the Japanese regime; and third, whether the present courts of the Commonwealth may continue the judicial proceedings pending at the time of liberation. As regards the first question, it is stated that it is a legal tourism in political and international law that all acts of 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.

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 defacto government the so-called Court of First Instance of Manila was not a de facto court, and the judge who presided it was not a de facto judge; (b) the rules of International Law regarding the establishment of a de facto Government in territory belonging to a belligerent but occupied or controlled by an opposing belligerent are inapplicable to the governments thus established here by Japan; 3. The courts of those governments were entirely different from our Commonwealth courts before and after the Japanese occupation; 4. The question boils down to whether the Commonwealth Government, as now restored, is to be bound by the acts of either or both of those Japanese-sponsored governments; 5. Even consideration of policy of practical convenience militate against petitioner's contention. I

HILADO, J., dissenting: I dissent from the opinion of the majority and, pursuant to the Constitution, proceed to state the reason for my dissent. The proceeding involved in the case at bar were commenced by a complaint filed by the instant petitioner, as plaintiff, on November 18, 1944, in civil case No. 3012 of the so-called Court of First Instance of Manila, the complaint bearing this heading and title: "The Republic of the Philippines In the Court of First Instance of Manila" (Annex X of Exhibit A of petition for mandamus). The farthest that said proceedings had gone before the record was burned or destroyed during the battle for Manila, was the filing by counsel for plaintiff therein of their opposition to a motion for dismissal filed by opposing counsel. It is, therefore, plain that the case had not been heard on the merits when the record was burned or destroyed. The respondent judge, in his order dated June 6, 1945, disposing of the petition dated May 25, 1945 filed by petitioner, as a plaintiff in said case, and of the petition filed by respondent Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh, as defendant therein, on May 31, 19045, held: " first, that by virtue of the proclamation of General MacArthur quoted above, all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the Commonwealth became null and void and without legal effect in Manila on February 3, 1945 or, at the lates, on February 27 of the same year; second that the proceedings and processes had in the present case having been before a court of the Republic of the Philippines and in accordance with the laws and regulations of said Republic, the same are now void and without legal effect; third, that this Court as one of the different courts of general jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, has no authority to take cognizance of and continue said proceedings to final judgement, until and unless the Government of

The 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

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 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

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 TydingsMcDuffie 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-inhand 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 reestablish 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 Japanese-sponsored governments. In the last analysis, in deciding the question of validity or nullity of the proceedings involved herein, we are confronted with the necessity to decide whether the Court of first Instance of Manila and this Supreme Court, as re-established under the Commonwealth Constitution, and the entire Commonwealth Government, are to be bound by the acts of the said Japanese-sponsored court and government. To propound this question is, to my mind, to answer it most decidedly in the negative,

not only upon the ground of the legal principles but also for the reasons of national dignity and international decency. To answer the question in the affirmative would be nothing short for legalizing the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Philippines. Indeed, it would be virtual submission to the dictation of an invader our people's just hatred of whom gave rise to the epic Philippine resistance movement, which has won the admiration of the entire civilized world. V Even considerations of policy or practical convenience militate against petitioner's contention. In this connection, the respondent judge, in his order of June 6, 1945, complained of, has the following to say: It is contended, however, that the judicial system implanted by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic was the same as that of the Commonwealth prior to Japanese occupation; that the laws administered and enforced by said courts during the existence of said regime were the same laws on the statute books of Commonwealth before Japanese occupation, and that even the judges who presided them were, in many instances, the same persons who held the position prior to the Japanese occupation. All this may be true, but other facts are just as stubborn and pitiless. One of them is that said courts were of a government alien to the Commonwealth Government. The laws they enforced were, true enough, laws of the Commonwealth prior to Japanese occupation, but they had become the laws and the Courts had become the institutions-of Japan by adoption (U.S. vs. Reiter, 27 F. Case No. 16,146), as they became later on the laws and institution of the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines. No amount of argument or legal fiction can obliterate this fact. Besides, I am of the opinion that the validity of the acts of the courts in the "judicial system implanted by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic "would not depend upon the laws that they "administered and enforced", but upon the authority by virtue of which they acted. If the members of this Court were to decide the instant case in strict accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth but not by the authority that they possess in their official capacity as the Supreme Court of the Philippines, but merely as lawyers, their decision would surely be null and void. And yet, I am firmly of opinion that whoever was the "judge" of the Japanese sponsored Court of First Instance of Manila who

presided over the said court when the proceedings and processes in the dispute were had, in acting by virtue of the supposed authority which he was supposed to have received from that government, did so with no more legal power than if he had acted as a mere lawyer applying the same laws to the case. If duplication of work or effort, or even if confussion, should be alleged to possibly arise from a declaration of nullity or judicial proceedings had before those Japanese-sponsored courts, it should suffice to answer that the party so complaining in voluntarily resorting to such courts should be prepared to assume the consequences of his voluntary act. On the other hand, his convenience should not be allowed to visit upon the majority of the inhabitants of this country, the dire consequences of a sweeping and wholesale validation of judicial proceedings in those courts. Let us set forth a few considerations apropos of this assertion. It is a fact of general knowledge that during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the overwhelming majority of our people and other resident inhabitants were literally afraid to go any place where there were Japanese sentries, soldiers or even civilians, and that these sentries were posted at the entrance into cities and towns and at government offices; that the feared Japanese "M. P.'s" or Kempeitai's" were a constant terror to them; and lastly, that the greater number who lived or had evacuated to places for from the Japanese, were found precisely in the cities and towns where the courts were located; and as a consequence, the great majority of the people were very strongly adverse to traveling any considerable distance from their homes and were, one might say, in constant hiding. Add to these circumstances, the fact of the practical absence of transportation facilities and the no less important fact of the economic structure having been so dislocated as to have impoverished the many in exchange for the enrichment of the few and we shall have a fair picture of the practical difficulties which the ordinary litigant would in those days have encountered in defending his rights against anyone of the favored few who would bring him to court. It should be easy to realize how hard it was for instances, to procure the attendance of witnesses, principally because of the fact that most of them were in hiding or, at least, afraid to enter the cities and towns, and also because of then generally difficult and abnormal conditions prevailing. Under such conditions, cases or denial of a party's day in court expected. Such denial might arise from many a cause. It might be party's fear to appear before the court because in doing so, he would have had to get near the feared Japanese. It might be because he did not recognize any legal authority in that court, or it might be his down-right repugnance of the hated enemy. And I dare say that among such people would be found more than seventeen million Filipinos. These are but a few of countless cause. So that if some form of validation of such judicial proceedings were to be attempted, all necessary safeguards should be provided to avoid that in any particular case the validation should violate any litigant's constitutional right to his day in court, within the full meaning of the phrase, or any other constitutional or statutory right of his. More people, I am

afraid, would be prejudiced than would be benefited by a wholesale validation of said proceedings. Much concern has been shown for the possible confusion which might result from a decision declaring null and void the acts processes of the Japanese-sponsored governments in the Philippines. I think, this aspect of the question has been unduly stressed. The situation is not without remedy, but the remedy lies with the legislature and not with the courts. As the courts cannot create a new or special jurisdiction for themselves, which is a legislative function, and as the situation demands such new or special jurisdiction, let the legislature act in the premises. For instance, the Congress may enact a law conferring a special jurisdiction upon the courts of its selection, whereby said courts may, after hearing all the parties interested, and taking all the necessary safeguards, so that, a party's day in court or other constitutional or statutory right under the Commonwealth Government should not be prejudiced by any of said acts, processes or proceedings, particullarly, those in Japanese-sponsored courts, and subject to such other conditions as the special law may provide, validate the corresponding acts, processes or proceedings. This, to my mind, would be more conducive to a maximum of benefit and a minimum of prejudice to the inhabitants of this country, rather than the procedure favored by the majority. Finally, let us not equalize the conditions then prevailing in Manila to that prevailing in the provinces, where the greater number of the people where then living outside the towns, in the farms and the hills. These people constitute the great majority of the eighteen million Filipinos. To them the semblance of an administration of justice which Japanese allowed, was practically unknown. But they constituted the majority of loyal citizens to whom President Roosevelt's message of October 23, 1943 refers. They the majority of our people had an unshaken faith in the arrival of American aid here and the final triumph of the Allied cause. They were willing to wait for the restoration of their rightful government, with its courts and other institutions, for the settlement of their differences. May in their common hardship and sufferings under yoke of foreign oppression, they had not much time to think of such differences, if they did not utterly forget them. Their undoubted hatred of the invader was enough to keep them away from the judicial system that said invader allowed to have. Those who voluntarily went to the courts in those tragic days belong to the small minority. As to the public order why! any public order which then existed was not due to the courts or other departments of the puppet government. It was maintained at the point of the bayonet by the Japanese army, and in their own unique fashion.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, - versus MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, Respondents. x-------------------------------------------x ELISEO F. SORIANO, Petitioner, - versus MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE AQUINOGAVINO, NOEL R. DEL PRADO, EMMANUELBORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO IV, and FLORIMONDO C. ROUS,in their capacity as members of the Hearing and Adjudication Committee of the MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, in their capacity as complainants before the MTRCB, Respondents.

G.R. No. 164785 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: April 29, 2009 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.:

In these two petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano seeks to nullify and set aside an order and a decision of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) in connection with certain utterances he made in his television show, Ang Dating Daan.

G.R. No. 165636

Facts of the Case

On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made the following remarks: Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba,

[dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga [1] demonyong ito. x x x

and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 164785, to nullify the preventive suspension order thus issued.

[8]

On September 27, 2004, in Adm. Case No. 01-04, the MTRCB issued a Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan.
[3] [2]

decision, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is hereby rendered, finding respondent Soriano liable for his utterances and thereby imposing on him a penalty of three (3) months suspension from his program, Ang Dating Daan. Co-respondents Joselito Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz and UNTV Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are hereby exonerated for lack of evidence. SO ORDERED.
[9]

Forthwith, the MTRCB sent petitioner

a notice of the hearing on August 16, 2004 in relation to the alleged use of some cuss words in the August 10, 2004 episode of Ang Dating Daan.
[4]

After a preliminary conference in which petitioner appeared, the MTRCB, by Order of August 16, 2004, preventively suspended the showing of Ang Dating Daan program for 20 days, in accordance with Section 3(d) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1986, creating the MTRCB, in relation to Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of PD 1986 and Sec. 7, Rule VII of the MTRCB Rules of Procedure. The same order also set the case for preliminary investigation.
[5]

Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief, docketed as G.R. No. 165636.

In a Resolution dated April 4, 2005, the Court consolidated G.R. No. 164785 with G.R. No. 165636.

In G.R. No. 164785, petitioner raises the following issues: THE ORDER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION PROMULGATED BY RESPONDENT [MTRCB] DATED 16 AUGUST 2004 AGAINST THE TELEVISION PROGRAM ANG DATING DAAN x x x IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION (A) BY REASON THAT THE [IRR] IS INVALID INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDERS;

The following day, petitioner sought reconsideration of the preventive suspension order, praying that Chairperson Consoliza P. Laguardia and two other members of the adjudication board recuse themselves from hearing the case.
[6]

Two days after, however, petitioner sought to withdraw his motion for

[7]

reconsideration, followed by the filing with this Court of a petition for certiorari

(B) (C) (D) (E)

BY REASON OF LACK OF DUE HEARING IN THE CASE AT BENCH; FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION; AND FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND [10] EXPRESSION.

III [PD] 1986 IS NOT COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A SUFFICIENT STANDARD FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION THEREBY RESULTING IN AN UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY REASON THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE [IRR], RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE MTRCB PURSUANT THERETO, I.E. DECISION DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 2004 AND ORDER DATED 19 OCTOBER 2004, ARE LIKEWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM AS [11] APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BENCH

In G.R. No. 165636, petitioner relies on the following grounds: SECTION 3(C) OF [PD] 1986, IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ENACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION x x x CONSIDERING THAT: I SECTION 3(C) OF [PD] 1986, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, UNDULY INFRINGES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, AND EXPRESSION AS IT PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF A SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT CURTAILING THE SAME; CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS, RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE MTRCB PURSUANT THERETO, I.E. DECISION DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 2004 AND ORDER DATED 19 OCTOBER 2004, ARE LIKEWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM AS APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BENCH;

G.R. No. 164785

We shall first dispose of the issues in G.R. No. 164785, regarding the assailed order of preventive suspension, although its implementability had already been overtaken and veritably been rendered moot by the equally assailed September 27, 2004 decision.

It is petitioners threshold posture that the preventive suspension imposed against him and the relevant IRR provision authorizing it are invalid inasmuch as PD 1986 does not expressly authorize the MTRCB to issue preventive

II SECTION 3(C) OF [PD] 1986, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, UNDULY INFRINGES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW; CONSEQUENTLY, THE [IRR], RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE MTRCB PURSUANT THERETO, I.E., DECISION DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 2004 AND ORDER DATED 19 OCTOBER 2004, ARE LIKEWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM AS APPLIED IN THE CASE AT BENCH; AND

suspension.

Petitioners contention is untenable.

Administrative agencies have powers and functions which may be administrative, investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of the five, as may be conferred by the Constitution or by statute.
[12]

They have in

fine only such powers or authority as are granted or delegated, expressly or impliedly, by law.
[13]

xxxx (d) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the x x x production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be x x x produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by television;

And in determining whether an agency has certain powers,

the inquiry should be from the law itself. But once ascertained as existing, the authority given should be liberally construed.
[14]

A perusal of the MTRCBs basic mandate under PD 1986 reveals the possession by the agency of the authority, albeit impliedly, to issue the challenged order of preventive suspension. And this authority stems naturally from, and is necessary for the exercise of, its power of regulation and supervision.

xxxx k) To exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act x x x. (Emphasis added.)

Sec. 3 of PD 1986 pertinently provides the following: Section shall duties: xxxx c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the x x x production, x x x exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the judgment of the board applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong or crime such as but not limited to: xxxx vi) Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; 3. Powers and Functions.The BOARD have the following functions, powers and

The issuance of a preventive suspension comes well within the scope of the MTRCBs authority and functions expressly set forth in PD 1986, more particularly under its Sec. 3(d), as quoted above, which empowers the MTRCB to supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the x x x exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be x x x exhibited and/or broadcast by television.

Surely, the power to issue preventive suspension forms part of the MTRCBs express regulatory and supervisory statutory mandate and its investigatory and disciplinary authority subsumed in or implied from such mandate.

Any other construal would render its power to regulate, supervise, or discipline illusory.

or broadcast of, among others, indecent or immoral materials and to impose sanctions for violations and, corollarily, to prevent further violations as it investigates. Contrary to petitioners assertion, the aforequoted Sec. 3 of the IRR

Preventive suspension, it ought to be noted, is not a penalty by itself, being merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.
[15]

neither amended PD 1986 nor extended the effect of the law. Neither did the MTRCB, by imposing the assailed preventive suspension, outrun its authority under the law. Far from it. The preventive suspension was actually done in furtherance of the law, imposed pursuant, to repeat, to the MTRCBs duty of regulating or supervising television programs, pending a determination of whether or not there has actually been a violation. In the final analysis, Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the 2004

And the

power to discipline and impose penalties, if granted, carries with it the power to investigate administrative complaints and, during such investigation, to preventively suspend the person subject of the complaint.
[16]

To reiterate, preventive suspension authority of the MTRCB springs from its powers conferred under PD 1986. The MTRCB did not, as petitioner insinuates, empower itself to impose preventive suspension through the medium of the IRR of PD 1986. It is true that the matter of imposing preventive suspension is embodied only in the IRR of PD 1986. Sec. 3, Chapter XIII of the IRR provides: Sec. 3. PREVENTION SUSPENSION ORDER.Any time during the pendency of the case, and in order to prevent or stop further violations or for the interest and welfare of the public, the Chairman of the Board may issue a Preventive Suspension Order mandating the preventive x x x suspension of the permit/permits involved, and/or closure of the x x x television network, cable TV station x x x provided that the temporary/preventive order thus issued shall have a life of not more than twenty (20) days from the date of issuance.

IRR merely formalized a power which PD 1986 bestowed, albeit impliedly, on MTRCB.

Sec. 3(c) and (d) of PD 1986 finds application to the present case, sufficient to authorize the MTRCBs assailed action. Petitioners restrictive reading of PD 1986, limiting the MTRCB to functions within the literal confines of the law, would give the agency little leeway to operate, stifling and rendering it inutile, when Sec. 3(k) of PD 1986 clearly intends to grant the MTRCB a wide room for flexibility in its operation. Sec. 3(k), we reiterate, provides, To exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act x x x. Indeed, the power to impose preventive suspension is one of the implied powers of MTRCB. As distinguished from express powers, implied powers are those that can be inferred or areimplicit in the

But the mere absence of a provision on preventive suspension in PD 1986, without more, would not work to deprive the MTRCB a basic disciplinary tool, such as preventive suspension. Recall that the MTRCB is expressly empowered by statute to regulate and supervise television programs to obviate the exhibition

wordings or conferred by necessary or fair implication of the enabling act.

[17]

As we

held in Angara v. Electoral Commission, when a general grant of power is conferred or a duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of one or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication.
[18]

Clearly, the

power to impose preventive suspension pending investigation is one of the implied or inherent powers of MTRCB. Petitioner next faults the MTRCB for denying him his right to the equal protection of the law, arguing that, owing to the preventive suspension order, he We cannot agree with petitioners assertion that the aforequoted IRR provision on preventive suspension is applicable only to motion pictures and publicity materials. The scope of the MTRCBs authority extends beyond motion pictures. What the acronym MTRCB stands for would suggest as much. And while the law makes specific reference to the closure of a television network, the suspension of a television program is a far less punitive measure that can be undertaken, with the purpose of stopping further violations of PD 1986. Again, the MTRCB would regretfully be rendered ineffective should it be subject to the restrictions petitioner envisages. Petitioners position does not persuade. The equal protection clause demands that all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
[23]

was unable to answer the criticisms coming from the INC ministers.

It guards against undue favor and individual privilege as well as

[24]

hostile discrimination.

Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place

himself in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, are not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in their TV programs, use language similar to that which he used

Just as untenable is petitioners argument on the nullity of the preventive suspension order on the ground of lack of hearing. As it were, the MTRCB handed out the assailed order after petitioner, in response to a written notice, appeared before that Board for a hearing on private respondents complaint. No less than petitioner admitted that the order was issued after the adjournment of the hearing,
[19]

in his own, necessitating the MTRCBs disciplinary action. If the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his critics, this does not become a deprivation of the equal protection guarantee. The Court need not belabor the fact that the circumstances of petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan, on one hand, and the INC ministers, as hosts of Ang Tamang Daan, on the other, are, within the purview of this case, simply too different to even consider whether or not there is a prima facie indication of oppressive inequality.

proving that he had already appeared before the MTRCB. Under Sec. 3,

Chapter XIII of the IRR of PD 1986, preventive suspension shall issue *a+ ny time during the pendency of the case. In this particular case, it was done after MTRCB duly apprised petitioner of his having possibly violated PD 1986
[20]

and of
[21]

administrative complaints that had been filed against him for such violation.

Petitioner next injects the notion of religious freedom, submitting that what he uttered was religious speech, adding that words like putang babae were

At any event, that preventive suspension can validly be meted out even without a hearing.
[22]

said in exercise of his religious freedom.

The argument has no merit.

could have chosen to contradict and disprove his detractors, but opted for the low road.

The Court is at a loss to understand how petitioners utterances in question can come within the pale of Sec. 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution on religious freedom. The section reads as follows: No law shall be made respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Petitioner, as a final point in G.R. No. 164785, would have the Court nullify the 20-day preventive suspension order, being, as insisted, an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of speech and expression and an impermissible prior restraint. The main issue tendered respecting the adverted violation and the arguments holding such issue dovetails with those challenging the three-month suspension imposed under the assailed September 27, 2004 MTRCB decision subject of review under G.R. No. 165636. Both overlapping issues and arguments shall be jointly addressed. There is nothing in petitioners statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission. The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised bible exposition program does not automatically accord them the character of a religious discourse. Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech. Even petitioners attempts to place his words in context show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religious conviction. His claim, assuming its veracity, that some INC ministers distorted his statements respecting amounts Ang Dating Daan owed to a TV station does not convert the foul language used in retaliation as religious speech. We cannot accept that petitioner made his statements in defense of his reputation and religion, as they constitute no intelligible defense or refutation of the alleged lies being spread by a rival religious group. They simply illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of name-calling and foul-language discourse. Petitioner He would also have the Court declare PD 1986, its Sec. 3(c) in particular, unconstitutional for reasons articulated in this petition. Petitioner urges the striking down of the decision suspending him from hosting Ang Dating Daan for three months on the main ground that the decision violates, apart from his religious freedom, his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Sec. 4, Art. III of the Constitution, which reads: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. G.R. No. 165636

We are not persuaded as shall be explained shortly. But first, we restate certain general concepts and principles underlying the freedom of speech and expression. Indeed, as noted in Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire,
[31]

there are

certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech that are harmful, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any

It is settled that expressions by means of newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures come within the broad protection of the free speech and expression clause.
[25]

Constitutional problems. In net effect, some forms of speech are not protected by the Constitution, meaning that restrictions on unprotected speech may be decreed without running afoul of the freedom of speech clause.
[32]

Each method though, because of its dissimilar presence in

A speech would fall

the lives of people and accessibility to children, tends to present its own problems in the area of free speech protection, with broadcast media, of all forms of communication, enjoying a lesser degree of protection.
[26]

under the unprotected type if the utterances involved are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step of truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
[33]

Just as settled is the rule

that restrictions, be it in the form of prior restraint, e.g., judicial injunction against publication or threat of cancellation of license/franchise, or subsequent liability, whether in libel and damage suits, prosecution for sedition, or contempt proceedings, are anathema to the freedom of expression. Prior restraint means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
[27]

Being of little or no value, there is, in dealing with or

regulating them, no imperative call for the application of the clear and present danger rule or the balancing-of-interest test, they being essentially modes of weighing competing values,
[34]

or, with like effect, determining which of the

clashing interests should be advanced.

The freedom of expression, as Petitioner asserts that his utterance in question is a protected form of speech.

with the other freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights, is, however, not absolute. It may be regulated to some extent to serve important public interests, some forms of speech not being protected. As has been held, the limits of the freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.
[28]

The Court rules otherwise. It has been established in this jurisdiction that unprotected speech or low-value expression refers to libelous statements, obscenity or pornography, false or misleading advertisement, insulting or fighting words, i.e., those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security.

In the oft-quoted expression of Justice Holmes, the

constitutional guarantee obviously was not intended to give immunity for every possible use of language.
[29]

From Lucas v. Royo comes this line: *T+he freedom to

express ones sentiments and belief does not grant one the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another. Any sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with proper regard for the rights of others.
[30]

The Court finds that petitioners statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the average child. Hence, it is, in that context, unprotected speech. In Fernando v. Court of Appeals, the Court expressed difficulty in formulating a definition ofobscenity that would apply to all cases, but nonetheless stated the ensuing observations on the matter: There is no perfect definition of obscenity but the latest word is that of Miller v. California which established basic guidelines, to wit: (a) whether to the average person, applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. But, it would be a serious misreading of Miller to conclude that the trier of facts has the unbridled discretion in determining what is patently offensive. x x x What remains clear is that obscenity is an issue proper for judicial determination and should be treated on a [35] case to case basis and on the judges sound discretion.

viewed as figures of speech or merely a play on words. In the context they were used, they may not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult. The problem with the challenged statements is that they were uttered in a TV program that is rated G or for general viewership, and in a time slot that would likely reach even the eyes and ears of children.

While adults may have understood that the terms thus used were not to be taken literally, children could hardly be expected to have the same discernment. Without parental guidance, the unbridled use of such language as that of petitioner in a television broadcast could corrupt impressionable young minds. The term putang babae means a female prostitute, a term wholly inappropriate for children, who could look it up in a dictionary and just get the literal meaning, missing the context within which it was used. Petitioner further used the terms, ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, making reference to the female sexual organ and how a female prostitute uses it in her trade, then stating that Sandoval was worse than that by using his mouth in a similar manner. Children

Following the contextual lessons of the cited case of Miller v. California,

[36]

could be motivated by curiosity and ask the meaning of what petitioner said, also without placing the phrase in context. They may be inquisitive as to why Sandoval is different from a female prostitute and the reasons for the dissimilarity. And upon learning the meanings of the words used, young minds, without the guidance of an adult, may, from their end, view this kind of indecent speech as obscene, if they

a patently offensive utterance would come within the pale of the

term obscenity should it appeal to the prurient interest of an average listener applying contemporary standards.

A cursory examination of the utterances complained of and the circumstances of the case reveal that to an average adult, the utterances Gago ka talaga x x x, masahol ka pa sa putang babae x x x. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! may not constitute obscene but merely indecent utterances. They can be

take these words literally and use them in their own speech or form their own ideas on the matter. In this particular case, where children had the opportunity to hear petitioners words, when speaking of the average person in the test for obscenity, we are speaking of the average child, not the average adult. The average child may not have the adults grasp of figures of speech, and may lack the

understanding that language may be colorful, and words may convey more than the literal meaning. Undeniably the subject speech is very suggestive of a female sexual organ and its function as such. In this sense, we find petitioners utterances obscene and not entitled to protection under the umbrella of freedom of speech.

In FCC, seven of what were considered filthy words

[40]

earlier recorded in a

monologue by a satiric humorist later aired in the afternoon over a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation. Upon the complaint of a man who heard the prerecorded monologue while driving with his son, FCC declared the language used as patently offensive and indecent under a prohibiting law, though not

Even if we concede that petitioners remarks are not obscene but merely indecent speech, still the Court rules that petitioner cannot avail himself of the constitutional protection of free speech. Said statements were made in a medium easily accessible to children. With respect to the young minds, said utterances are to be treated as unprotected speech.

necessarily obscene. FCC added, however, that its declaratory order was issued in a special factual context, referring, in gist, to an afternoon radio broadcast when children were undoubtedly in the audience. Acting on the question of whether the FCC could regulate the subject utterance, the US Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, owing to two special features of the broadcast medium, to wit: (1) radio is a pervasive medium and (2) broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children.

No doubt what petitioner said constitutes indecent or offensive utterances. But while a jurisprudential pattern involving certain offensive utterances conveyed in different mediums has emerged, this case is veritably one of first impression, it being the first time that indecent speech

The US Court, however, hastened to add that the monologue would be protected speech in other contexts, albeit it did not expound and identify a compelling state interest in putting FCCs content-based regulatory action under scrutiny.

communicated via television and the applicable norm for its regulation are, in this jurisdiction, made the focal
[37]

The Court in Chavez

[41]

elucidated on the distinction between regulation or

point. Federal

Communications

restriction of protected speech that is content-based and that which is contentneutral. A content-based restraint is aimed at the contents or idea of the expression, whereas a content-neutral restraint intends to regulate the time, place, and manner of the expression under well-defined standards tailored to serve a compelling state interest, without restraint on the message of the expression. Courts subject content-based restraint to strict scrutiny.

Commission (FCC) v. Pacifica Foundation,

a 1978 American landmark case cited

[38]

in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr.

and Chavez v. Gonzales,

[39]

is a

rich source of persuasive lessons. Foremost of these relates to indecent speech without prurient appeal component coming under the category of protected speech depending on the context within which it was made, irresistibly suggesting that, within a particular context, such indecent speech may validly be categorized as unprotected, ergo, susceptible to restriction.

With the view we take of the case, the suspension MTRCB imposed under the premises was, in one perspective, permissible restriction. We make this disposition against the backdrop of the following interplaying factors: First, the indecent

speech was made via television, a pervasive medium that, to borrow from Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak,
[42]

easily reaches every home where there is a set *and where+

Despite the settled ruling in FCC which has remained undisturbed since 1978, petitioner asserts that his utterances must present a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantive evil the State has a right and duty to prevent and such danger must be grave and imminent.
[45]

[c]hildren will likely be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown; second, the broadcast was aired at the time of the day when there was a reasonable risk that children might be in the audience; and third, petitioner uttered his speech on a G or for general patronage rated program. Under Sec. 2(A) of Chapter IV of the IRR of the MTRCB, a show for general patronage is *s+uitable for all ages, meaning that the material for television x x x in the judgment of the BOARD, does not contain anything unsuitable for children and minors, and may be viewed without adult guidance or sup ervision. The words petitioner used were, by any civilized norm, clearly not suitable for children. Where a language is categorized as indecent, as in petitioners utterances on a general-patronage rated TV program, it may be readily proscribed as unprotected speech.

Petitioners invocation of the clear and present danger doctrine, arguably the most permissive of speech tests, would not avail him any relief, for the application of said test is uncalled for under the premises. The doctrine, first formulated by Justice Holmes, accords protection for utterances so that the printed or spoken words may not be subject to prior restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil which the government has the power to prohibit.
[46]

Under the doctrine, freedom

of speech and of press is susceptible of restriction when and only when necessary to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the government may

A view has been advanced that unprotected speech refers only to pornography,
[43]

lawfully protect. As it were, said doctrine evolved in the context of prosecutions for rebellion and other crimes involving the overthrow of government.
[47]

false or misleading advertisement,

[44]

advocacy of imminent

It was

lawless action, and expression endangering national security. But this list is not, as some members of the Court would submit, exclusive or carved in stone. Without going into specifics, it may be stated without fear of contradiction thatUS decisional law goes beyond the aforesaid general exceptions. As the Court has been impelled to recognize exceptions to the rule against censorship in the past, this particular case constitutes yet another exception, another instance of unprotected speech, created by the necessity of protecting the welfare of our children. As unprotected speech, petitioners utterances can be subjected to restraint or regulation.

originally designed to determine the latitude which should be given to speech that espouses anti-government action, or to have serious and substantial deleterious consequences on the security and public order of the community. present danger rule has been applied to this jurisdiction.
[49] [48]

The clear and

As a standard of

limitation on free speech and press, however, the clear and present danger test is not a magic incantation that wipes out all problems and does away with analysis and judgment in the testing of the legitimacy of claims to free speech and which compels a court to release a defendant from liability the moment the doctrine is invoked, absent proof of imminent catastrophic disaster.
[50]

As we observed

in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation, the clear and present danger test does not lend itself to a simplistic and all embracing interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums.
[51]

To be sure, the clear and present danger doctrine is not the only test which has been applied by the courts. Generally, said doctrine is applied to cases involving the overthrow of the government and even other evils which do not clearly undermine national security. Since not all evils can be measured in terms of proximity and degree the Court, however, in several casesAyer Productions v. Capulong
[52]

In enunciating standard premised on a judicial balancing of the conflicting social values and individual interests competing for ascendancy in legislation which restricts expression, the court in Douds laid the basis for what has been called the balancing-of-interests test which has found application in more recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Briefly stated, the balancing test requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation. xxxx Although the urgency of the public interest sought to be secured by Congressional power restricting the individuals freedom, and the social importance and value of the freedom so restricted, are to be judged in the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions, a wide range of factors are necessarily relevant in ascertaining the point or line of equilibrium. Among these are (a) the social value and importance of the specific aspect of the particular freedom restricted by the legislation; (b) the specific thrust of the restriction, i.e., whether the restriction is direct or indirect, whether or not the persons affected are few; (c) the value and importance of the public interest sought to be secured by the legislationthe reference here is to the nature and gravity of the evil which Congress seeks to prevent; (d) whether the specific restriction decreed by Congress is reasonably appropriate and necessary for the protection of such public interest; and (e) whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the [55] protected freedom.

and Gonzales v. COMELEC,

[53]

applied the balancing of interests

test. Former Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, in Gonzales v. COMELEC, elucidated in his Separate Opinion that where the legislation under constitutional attack interferes with the freedom of speech and assembly in a more generalized way and where the effect of the speech and assembly in terms of the probability of realization of a specific danger is not susceptible even of impressionistic calculation,
[54]

then the balancing of interests test can be applied.

The Court explained also in Gonzales v. COMELEC the balancing of interests test: When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented. x x x We must, therefore, undertake the delicate and difficult task x x x to weigh the circumstances and to appraise the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights x x x.

This balancing of interest test, to borrow from Professor Kauper,

[56]

rests on

the theory that it is the courts function in a case before it w hen it finds public interests served by legislation, on the one hand, and the free expression clause affected by it, on the other, to balance one against the other and arrive at a

judgment where the greater weight shall be placed. If, on balance, it appears that the public interest served by restrictive legislation is of such nature that it outweighs the abridgment of freedom, then the court will find the legislation valid. In short, the balance-of-interests theory rests on the basis that constitutional freedoms are not absolute, not even those stated in the free speech and expression clause, and that they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and important interests.
[57]

tasked to promote and protect. Moreover, the State is also mandated to recognize and support the vital role of the youth in nation building as laid down in Sec. 13, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution.

The Constitution has, therefore, imposed the sacred obligation and responsibility on the State to provide protection to the youth against illegal or improper activities which may prejudice their general well-being. The Article on youth, approved on second reading by the Constitutional Commission, explained that the State shall extend social protection to minors against all forms of neglect, cruelty, exploitation, immorality, and practices which may foster racial, religious or other forms of discrimination.
[58]

To the mind of the Court, the balancing of

interest doctrine is the more appropriate test to follow. In the case at bar, petitioner used indecent and obscene language and a three (3)-month suspension was slapped on him for breach of MTRCB rules. In this setting, the assertion by petitioner of his enjoyment of his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the government to protect and promote the development and welfare of the youth.

Indisputably, the State has a compelling interest in extending social protection to minors against all forms of neglect, exploitation, and immorality

After a careful examination of the factual milieu and the arguments raised by petitioner in support of his claim to free speech, the Court rules that the governments interest to protect and promote the interests and welfare of the children adequately buttresses the reasonable curtailment and valid restraint on petitioners prayer to continue as program host of Ang Dating Daan during the suspension period.

which may pollute innocent minds. It has a compelling interest in helping parents, through regulatory mechanisms, protect their childrens minds from exposure to undesirable materials and corrupting experiences. The Constitution, no less, in fact enjoins the State, as earlier indicated, to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being of the youth to better prepare them fulfill their role in the field of nation-building.
[59]

In the same way, the State is

mandated to support parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the No doubt, one of the fundamental and most vital rights granted to citizens of a State is the freedom of speech or expression, for without the enjoyment of such right, a free, stable, effective, and progressive democratic state would be difficult to attain. Arrayed against the freedom of speech is the right of the youth to their moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social being which the State is constitutionally Petitioners offensive and obscene language uttered in a television broadcast, without doubt, was easily accessible to the children. His statements could have exposed children to a language that is unacceptable in everyday use. As such, the development of moral character.
[60]

welfare of children and the States mandate to protect and care for them, as parens patriae,
[61]

constitute a substantial and compelling government interest in

law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult population. It cannot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of [62] the young.

regulating petitioners utterances in TV broadcast as provided in PD 1986. The compelling need to protect the young impels us to sustain the regulatory action MTRCB took in the narrow confines of the case. To reiterate, FCC justified the restraint on the TV broadcast grounded on the following considerations: (1) the use of television with its unique accessibility to children, as a medium of broadcast [B]roadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. Although Cohens written message, *Fuck the Draft+, might have been incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacificas broadcast could have enlarged a childs vocabulary in an instant. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld from the young without restricting the expression at its source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v. New York that the governments interest in the well-being of its youth and in supporting parents claim to authority in their own household justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. The ease with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting. of a patently offensive speech; (2) the time of broadcast; and (3) the G rating of the Ang Dating Daan program. And in agreeing with MTRCB, the court takes stock of and cites with approval the following excerpts from FCC: It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a twoway radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction. x x x The *FFCs+ decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the [FFC]. The content of the program in which the language is used will affect the composition of the audience x x x. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. We simply hold that when the [FCC] finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene. (Citation omitted.)

FCC explains the duty of the government to act as parens patriae to protect the children who, because of age or interest capacity, are susceptible of being corrupted or prejudiced by offensive language, thus:

Moreover, Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak likewise stressed the duty of the State to attend to the welfare of the young: x x x It is the consensus of this Court that where television is concerned, a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons have to pay their way, television reaches every home where there is a set. Children then will likely will be among the avid viewers of the programs therein shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome Frank, it is hardly the concern of the

There can be no quibbling that the remarks in question petitioner uttered on prime-time television are blatantly indecent if not outright obscene. It is the kind of speech that PD 1986 proscribes necessitating the exercise by MTRCB of statutory

disciplinary powers. It is the kind of speech that the State has the inherent prerogative, nay duty, to regulate and prevent should such action served and further compelling state interests. One who utters indecent, insulting, or offensive words on television when unsuspecting children are in the audience is, in the graphic language of FCC, a pig in the parlor. Public interest would be served if the pig is reasonably restrained or even removed from the parlor.

broadcasting a TV program. The Board can classify movies and television programs and can cancel permits for exhibition of films or television broadcast.

The power of MTRCB to regulate and even impose some prior restraint on radio and television shows, even religious programs, was upheld in Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals. Speaking through Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Court wrote:

Ergo, petitioners offensive and indecent language can be subjected to prior restraint. We thus reject petitioners postulate that its religious program is per se beyond review by the respondent Board. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare. x x x xxxx While the thesis has a lot to commend itself, we are not ready to hold that [PD 1986] is unconstitutional for Congress to grant an administrative body quasi-judicial power to preview and classify TV programs and enforce its decision subject to review by our courts. As far back as 1921, we upheld this setup in Sotto vs. Ruiz, viz: The use of the mails by private persons is in the nature of a privilege which can be regulated in order to avoid its abuse. Persons possess no absolute right to put into the mail anything they please, [63] regardless of its character.

Petitioner theorizes that the three (3)-month suspension is either prior restraint or subsequent punishment that, however, includes prior restraint, albeit indirectly.

After a review of the facts, the Court finds that what MTRCB imposed on petitioner is an administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for his offensive and obscene language in Ang Dating Daan.

To clarify, statutes imposing prior restraints on speech are generally illegal and presumed unconstitutional breaches of the freedom of speech. The exceptions to prior restraint are movies, television, and radio broadcast censorship in view of its access to numerous people, including the young who must be insulated from the prejudicial effects of unprotected speech. PD 1986 was passed creating the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (now MTRCB) and which requires prior permit or license before showing a motion picture or

Bernas adds:

Under the decree a movie classification board is made the arbiter of what movies and television programs or parts of either are fit for public consumption. It decides what movies are immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of thePhilippines or its people, and what tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition, or tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or duly constituted authorities, etc. Moreover, its decisions are executory unless stopped by a [64] court.

The three (3) months suspension in this case is not a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue with the broadcast ofAng Dating Daan as a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB for such broadcast. Rather, the suspension is in the form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment for the offensive and obscene remarks he uttered on the evening of August 10, 2004 in his television program, Ang Dating Daan. It is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause. And the imposition is separate and distinct from the criminal action the

Moreover, in MTRCB v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation,

[65]

it was held that

Board may take pursuant to Sec. 3(i) of PD 1986 and the remedies that may be availed of by the aggrieved private party under the provisions on libel or tort, if applicable. As FCC teaches, the imposition of sanctions on broadcasters who indulge in profane or indecent broadcasting does not constitute forbidden censorship. Lest it be overlooked, the sanction imposed is not per se for petitioners exercise of his freedom of speech via television, but for the indecent contents of his utterances in a G rated TV program.

the power of review and prior approval of MTRCB extends to all television programs and is valid despite the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, all broadcast networks are regulated by the MTRCB since they are required to get a permit before they air their television

programs. Consequently, their right to enjoy their freedom of speech is subject to that requirement. As lucidly explained by Justice Dante O. Tinga, government regulations through the MTRCB became a necessary evil with the government taking the role of assigning bandwidth to individual broadcasters. The stations explicitly agreed to this regulatory scheme; otherwise, chaos would result in the television broadcast industry as competing broadcasters will interfere or co-opt each others signals. In this scheme, station owners and broadcasters in effect waived their right to the full enjoyment of their right to freedom of speech in radio and television programs and impliedly agreed that said right may be subject to prior restraintdenial of permit or subsequent punishment, like suspension or cancellation of permit, among others.

More importantly, petitioner is deemed to have yielded his right to his full enjoyment of his freedom of speech to regulation under PD 1986 and its IRR as television station owners, program producers, and hosts have impliedly accepted the power of MTRCB to regulate the broadcast industry. Neither can petitioners virtual inability to speak in his program during the period of suspension be plausibly treated as prior restraint on future speech. For viewed in its proper perspective, the suspension is in the nature of an intermediate penalty for uttering an unprotected form of speech. It is definitely a lesser punishment than the permissible cancellation of exhibition or broadcast permit or license. In fine, the suspension meted was simply part of the duties of the MTRCB

in the enforcement and administration of the law which it is tasked to implement. Viewed in its proper context, the suspension sought to penalize past speech made on prime-time G rated TV program; it does not bar future speech of petitioner in other television programs; it is a permissible subsequent administrative sanction; it should not be confused with a prior restraint on speech. While not on all fours, the Court, in MTRCB,
[66]

Petitioner, in questioning the three-month suspension, also tags as unconstitutional the very law creating the MTRCB, arguing that PD 1986, as applied to him, infringes also upon his freedom of religion. The Court has earlier adequately explained why petitioners undue reliance on the religious freedom cannot lend justification, let alone an exempting dimension to his licentious utterances in his program. The Court sees no need to address anew the repetitive arguments on religious freedom. As earlier discussed in the disposition of the petition in G.R. No. 164785, what was uttered was in no way a religious speech. Parenthetically, petitioners attempt to characterize his speech as a

sustained the power of the

MTRCB to penalize a broadcast company for exhibiting/airing a pre-taped TV episode without Board authorization in violation of Sec. 7 of PD 1986.

Any simplistic suggestion, however, that the MTRCB would be crossing the limits of its authority were it to regulate and even restrain the prime-time television broadcast of indecent or obscene speech in a G rated program is not acceptable. As made clear in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation, the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media. The MTRCB, as a regulatory agency, must have the wherewithal to enforce its mandate, which would not be effective if its punitive actions would be limited to mere fines. Television broadcasts should be subject to some form of regulation, considering the ease with which they can be accessed, and violations of the regulations must be met with appropriate and proportional disciplinary action. The suspension of a violating television program would be a sufficient punishment and serve as a deterrent for those responsible. The prevention of the broadcast of petitioners television program is justified, and does not constitute prohibited prior restraint. It behooves the Court to respond to the needs of the changing times, and craft jurisprudence to reflect these times.

legitimate defense of his religion fails miserably. He tries to place his words in perspective, arguing evidently as an afterthought that this was his method of refuting the alleged distortion of his statements by the INC hosts of Ang Tamang Daan. But on the night he uttered them in his television program, the word simply came out as profane language, without any warning or guidance for undiscerning ears.

As to petitioners other argument about having been denied due process and equal protection of the law, suffice it to state that we have at length debunked similar arguments in G.R. No. 164785. There is no need to further delve into the fact that petitioner was afforded due process when he attended the hearing of the MTRCB, and that he was unable to demonstrate that he was unjustly discriminated against in the MTRCB proceedings.

Finally, petitioner argues that there has been undue delegation of legislative power, as PD 1986 does not provide for the range of imposable penalties that may be applied with respect to violations of the provisions of the law.

The argument is without merit.

carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines [67] promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.

In Edu v. Ericta, the Court discussed the matter of undue delegation of legislative power in the following wise: It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other branches of the government, subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. For a complex economy, that may indeed be the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally may not be done, and delegation of authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law, to which no valid objection can be made. The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability. To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be

Based on the foregoing pronouncements and analyzing the law in question, petitioners protestation about undue del egation of legislative power for the sole reason that PD 1986 does not provide for a range of penalties for violation of the law is untenable. His thesis is that MTRCB, in promulgating the IRR of PD 1986, prescribing a schedule of penalties for violation of the provisions of the decree, went beyond the terms of the law.

Petitioners posture is flawed by the erroneous assumptions holding it together, the first assumption being that PD 1986 does not prescribe the imposition of, or authorize the MTRCB to impose, penalties for violators of PD 1986. As earlier indicated, however, the MTRCB, by express and direct conferment of power and functions, is charged with supervising and regulating, granting, denying, or canceling permits for the exhibition and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs, and publicity materials to the end that no such objectionable pictures, programs, and materials shall be exhibited and/or broadcast by television. Complementing this provision is Sec. 3(k) of the decree authorizing the MTRCB to exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purpose and objectives of [the law+. As earlier explained, the investiture of supervisory, regulatory, and disciplinary power would surely be a meaningless grant if it did not carry with it the power to penalize the supervised or the regulated as may be proportionate to the

offense committed, charged, and proved. As the Court said inChavez v. National Housing Authority: x x x [W]hen a general grant of power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. x x x [W]hen the statute does not specify the particular method to be followed or used by a government agency in the exercise of the power vested in it by law, said agency has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to [68] carry out its function.

imposition of fines and other administrative penalty/penalties. The Board recognizes the existing Table of Administrative Penalties attached without prejudice to the power of the Board to amend it when the need arises. In the meantime the existing revised Table of Administrative Penalties shall be enforced. (Emphasis added.)

This is, in the final analysis, no more than a measure to specifically implement the aforequoted provisions of Sec. 3(d) and (k). Contrary to what petitioner implies, the IRR does not expand the mandate of the MTRCB under the law or partake of the nature of an unauthorized administrative legislation. The MTRCB cannot shirk

Given the foregoing perspective, it stands to reason that the power of the MTRCB to regulate and supervise the exhibition of TV programs carries with it or necessarily implies the authority to take effective punitive action for violation of the law sought to be enforced. And would it not be logical too to say that the power to deny or cancel a permit for the exhibition of a TV program or broadcast necessarily includes the lesser power to suspend?

its responsibility to regulate the public airwaves and employ such means as it can as a guardian of the public.

In Sec. 3(c), one can already find the permissible actions of the MTRCB, along with the standards to be applied to determine whether there have been statutory breaches. The MTRCB may evaluate motion pictures, television programs, and publicity materials applying contemporary Filipino cultural values

The MTRCB promulgated the IRR of PD 1986 in accordance with Sec. 3(a) which, for reference, provides that agency with the power *to+ promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for the implementation of this Act, and the accomplishment of its purposes and objectives x x x. And Chapter XIII, Sec. 1 of the IRR providing: Section 1. VIOLATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS.Without prejudice to the immediate filing of the appropriate criminal action and the immediate seizure of the pertinent articles pursuant to Section 13, any violation of PD 1986 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations governing motion pictures, television programs, and related promotional materials shall be penalized with suspension or cancellation of permits and/or licenses issued by the Board and/or with the

as standard, and, from there, determine whether these audio and video materials are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, *etc.+ x x x and apply the sanctions it deems proper. The lawmaking body cannot possibly provide for all the details in the enforcement of a particular statute.
[69]

The grant of the rule-making power to administrative agencies is a

relaxation of the principle of separation of powers and is an exception to the nondelegation of legislative powers.
[70]

Administrative regulations or subordinate

legislation calculated to promote the public interest are necessary because of the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the

law.

[71]

Allowing the MTRCB some reasonable elbow-room in its operations and,

In ending, what petitioner obviously advocates is an unrestricted speech paradigm in which absolute permissiveness is the norm. Petitioners flawed belief that he may simply utter gutter profanity on television without adverse consequences, under the guise of free speech, does not lend itself to acceptance in this jurisdiction. We repeat: freedoms of speech and expression are not absolute freedoms. To say any act that restrains speech should be greeted with furrowed brows is not to say that any act that restrains or regulates speech or expression

in the exercise of its statutory disciplinary functions, according it ample latitude in fixing, by way of an appropriate issuance, administrative penalties with due regard for the severity of the offense and attending mitigating or aggravating circumstances, as the case may be, would be consistent with its mandate to effectively and efficiently regulate the movie and television industry.

But even as we uphold the power of the MTRCB to review and impose sanctions for violations of PD 1986, its decision to suspend petitioner must be modified, for nowhere in that issuance, particularly the power-defining Sec. 3 nor in the MTRCB Schedule of Administrative Penalties effective January 1, 1999 is the Board empowered to suspend the program host or even to prevent certain people from appearing in television programs. The MTRCB, to be sure, may prohibit the broadcast of such television programs or cancel permits for exhibition, but it may not suspend television personalities, for such would be beyond its jurisdiction. The MTRCB cannot extend its exercise of regulation beyond what the law provides. Only persons, offenses, and penalties clearly falling clearly within the letter and spirit of PD 1986 will be considered to be within the decrees penal or disciplinary operation. And when it exists, the reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the person charged with violating the statute and for whom the penalty is sought. Thus, the MTRCBs decision in Administrative Case No. 01-04 dated September 27, 2004 and the subsequent order issued pursuant to said decision must be modified. The suspension should cover only the television program on which petitioner appeared and uttered the offensive and obscene language, which sanction is what the law and the facts obtaining call for.

is per se invalid. This only recognizes the importance of freedoms of speech and expression, and indicates the necessity to carefully scrutinize acts that may restrain or regulate speech.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the MTRCB in Adm. Case No. 01-04 dated September 27, 2004 is hereby AFFIRMEDwith the MODIFICATION of limiting the suspension to the program Ang Dating Daan. As thus modified, the fallo of the MTRCB shall read as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is hereby rendered, imposing a penalty of THREE (3) MONTHS SUSPENSION on the television program, Ang Dating Daan, subject of the instant petition. Co-respondents Joselito Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz, and UNTV Channel 37 and its owner, PBC, are hereby exonerated for lack of evidence.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.