CHAPTER 2

among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories
under their jurisdiction.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 1.
Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which Article 2.
have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human
beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no
rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status
of law, of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-
self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Article 3.
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal
rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
standards of life in larger freedom,
Article 4.
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the
United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited
in all their forms.
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest
importance for the full realization of this pledge, Article 5.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping punishment.
this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote
respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and Article 6.
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both
1
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
Article 7. the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection
of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of
each state.
Article 8. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
country.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts Article 14.
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-
political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 15.
Article 10.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
nationality.
charge against him.
Article 16.
Article 11.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to
proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
necessary for his defence.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission
spouses.
which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was
protection by society and the State.
applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 17.
Article 12.

2
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall
be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal
suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to
realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with
the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for
himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if
necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his
interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours
and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children,
whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and
professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be
equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
3
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and
shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their
children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to
enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting
from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of
his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and
respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person
any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of
the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
G.R. No. L-4254 September 26, 1951
BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.
Ambrosio T. Dollete for petitioner.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianson and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for
respondents.
TUASON, J.:
This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having been denied in
a decision of this Court of July 30, 1949. The history of the petitioner's detention was thus
briefly set forth in that decision, written by Mr. Justice Bengzon:
The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country
from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in
these Islands. Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy, by U.S. Army Counter
Intelligence Corps. Later he was handed to theCommonwealth Government for disposition
in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 682. Thereafter, the People's Court ordered his
release. But the deportation Board taking his case up, found that having no travel
documents Mejoff was illegally in this country, and consequently referred the matter to the
immigration authorities. After the corresponding investigation, the Board of commissioners
of Immigration on April 5, 1948, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally
in 1944, without inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designation
port of entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the first available
transportation to Russia. The petitioner was then under custody, he having been arrested on
March 18, 1948. In May 1948 he was transferred to the Cebu Provincial Jail together with
three other Russians to await the arrival of some Russian vessels. In July and August of
that year two boats of Russian nationality called at the Cebu Port. But their masters refused
to take petitioner and his companions alleging lack of authority to do so. In October 1948
after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to Bilibid
Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the
Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the country to keep him
under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made.
4
The Court held the petitioner's detention temporary and said that "temporary detention is a
necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens and that
pending arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold the
undesirable alien under confinement for a reasonable lenght of time." It took note of the
fact, manifested by the Solicitor General's representative in the course of the of the oral
argumment, that "this Government desires to expel the alien, and does not relish keeping
him at the people's expense . . . making efforts to carry out the decree of exclusion by the
highest officer of the land." No period was fixed within which the immigration authorities
should carry out the contemplated deportation beyond the statement that "The meaning of
'reasonable time' depends upon the circumstances, specially the difficulties of obtaining a
passport, the availability of transportation, the diplomatic arrangements with the
governments concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deportee away;" but the Court
warned that "under established precedents, too long a detention may justify the issuance of
a writ of habeas corpus."
Mr. Justice Paras, now Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Feria, Mr. Justice Perfecto, and the writer
of this decision dissented. Mr. Justice Feria and Mr. Justice Perfecto voted for outright
discharge of the prisoner from custody. Mr. Justice Paras qualified his dissent by stating
that he might agree "to further detention of the herein petitioner, provided that he be
released if after six months, the Government is still unable to deport him." This writer
joined in the latter dissent but thought that two months constituted reasonable time.
Over two years having elapsed since the decision aforesaid was promulgated, the
Government has not found way and means of removing the petitioner out of the country,
and none are in sight, although it should be said in justice to the deportation authorities, it
was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner.
Aliens illegally staying in the Philippines have no right of asylum therein
(Sowapadji vs. Wixon, Sept. 18, 1946, 157 F. ed., 289, 290), even if they are "stateless,"
which the petitioner claims to be. It is no less true however, as impliedly stated in this
Court's decision, supra, that foreign nationals, not enemy against whom no charge has been
made other than that their permission to stay has expired, may not indefinitely be kept in
detention. The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law and
except for crimes committed against the laws of the land is not limited to Philippine
citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. Whether
an alien who entered the country in violation of its immigration laws may be detained for
as long as the Government is unable to deport him, is a point we need not decide. The
petitioner's entry into the Philippines was not unlawful; he was brought by the armed and
belligerent forces of a de facto government whose decrees were law furing the occupation.
Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines "adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nation." And in a resolution
entitled "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and approved by the General Assembly
of the United Nations of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on
December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied
to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there resolved that "All human beings are born
free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and
freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property,
birth, or other status" (Art. 2): that "Every one has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile" (Art. 9); etc.
In U. S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed. Supp., 201, it was said that the court "has the power to release
from custody an alien who has been detained an unreasonably long period of time by the
Department of Justice after it has become apparent that although a warrant for his
deportation has been issued, the warrant can not be effectuated;" that "the theory on which
the court is given the power to act is that the warrant of deportation, not having been able
to be executed, is functus officio and the alien is being held without any authority of law."
The decision cited several cases which, it said, settled the matter definitely in that
jurisdiction, adding that the same result had reached in innumerable cases elsewhere. The
cases referred to were United States ex rel. Ross vs. Wallis, 2 Cir. 279 F. 401, 404;
Caranica vs. Nagle, 9 Cir., 28 F. 2d 955; Saksagansky vs. Weedin, 9 Cir., 53 F. 2d 13, 16
last paragraph; Ex parte Matthews, D.C.W.D. Wash., 277 F. 857; Moraitis vs. Delany, D.C.
Md. Aug. 28, 1942, 46 F. Supp. 425.
The most recent case, as far as we have been able to find, was that of
Staniszewski vs. Watkins (1948), 90 Fed. Supp., 132, which is nearly foursquare with the
case at hand. In that case a stateless person, formerly a Polish national, resident in the
United States since 1911 and many times serving as a seaman on American vessels both in
peace and in war, was ordered excluded from the United States and detained at Ellis Island
at the expense of the steamship company, when he returned from a voyage on which he had
shipped from New York for one or more European ports and return to the United States.
The grounds for his exclusion were that he had no passport or immigration visa, and that in
5
1937 had been convicted of perjury because in certain documents he presented himself to
be an American citizen. Upon his application for release on habeas corpus, the Court
released him upon his own recognizance. Judge Leibell, of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, said in part:
When the return to the writ of habeas corpus came before this court, I suggested that all
interested parties . . . make an effort to arrange to have the petitioner ship out of some
country that he would receive him as a resident. He is, a native-born Pole but the Polish
Consul has advised him in writing that he is no longer a Polish subject. This Government
does not claim that he is a Polish citizen. His attorney says he is a stateless. The
Government is willing that he go back to the ship, but if he were sent back aboard a ship
and sailed to the Port (Cherbourg, France) from which he last sailed to the United States, he
would probably be denied permission to land. There is no other country that would take
him, without proper documents.
It seems to me that this is a genuine hardship case and that the petitioner should be released
from custody on proper terms. . . .
What is to be done with the petitioner? The government has had him in custody almost
seven months and practically admits it has no place to send him out of this country. The
steamship company, which employed him as one of a group sent to the ship by the Union,
with proper seaman's papers issued by the United States Coast Guard, is paying $3 a day
for petitioner's board at Ellis Island. It is no fault of the steamship company that petitioner
is an inadmissible alien as the immigration officials describe him. . . .
I intend to sustain the writ of habeas corpus and order the release of the petitioner on his
own recognizance. He will be required to inform the immigration officials at Ellis Island by
mail on the 15th of each month, stating where he is employed and where he can be reached
by mail. If the government does succeed in arranging for petitioner's deportation to a
country that will be ready to receive him as a resident, it may then advise the petitioner to
that effect and arrange for his deportation in the manner provided by law.
Although not binding upon this Court as a precedent, the case aforecited affords a happy
solution to the quandry in which the parties here finds themselves, solution which we think
is sensible, sound and compatible with law and the Constitution. For this reason, and since
the Philippine law on immigration was patterned after or copied from the American law
and practice, we choose to follow and adopt the reasoning and conclusions in the
Staniszewski decision with some modifications which, it is believed, are in consonance
with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the Philippines.
It was said or insinuated at the hearing ofthe petition at bar, but not alleged in the return,
that the petitioner was engaged in subversive activities, and fear was expressed that he
might join or aid the disloyal elements if allowed to be at large. Bearing in mind the
Government's allegation in its answer that "the herein petitioner was brought to the
Philippines by the Japanese forces," and the fact that Japan is no longer at war with the
United States or the Philippines nor identified with the countries allied against these
nations, the possibility of the petitioner's entertaining or committing hostile acts prejudicial
to the interest and security of this country seems remote.
If we grant, for the sake of argument, that such a possibility exists, still the petitioner's
unduly prolonged detention would be unwarranted by law and the Constitution, if the only
purpose of the detention be to eliminate a danger that is by no means actual, present, or
uncontrolable. After all, the Government is not impotent to deal with or prevent any threat
by such measure as that just outlined. The thought eloquently expressed by Mr. Justice
Jackson of the United States Supreme Court in connection with the appliccation for bail of
ten Communists convicted by a lower court of advocacy of violent overthrow of the United
States Government is, in principle, pertinent and may be availed of at this juncture. Said the
learned Jurist:
The Governmet's alternative contention is that defendants, by misbehavior after conviction,
have forfeited their claim to bail. Grave public danger is said to result from what they may
be expected to do, in addition to what they have done since their conviction. If I assume
that defendants are disposed to commit every opportune disloyal to act helpful to
Communist countries, it is still difficult to reconcile with traditional American law the
jailing of persons by the courts because of anticipated but as yet uncommitted crimes.
lmprisonment to protect society from predicted but unconsummated offenses is so
unprecedented in this country and so fraught with danger of excesses and injustice that I
am loath to resort it, even as a discretionary judicial technique to supplement conviction of
such offenses as those of which defendants stand convicted.
But the right of every American to equal treatment before the law is wrapped up in the
same constitutional bundle with those of these Communists. If an anger or disgust with
these defendants we throw out the bundle, we alsocast aside protection for the liberties of
more worthy critics who may be in opposition to the government of some future day.
xxx xxx x x x1âwphïl.nêt
If, however, I were to be wrong on all of these abstract or theoretical matters of principle,
there is a very practical aspect of this application which must not be overlooked or
6
underestimated — that is the disastrous effect on the reputation of American justice if I
should now send these men to jail and the full Court later decide that their conviction is
invalid. All experience with litigation teaches that existence of a substantial question about
a conviction implies a more than negligible risk of reversal. Indeed this experience lies
back of our rule permitting and practice of allowing bail where such questions exist, to
avoid the hazard of unjustifiably imprisoning persons with consequent reproach to our
system of justice. If that is prudent judicial practice in the ordinary case, how much more
important to avoid every chance of handing to the Communist world such an ideological
weapon as it would have if this country should imprison this handful of Communist leaders
on a conviction that our highest Court would confess to be illegal. Risks, of course, are
involved in either granting or refusing bail. I am naive enough to underestimate the
troublemaking propensities of the defendants. But, with the Department of Justice alert to
the the dangers, the worst they can accomplish in the short time it will take to end the
litigation is preferable to the possibility of national embarrassment from a celebrated case
of unjustified imprisonment of Communist leaders. Under no circumstances must we
permit their symbolization of an evil force in the world to be hallowed and glorified by any
semblance of martyrdom. The way to avoid that risk is not to jail these men until it is
finally decided that they should stay jailed.
If that case is not comparable with ours on the issues presented, its underlying principle is
of universal application. In fact, its ratio decidendi applies with greater force to the present
petition, since the right of accused to bail pending apppeal of his case, as in the case of the
ten Communists, depends upon the discretion of the court, whereas the right to be enlarged
before formal charges are instituted is absolute. As already noted, not only are there no
charges pending against the petitioner, but the prospects of bringing any against him are
slim and remote.
Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the
petitioner from custody upon these terms: The petitioner shall be placed under the
surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may
be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is
ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of
reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila
for decision in case of abuse. He shall also put up a bond for the above purpose in the
amount of P5,000 with sufficient surety or sureties, which bond the Commissioner of
Immigration is authorized to exact by section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613.
No costs will be charged.
G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,
vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE,
Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel
PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and
ROBERT PORT, respondents.
Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner.
Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yengco, Jr., Ricardo A. Arcilla and S. Melville
Hussey for respondents.
MORAN, C.J.:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period
covering 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by
the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully
disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to
commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and
prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war" —
comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the
President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and
Robert Port from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military
Commission and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of
petitioners.
In support of his case petitioner tenders the following principal arguments.
First. — "That Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the
provision of our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that)
the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and
Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not
based on law, national and international." Hence petitioner argues — "That in view off the
fact that this commission has been empanelled by virtue of an unconstitutional law an
illegal order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein petitioner."
7
Second. — That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitioner before the
Commission in behalf of the United State of America of attorneys Melville Hussey and
Robert Port who are not attorneys authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law in the
Philippines is a diminution of our personality as an independent state and their appointment
as prosecutor are a violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to
practice law in the Philippines.
Third. — That Attorneys Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecution the United
State not being a party in interest in the case.
Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and
regulation governing the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by the President of the
Philippines on the 29th days of July, 1947 This Court holds that this order is valid and
constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that —
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day
including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or
civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of
the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of
the laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor.
Consequently in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the
President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and
policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.
The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as
Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of
Yamashita vs. Styer (L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664) 1 when we said —
War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed
hostilities incident of war may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of
war. An importance incident to a conduct of war is the adoption of measure by the military
command not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary
measure those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have
violated the law of war. (Ex parte Quirin 317 U.S., 1; 63 Sup. Ct., 2.) Indeed the power to
create a military commission for the trial and punishment of war criminals is an aspect of
waging war. And in the language of a writer a military commission has jurisdiction so long
as a technical state of war continues. This includes the period of an armistice or military
occupation up to the effective of a treaty of peace and may extend beyond by treaty
agreement. (Cowles Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals, America Bar
Association Journal June, 1944.)
Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate
this unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the
issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try petitioner
for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention
because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. It
cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form,
part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In
facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nation the United State
and Japan who were signatories to the two Convention, Such rule and principles therefore
form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the
conventions embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and
extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of
international law as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shall
be a signatory.
Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound
together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the
treaties between the belligerent countries. These rights and obligation were not erased by
our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all our emergency as a free state entitles us to
enforce the right on our own of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against
crimes against our people. In this connection it is well to remember what we have said in
the case of Laurel vs. Misa (76 Phil., 372):
. . . The change of our form government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect
the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during then
Commonwealth because it is an offense against the same sovereign people. . . .
By the same token war crimes committed against our people and our government while we
were a Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our present Republic.
8
Petitioner challenges the participation of two American attorneys namely Melville S.
Hussey and Robert Port in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorney's are
not qualified to practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and the
appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty.
In the first place respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by
a special law and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. It has already
been shown that Executive Order No. 68 which provides for the organization of such
military commission is a valid and constitutional law. There is nothing in said executive
order which requires that counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys
qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court. In facts it
is common in military tribunals that counsel for the parties are usually military personnel
who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training.
Secondly the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nation
sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that United States, which has submitted the
vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of our nation
should be allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes. If there has been any
relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been by our government but by the United State
Government which has yielded to us the trial and punishment of her enemies. The least that
we could do in the spirit of comity is to allow them representation in said trials.
Alleging that the United State is not a party in interest in the case petitioner challenges the
personality of attorneys Hussey and Port as prosecutors. It is of common knowledge that
the United State and its people have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved by the
crimes with which petitioner stands charged before the Military Commission. It can be
considered a privilege for our Republic that a leader nation should submit the vindication
of the honor of its citizens and its government to a military tribunal of our country.
The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction
over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No. 68, and
having said petitioner in its custody, this Court will not interfere with the due process of
such Military commission.
For all the foregoing the petition is denied with costs de oficio.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (Summary)
Analysis
The Second Treatise of Government remains a cornerstone of Western political philosophy.
Locke's theory of government based on the sovereignty of the people has been
extraordinarily influential since its publication in 1690--the concept of the modern liberal-
democratic state is rooted in Locke's writings.
Locke's Second Treatisestarts with a liberal premise of a community of free, equal
individuals, all possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire
goods and will come into inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a natural law of morality to
govern them before they enter into society. Locke presumes people will understand that, in
order to best protect themselves and their property, they must come together into some sort
of body politic and agree to adhere to certain standards of behavior. Thus, they relinquish
some of their natural rights to enter into a social compact.
In this civil society, the people submit natural freedoms to the common laws of the society;
in return, they receive the protection of the government. By coming together, the people
create an executive power to enforce the laws and punish offenders. The people entrust
these laws and the executive power with authority. When, either through an abuse of power
or an impermissible change, these governing bodies cease to represent the people and
instead represent either themselves or some foreign power, the people may--and
indeed should--rebel against their government and replace it with one that will remember
its trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of Locke's Second Treatise, given his
motivation in writing the work (justifying opposition to Charles II) and publishing it
(justifying the revolution of King William)--to explain the conditions in which a people has
the right to replace one government with another.
Locke links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited personal property wholly
protected from governmental invention; in fact, in some cases Locke places the sanctity of
property over the sanctity of life (since one can relinquish one's life by engaging in war, but
cannot relinquish one's property, to which others might have ownership rights). This
joining of ideas--consensual, limited government based upon natural human rights and
dignity, and unlimited personal property, based on those same rights, makes the Second
Treatise a perfectly-constructed argument against absolutism and unjust governments. It
appeals both to abstract moral notions and to a more grounded view of the self-interest that
leads people to form societies and governments.
9
Brief Summary
The Second Treatise of Government places sovereignty into the hands of the people.
Locke's fundamental argument is that people are equal and invested with natural rights in a
state of nature in which they live free from outside rule. In the state of nature, natural law
governs behavior, and each person has license to execute that law against someone who
wrongs them by infringing on their rights. People take what they need from the earth, but
hoard just enough to cover their needs. Eventually, people begin to trade their excess goods
with each other, until they develop a common currency for barter, or money. Money
eliminates limits on the amount of property they can obtain (unlike food, money does not
spoil), and they begin to gather estates around themselves and their families.
People then exchange some of their natural rights to enter into society with other people,
and be protected by common laws and a common executive power to enforce the laws.
People need executive power to protect their property and defend their liberty. The civil
state is beholden to the people, and has power over the people only insofar as it exists to
protect and preserve their welfare. Locke describes a state with a separate judicial,
legislative, and executive branch--the legislative branch being the most important of the
three, since it determines the laws that govern civil society.
People have the right to dissolve their government, if that government ceases to work
solely in their best interest. The government has no sovereignty of its own--it exists to
serve the people.
To sum up, Locke's model consists of a civil state, built upon the natural rights common to
a people who need and welcome an executive power to protect their property and liberties;
the government exists for the people's benefit and can be replaced or overthrown if it
ceases to function toward that primary end.
Mary’s Magnificat
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he
has looked with favor on his humble servant. From this day all generations will call me
blessed, the Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his Name. He has mercy on
those who fear Him in every generation. He has shown the strength of his arm, he has
scattered the proud in their conceit. He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and
has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent
away empty. He has come to the help of his servant Israel for he has remembered his
promise of mercy, the promise he made to our fathers, to Abraham and his children for
ever. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning,
is now, and will be for ever. Amen. Alleluia
James Madison - The Federalist Papers Summary and Analysis of Essay 51
Summary
James Madison begins his famous federalist paper by explaining that the purpose of this
essay is to help the readers understand how the structure of the proposed government
makes liberty possible. Each branch should be, in Madison's opinion, mostly independent.
To assure such independence, no one branch should have too much power in selecting
members of the other two branches. If this principle were strictly followed, it would mean
that the citizens should select the president, the legislators, and the judges. But the framers
recognized certain practical difficulties in making every office elective. In particular, the
judicial branch would suffer because the average person is not aware of the qualifications
judges should possess. Judges should have great ability, but also be free of political
pressures. Since federal judges are appointed for life, their thinking will not be influenced
by the president who appoints them, nor the senators whose consent the president will seek.
The members of each branch should not be too dependent on the members of the other two
branches in the determination of their salaries. The best security against a gradual
concentration of power in any one branch is to provide constitutional safeguards that would
make such concentration difficult. The constitutional rights of all must check one man's
personal interests and ambitions. We may not like to admit that men abuse power, but the
very need for government itself proves they do: "if men were angels, no government would
be necessary." Unfortunately, all men are imperfect, the rulers and the ruled. Consequently,
the great problem in framing a government is that the government must be able to control
the people, but equally important, must be forced to control itself. The dependence of the
government on the will of the people is undoubtedly the best control, but experience
teaches that other controls are necessary.
10
Dividing power helps to check its growth in any one direction, but power cannot be divided
absolutely equally. In the republican form of government, the legislative branch tends to be
the most powerful. That is why the framers divided the Congress into two branches, the
House of Representatives and the Senate, and provided for a different method of election in
each branch. Further safeguards against legislative tyranny may be necessary.
In a representative democracy it is not only important to guard against the oppression of
rulers, it is equally important to guard against the injustice which may be inflicted by
certain citizens or groups. Majorities often threaten the rights of minorities. There are only
two methods of avoiding evil. The first is to construct a powerful government, a
"community will." Such a "will' is larger than, and independent of, the simple majority.
This "solution" is dangerous because such a government might throw its power behind a
group in society working against the public good. In our country, the authority to govern
comes from the entire society. In addition, under the Constitution society is divided into
many groups of people who hold different views and have different interests. This makes it
very difficult for one group to dominate or threaten the minority groups.
Justice is the purpose of government and civil society. If government allows or encourages
strong groups to combine together against the weak, liberty will be lost and anarchy will
result. And the condition of anarchy tempts even strong individuals and groups to submit to
any form of government, no matter how bad, which they hope will protect them as well as
the weak.
Madison concludes that self-government flourishes in a large country containing many
different groups. Some countries are too large for self-government, but the proposed plan
modifies the federal principle enough to make self-government both possible and practical
in the United States.
Analysis
In this essay, Madison's thoughts on factionalism are delineated clearly. As we observed
earlier, he assumed that conflicts of interests are inherent in human nature, and he
recognized that, as a consequence, people fall into various groups. He wanted to avoid a
situation in which any one group controlled the decisions of a society. Free elections and
the majority principle protected the country from dictatorship, that is, the tyranny of a
minority. However, he was equally concerned about the greater risk of tyranny of the
majority. A central institutional issue for him was how to minimize this risk.
Madison's solution characteristically relied not only on formal institutions, which could be
designed, but also on the particular sociological structure of American society, which he
took as a fortunate starting point for the framers of the new constitution. The institutional
component in his solution was checks and balances, so that there were multiple entry points
into the government and multiple ways to offset the power that any one branch of the
government might otherwise acquire over another. In this system, "the constant aim is to
divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on each
other."
These institutional arrangements were reinforced by the sociological fact that the Republic
contained a multiplicity of interests that could, and did, offset one another: "While all
authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be
broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens that the rights of individuals, or
of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." It is
good that there are many group interests; that they be numerous is less important than that
they be impermanent and shifting alliances whose components vary with the specific policy
issue.
Madison commenced the statement of his theory in Federalist 51 with an acknowledgement
that the "have nots" in any society are extremely likely to attack the "haves." Like
Hamilton, the Virginian believed class struggle to be inseparable from politics. "It is of
great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers,"
Madison writes, "but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other.
Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united
by a common interest the rights of the minority will be insecure."
Madison, it is clear, had emancipated himself from the sterile dualistic view of society that
was so common in the eighteenth century and that so obsessed Hamilton. Madison was one
of the pioneers of "pluralism" in political thought. Where Hamilton saw the corporate spirit
of the several states as poisonous to the union, Madison was aware that the preservation of
the state governments could serve the cause of both liberty and union. Finally, the vastness
of the United States, a fact that Hamilton considered the prime excuse for autocracy, was
recognized by Madison as the surest preservative of liberty. To assert after reading this
passage that Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 51 is to imply, first, that he was a
magician in mimicking Madison's very words and tone of vote, and second that he was the
most disingenuous hypocrite that ever wrote on politics. No unprejudiced or informed
historian would accept this latter charge against Hamilton.
11
It is interesting to note that the Federalist papers are unique, as shown in this paper,
because of the extreme amount of thought that was put into the design of the Constitution,
as shown in Madison's original thought process that were penned in 51. Many, if not most,
changes in institutional design, occur as the reactions of shortsighted people to what they
perceive as more-or-less short-range needs. This is one reason the Constitutional
Convention was a remarkable event. The Founding Fathers set out deliberately to design
the form of government that would be most likely to bring about the long-range goals that
they envisaged for the Republic. What is most unusual about Madison, in contrast to the
other delegates, is the degree to which he thought about the principles behind the
institutions he preferred. Not only did he practice the art of what nowadays is deemed
institutional design, but he developed, as well, the outlines of a theory of institutional
design that culminated in this essay.
***… (Full text follows)…***
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks
and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON
To the People of the State of New York:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the
necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the
Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are
found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure
of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the
means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full
development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may
perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the
principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different
powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to
the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own;
and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little
agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle
rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive,
legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority,
the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.
Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in
practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some
additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the
principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it
might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar
qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to
select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the
permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon
destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as
possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the
executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular,
their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against
a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to
those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal
motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in
all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to
counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional
rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be
necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the
greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be
necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by
men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to
control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but
experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of
supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced
through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly
displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide
and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other
that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These
inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of
the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.
12
In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy
for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render
them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected
with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on
the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments
by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should
be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it
should be fortified.
An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with
which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether
safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite
firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this
defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this
weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter
may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much
detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these
observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a
criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found
that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able
to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of
America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single
republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a
single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the
government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America,
the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and
then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.
Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will
control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of
great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its
rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different
interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a
common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the
community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by
comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an
unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The
first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed
authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the
society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the
minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be
exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be
derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many
parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will
be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious
rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the
multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of
interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and
number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject
must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate
friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of
the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive
combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms,
for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability
and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be
proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It
ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the
pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and
oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the
weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter
state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to
submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the
former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like
motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the
more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the
Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of
government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of
factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be
called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In
13
the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties,
and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom
take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there
being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext,
also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not
dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no
less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been
entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more
duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE,
the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification
and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS.
Franklin D. Roosevelt – The Four Freedoms Park
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress:
I address you, the Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress, at a moment unprecedented
in the history of the Union. I use the word "unprecedented," because at no previous time
has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.
Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of
the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. Fortunately, only
one of these—the four-year War Between the States—ever threatened our national unity.
Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have
forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.
It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed by events in other
Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of
undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the
maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no
case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued
independence.
What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times
maintained clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient
Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children
and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the
Americas.
That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, during
the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution.
While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the
French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of
1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor
Great Britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world.
In like fashion from 1815 to 1914— ninety-nine years— no single war in Europe or in Asia
constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American
nation.
Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in
this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly
strength. It is still a friendly strength.
Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of
danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, the American people began to
visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.
We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We need not harp on
failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should
remember that the Peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of "pacification" which
began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny
that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set
their faces against that tyranny.
Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being' directly
assailed in every part of the world—assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of
poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations
that are still at peace.
14
During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life
in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. The assailants are still on
the march, threatening other nations, great and small.
Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress
information of the state of the Union," I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the
future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in
events far beyond our borders.
Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If
that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, Asia, Africa and
Australasia will be dominated by the conquerors. Let us remember that the total of those
populations and their resources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of the
population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-many times over.
In times like these it is immature—and incidentally, untrue—for anybody to brag that an
unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off
the whole world.
No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return
of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of
religion -or even good business.
Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would give
up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to
be soft-headed.
We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach
the "ism" of appeasement.
We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of
the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.
I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our
very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win
this war.
There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across
the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists.
Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid
enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles
of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.
But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe-particularly the lesson of
Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a
series of years.
The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landing of regular
troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and their dupes-
and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America.
As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we—will choose the time
and the place and the method of their attack.
That is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.
That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history.
That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member
of the Congress faces great responsibility and great accountability.
The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily-
almost exclusively—to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a
part of the great emergency.
Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the
rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in
foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations,
large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.
Our national policy is this:
First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we
are committed to all-inclusive national defense.
Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship,
we are committed to full support of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are
resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this
15
support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we
strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.
Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we
are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own
security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored
by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's
freedom.
In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great
parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the
American electorate. Today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are
demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.
Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.
Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been
set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time; in some cases we are on
schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays; and in some cases—and I
am sorry to say very important cases—we are all concerned by the slowness of the
accomplishment of our plans.
The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual
experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing
day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.
I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program
represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the
progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.
No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker
and better results. To give you two illustrations:
We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes; we are working day and night to
solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.
We are ahead of schedule in building warships but we are working to get even further
ahead of that schedule.
To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to
a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest
difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new
assembly lines, and new ship ways must first be constructed before the actual materiel
begins to flow steadily and speedily from them.
The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of
the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily
recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are
supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.
New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this
Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we
have begun.
I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional
munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are
now in actual war with aggressor nations.
Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves.
They do not need man power, but they do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of
defense.
The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot,
and we will not, tell them that they must surrender, merely because of present inability to
pay for the weapons which we know they must have.
I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these
weapons—a loan to be repaid in dollars.
I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials
in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. Nearly all their materiel
would, if the time ever came, be useful for our own defense.
Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our
own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be
sent abroad to our friends who by their determined and heroic resistance are giving us time
in which to make ready our own defense.
16
For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid within a reasonable time following the close
of hostilities, in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds, which
they can produce and which we need.
Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of
freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to
give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever-
increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge."
In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they
will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies
which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should
unilaterally proclaim it so to be.
When the dictators, if the dictators, are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for
an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to
commit an act of war.
Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its
observance, and, therefore, becomes an instrument of oppression.
The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective
and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the
emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation's hands must not be
tied when the Nation's life is in danger.
We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency-almost as serious as war
itself—demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense
preparations must give way to the national need.
A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the
right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in
stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own groups.
The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to
shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of Government to
save Government.
As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man
our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the
courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are
defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all
things worth fighting for.
The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been
done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of
democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have
renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to
protect.
Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic
problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor
in the world.
For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.
The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple.
They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard
of living.
These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and
unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our
economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these
expectations.
Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement.
As examples:
We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment
insurance.
We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
17
We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful
employment may obtain it.
I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans
to respond to that call.
A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I
shall recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from
taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of
this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be
constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.
If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of
pocketbooks, will give you their applause.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded
upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the
world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its
inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide
reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will
be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere
in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable
in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called
new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
To that new order we oppose the greater conception—the moral order. A good society is
able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a
perpetual peaceful revolution—a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself
to changing conditions—without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The
world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a
friendly, civilized society.
This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free
men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the
supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain
those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there
can be no end save victory.
Emilio Jacinto – Kartilla ng Katipunan
1. Ang buhay na hindi ginugugol sa isang malaki at banal na kadahilanan ay kahoy
na walang lilim, kundi damong makamandag.
2. Ang gawang magaling na nagbuhat sa paghahambog o pagpipita sa sarili, at hindi
talagang nasang gumawa ng kagalingan, ay di kabaitan.
3. Ang tunay na kabanalan ay ang pagkakawang-gawa, ang pag-ibig sa kapwa at ang
isukat ang bawat kilos, gawa't pangungusap sa talagang Katuwiran.
4. Maitim man o maputi ang kulay ng balat, lahat ng tao'y magkakapantay;
mangyayaring ang isa'y hihigtan sa dunong, sa yaman, sa ganda...; ngunit di
mahihigtan sa pagkatao.
5. Ang may mataas na kalooban, inuuna ang puri kaysa pagpipita sa sarili; ang may
hamak na kalooban, inuuna ang pagpipita sa sarili kaysa sa puri.
6. Sa taong may hiya, salita'y panunumba.
7. Huwag mong sayangin ang panahon; ang yamang nawala'y mangyayaring
magbalik; ngunit panahong nagdaan ay di na muli pang magdadaan.
8. Ipagtanggol mo ang inaapi; kabakahin ang umaapi.
18
 9. Ang mga taong matalino'y ang may pag-iingat sa bawat sasabihin; matutong
ipaglihim ang dapat ipaglihim. 8. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.

10. Sa daang matinik ng buhay, lalaki ang siyang patnugot ng asawa at mga anak; 9. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.
kung ang umaakay ay tungo sa sama, ang pagtutunguhan ng inaakay ay kasamaan
din. 10. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children, and if the guide
leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also go there.
11. Ang babae ay huwag mong tingnang isang bagay na libangan lamang, kundi isang
katuwang at karamay sa mga kahirapan nitong buhay; gamitin mo nang buong
11. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful companion who
pagpipitagan ang kanyang kahinaan, at alalahanin ang inang pinagbuharan at nag-
will share with thee the penalties of life; her (physical) weakness will increase thy interest
iwi sa iyong kasanggulan.
in her and she will remind thee of the mother who bore thee and reared thee.
12. Ang di mo ibig gawin sa asawa mo, anak at kapatid, ay huwag mong gagawin sa
asawa, anak at kapatid ng iba. 12. What thou dost not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and sisters, that do not
unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbor.

13. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is aquiline, and his color
*****English***** white, not because he is a *priest, a servant of God, nor because of the high prerogative that
he enjoys upon earth, but he is worth most who is a man of proven and real value, who
does good, keeps his words, is worthy and honest; he who does not oppress nor consent to
The Katipunan Code of Conduct being oppressed, he who loves and cherishes his fatherland, though he be born in the
wilderness and know no tongue but his own.
1. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without a
shade, if not a poisonous weed. 14. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longed-for sun of Liberty shall
rise brilliant over this most unhappy portion of the globe and its rays shall diffuse
2. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue. everlasting joy among the confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives of those who
have gone before, the fatigues and the well-paid sufferings will remain. If he who desires to
3. It is rational to be charitable and love one's fellow creature, and to adjust one's conduct, enter (the Katipunan) has informed himself of all this and believes he will be able to
acts and words to what is in itself reasonable. perform what will be his duties, he may fill out the application for admission.

4. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in knowledge,
wealth and beauty are to be understood, but not superiority by nature.

5. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to honor.

6. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.

7. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.

19
Rule of St. Benedict
The Rule opens with a hortatory preface, in which Saint Benedict sets forth the main
principles of the religious life, viz.: the renunciation of one's own will and arming oneself
"with the strong and noble weapons of obedience" under the banner of "the true King,
Christ the Lord" (Prol. 3). He proposes to establish a "school for the Lord's service" (Prol.
45) in which the "way to salvation" (Prol. 48) shall be taught, so that by persevering in the
monastery till death his disciples may "through patience share in the passion of Christ that
[they] may deserve also to share in his Kingdom" (Prol. 50, passionibus Christi per
patientiam participemur, ut et regno eius mereamur esse consortes; note:
Latin passionibus and patientiam have the same root, cf. Fry, RB 1980, p. 167).[7]
 Chapter 1 defines four kinds of monks:
1. Cenobites, those "in a monastery, where they serve under a rule and an abbot".
2. Anchorites, or hermits, who, after long successful training in a monastery, are now
coping single-handedly, with only God for their help.
3. Sarabaites, living by twos and threes together or even alone, with no experience,
rule and superior, and thus a law unto themselves.[7]
4. Gyrovagues, wandering from one monastery to another, slaves to their own wills
and appetites.[7]
Saint Benedict delivering his rule to the monks of his order, Monastery of St.
Gilles, Nimes, France, 1129
 Chapter 2 describes the necessary qualifications of an abbot, forbids the abbot to
make distinctions between persons in the monastery except for particular merit,
and warns him he will be answerable for the salvation of the souls in his care. [7]
 Chapter 3 ordains the calling of the brothers to council upon all affairs of
importance to the community. [7]
 Chapter 4 lists 73 "tools for good work", "tools of the spiritual craft" for the
"workshop" that is "the enclosure of the monastery and the stability in the
community". These are essentially the duties of every Christian and are mainly
Scriptural either in letter or in spirit.[7]
 Chapter 5 prescribes prompt, ungrudging, and absolute obedience to the superior
in all things lawful,[7] "unhesitating obedience" being called the first degree, or
step, of humility.
 Chapter 6 recommends moderation in the use of speech, but does not enjoin strict
silence, nor prohibit profitable or necessary conversation.[7]
 Chapter 7 divides humility into twelve degrees, or steps in the ladder that leads to
heaven:[7](1) Fear God; (2) Subordinate one's will to the will of God; (3) Be
obedient to one's superior; (4) Be patient amid hardships; (5) Confess one's sins;
(6) Accept the meanest of tasks, and hold oneself as a "worthless workman"; (7)
Consider oneself "inferior to all"; (8) Follow examples set by superiors; (9) Do not
speak until spoken to; (10) Do not readily laugh; (11) Speak simply and modestly;
and (12) Express one's inward humility through bodily posture.
 Chapters 8-19 regulate the Divine Office, the Godly work to which "nothing is to
be preferred", namely the eight canonical hours. Detailed arrangements are made
for the number of Psalms, etc., to be recited in winter and summer, on Sundays,
weekdays, Holy Days, and at other times.[7]
 Chapter 19 emphasizes the reverence owed to the omnipresent God. [7]
 Chapter 20 directs that prayer be made with heartfelt compunction rather than
many words.[7] It should be prolonged only under the inspiration of divine grace,
and in community always kept short and terminated at a sign from the superior.
 Chapter 21 regulates the appointment of a Dean over every ten monks.[7]
 Chapter 22 regulates the dormitory. Each monk is to have a separate bed and is to
sleep in his habit, so as to be ready to rise without delay [for early Vigils]; a light
shall burn in the dormitory throughout the night.[7]
 Chapters 23-29 specify a graduated scale of punishments for contumacy,
disobedience, pride, and other grave faults: first, private admonition; next, public
reproof; then separation from the brothers at meals and elsewhere; [7] and
20
 finally excommunication (or in the case of those lacking understanding of what
this means, corporal punishment instead).
 Chapter 30 directs that a wayward brother who has left the monastery must be
received again, if he promises to make amends; but if he leaves again, and again,
after the third time all return is finally barred.[7]
 Chapters 31 and 32 order the appointment of officials to take charge of the goods
of the monastery.[7]
 Chapter 33 forbids the private possession of anything without the leave of the
abbot, who is, however, bound to supply all necessities.[7]
 Chapter 34 prescribes a just distribution of such things. [7]
 Chapter 35 arranges for the service in the kitchen by all monks in turn. [7]
 Chapters 36 and 37 address care of the sick, the old, and the young. They are to
have certain dispensations from the strict Rule, chiefly in the matter of food. [7]
 Chapter 38 prescribes reading aloud during meals, which duty is to be performed
by those who can do so with edification to the rest. Signs are to be used for
whatever may be wanted at meals, so that no voice interrupts the reading. The
reader eats with the servers after the rest have finished, but he is allowed a little
food beforehand in order to lessen the fatigue of reading. [7]
 Chapters 39 and 40 regulate the quantity and quality of the food. Two meals a day
are allowed, with two cooked dishes at each. Each monk is allowed a pound of
bread and a hemina (about a quarter litre) of wine. The flesh of four-footed
animals is prohibited except for the sick and the weak.[7]
 Chapter 41 prescribes the hours of the meals, which vary with the time of year. [7]
 Chapter 42 enjoins the reading an edifying book in the evening, and orders strict
silence after Compline.[7]
 Chapters 43-46 define penalties for minor faults, such as coming late to prayer or
meals.[7]
 Chapter 47 requires the abbot to call the brothers to the "work of God" (Opus Dei)
in choir, and to appoint chanters and readers.[7]
 Chapter 48 emphasizes the importance of daily manual labour appropriate to the
ability of the monk. The hours of labour vary with the season but are never less
than five hours a day.[7]
 Chapter 49 recommends some voluntary self-denial for Lent, with the abbot's
sanction.[7]
 Chapters 50 and 51 contain rules for monks working in the fields or travelling.
They are directed to join in spirit, as far as possible, with their brothers in the
monastery at the regular hours of prayers.[7]
 Chapter 52 commands that the oratory be used for purposes of devotion only.[7]
 Chapter 53 deals with hospitality. Guests are to be met with due courtesy by the
abbot or his deputy; during their stay they are to be under the special protection of
an appointed monk; they are not to associate with the rest of the community
except by special permission.[7]
 Chapter 54 forbids the monks to receive letters or gifts without the abbot's leave.[7]
 Chapter 55 says clothing is to be adequate and suited to the climate and locality, at
the discretion of the abbot. It must be as plain and cheap as is consistent with due
economy. Each monk is to have a change of clothes to allow for washing, and
when travelling is to have clothes of better quality. Old clothes are to be given to
the poor.[7]
 Chapter 56 directs the abbot to eat with the guests.[7]
 Chapter 57 enjoins humility on the craftsmen of the monastery, and if their work
is for sale, it shall be rather below than above the current trade price. [7]
 Chapter 58 lays down rules for the admission of new members, which is not to be
made too easy. The postulant first spends a short time as a guest; then he is
admitted to the novitiate where his vocation is severely tested; during this time he
is always free to leave. If after twelve months' probation he perseveres, he may
promise before the whole community stabilitate sua et conversatione morum
21
 suorum et oboedientia -- "stability, conversion of manners, and obedience". With  Chapter 72 briefly exhorts the monks to zeal and fraternal charity.[7]
this vow he binds himself for life to the monastery of his profession.[7]
 Chapter 73, an epilogue, declares that the Rule is not offered as an ideal of
 Chapter 59 allows the admission of boys to the monastery under certain perfection, but merely as a means towards godliness, intended chiefly for
conditions.[7] beginners in the spiritual life

 Chapter 60 regulates the position of priests who join the community. They are to
set an example of humility, and can only exercise their priestly functions by
permission of the abbot.[7]

 Chapter 61 provides for the reception of strange monks as guests, and for their
admission to the community.[7]

 Chapter 62 deals with the ordination of priests from within the monastic
community.

 Chapter 63 lays down that precedence in the community shall be determined by

the date of admission, merit of life, or the appointment of the abbot.[7]

 Chapter 64 orders that the abbot be elected by his monks, and that he be chosen
for his charity, zeal, and discretion.[7]

 Chapter 65 allows the appointment of a provost, or prior, but warns that he is to be

entirely subject to the abbot and may be admonished, deposed, or expelled for
misconduct.

 Chapter 66 appoints a porter, and recommends that each monastery be self-

contained and avoid intercourse with the outer world.[7]

 Chapter 67 instructs monks how to behave on a journey. [7]

 Chapter 68 orders that all cheerfully try to do whatever is commanded, however

hard it may seem.[7]

 Chapter 69 forbids the monks from defending one another. [7]

 Chapter 70 prohibits them from striking one another. [7]

 Chapter 71 encourages the brothers to be obedient not only to the abbot and his
officials, but also to one another.[7]
22