Laurel vs Misa, 77 Phil 856

Tan, Daniel Carlos

FACTS: Anastacio Laurel filed a petition for habeas corpus. He claims that a Filipino
citizen cannot be prosecuted for treason after adhering to the Japanese by giving the
latter aid or comfort during their occupation of the Philippines. He reasoned that the
sovereignty of the legitimate government and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of
the Filipino citizens to such government was suspended during the occupation.

ISSUE: Whether Anastacio Laurel is liable for treason?

RULING: Yes, Anastacio is liable for treason. A citizen or subject owes absolute and
permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign. In case of enemy occupation, such
allegiance subsists because de jure sovereignty does not transfer to the occupier. Only
the exercise of rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government is suspended. As such,
Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code still applies to treason committed against the
national security of the legitimate government.