Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 511 views

    Dizon V Phil Ryukus

    Uploaded by

    Marichel
    The document discusses a case where a petitioner challenged his conviction by a US military court for a crime committed in a US Army storage area in the Philippines. The court ruled that the storage area was a temporary military base under the US-Philippines military agreement, so the US court had proper jurisdiction over the alleged offense. The court also found the agreement did not violate the Philippine constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dizon V Phil Ryukus

    Uploaded by

    Marichel
    511 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where a petitioner challenged his conviction by a US military court for a crime committed in a US Army storage area in the Philippines. The court ruled that the storage area was a temporary military base under the US-Philippines military agreement, so the US court had proper jurisdiction over the alleged offense. The court also found the agreement did not violate the Philippine constitution.

    Original Description:

    PIL Digest

    Original Title

    Dizon v Phil Ryukus

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a petitioner challenged his conviction by a US military court for a crime committed in a US Army storage area in the Philippines. The court ruled that the storage area was a temporary military base under the US-Philippines military agreement, so the US court had proper jurisdiction over the alleged offense. The court also found the agreement did not violate the Philippine constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    511 views1 page

    Dizon V Phil Ryukus

    Uploaded by

    Marichel
    The document discusses a case where a petitioner challenged his conviction by a US military court for a crime committed in a US Army storage area in the Philippines. The court ruled that the storage area was a temporary military base under the US-Philippines military agreement, so the US court had proper jurisdiction over the alleged offense. The court also found the agreement did not violate the Philippine constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Dizon v Phil. Ryukus, G.R. No.

    L-2110

    Facts:

    On March 14, 1947, an Agreement was made between the Philippines and the US whereby the latter is authorized to
    occupy and use certain portions of the Philippine territory as military bases and to exercise jurisdiction over certain
    offenses committed within and outside said bases. Petitioner was prosecuted and convicted of an offense allegedly
    committed at the main storage area, Philrycom Engineer Depot, United States Army, APO 900, located at Quezon City,
    Philippine. On March 4, 1948, he was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for five years.

    In his petition for habeas corpus filed with this Court the petitioner contends that the General Court Martial had no
    jurisdiction over the alleged offense which was committed in a place not a base of the United States Army within the
    meaning of the Agreement concerning military bases and that even assuming that the offense was committed in a base,
    said Agreement is unconstitutional because it deprives the Philippine courts of the jurisdiction over all offenses exclusively
    vested in them by Article VIII, section 1, of the Constitution, and violates section 1 of Article III of the Constitution
    guaranteeing to every person in the Philippines due process and equal protection of the law.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the place where the crime was committed is not a base of the United States Army within the meaning of
    the Agreement concerning military bases.

    Ruling:

    There is no dispute that the main storage area in which the offense in question is alleged to have been committed is
    located within a site in Quezon City which has been used as headquarters by the Philippine-Ryukus Command of the
    United States Army since before March 14, 1947, when the Agreement between the Philippines and United States
    regarding military bases was concluded. The bases granted to the United States under the Agreement are specified and
    enumerated in Annex "A" and annex "B" of said Agreement which, however, in its Article XXI provides that "the United
    States shall retain the right to occupy temporary quarters and installations now existing outside the bases mentioned in
    Annex A and Annex B" (paragraph 1) and that "the terms of this Agreement pertaining to bases shall be applicable to
    temporary quarters and installations referred to in paragraph 1 of this article while they are so occupied by the armed
    forces of the United States; provided, that offenses committed within the temporary quarters and installations located
    within the present limits of the City of Manila shall not be considered as offenses within the bases"

    Even in the absence of an express declaration in the Constitution that the generally accepted principles of international
    law are made a part of the law of the Nation, we are bound to uphold the immunities above referred to. Under the
    Agreement of March 14, 1947, the United States was given express permission to establish military bases on certain
    portions of the Philippine territory and to exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses. The rights thus granted are no less
    than those conceded by the rule of international law to "a foreign army allowed to march through a friendly country or to
    be stationed in it, by permission of its government or sovereign." For this reason, if for no other, the constitutional point
    raised by the petitioner becomes untenable.

    Jurisdiction being validly waived in favor of the United States under the Agreement in question, it follows that petitioner's
    contention regarding alleged denial of due process and equal protection of the law becomes unfounded.

    The petition is therefore hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    You might also like