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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Laurel VS Misa

    Uploaded by

    Hemodialysis Simc
    The petitioner was arrested and interned by the US Army for collaborating with the Japanese during their occupation of the Philippines. He argued he could not be prosecuted for treason against the legitimate Philippine government because its sovereignty was suspended during the occupation. However, the court held that the legitimate government's sovereignty was not suspended or transferred even when another power occupies a territory. Rather, the legitimate government still retains sovereignty, and the inhabitants remain bound by their allegiance to it. Therefore, the petitioner could be prosecuted for treason for aiding the enemy against the national security of the legitimate Philippine government during the occupation.

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel VS Misa

    Uploaded by

    Hemodialysis Simc
    3 views1 page
    The petitioner was arrested and interned by the US Army for collaborating with the Japanese during their occupation of the Philippines. He argued he could not be prosecuted for treason against the legitimate Philippine government because its sovereignty was suspended during the occupation. However, the court held that the legitimate government's sovereignty was not suspended or transferred even when another power occupies a territory. Rather, the legitimate government still retains sovereignty, and the inhabitants remain bound by their allegiance to it. Therefore, the petitioner could be prosecuted for treason for aiding the enemy against the national security of the legitimate Philippine government during the occupation.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    LAUREL VS MISA

    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 petitioner was arrested and interned by the US Army for collaborating with the Japanese during their occupation of the Philippines. He argued he could not be prosecuted for treason against the legitimate Philippine government because its sovereignty was suspended during the occupation. However, the court held that the legitimate government's sovereignty was not suspended or transferred even when another power occupies a territory. Rather, the legitimate government still retains sovereignty, and the inhabitants remain bound by their allegiance to it. Therefore, the petitioner could be prosecuted for treason for aiding the enemy against the national security of the legitimate Philippine government during the occupation.

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel VS Misa

    Uploaded by

    Hemodialysis Simc
    The petitioner was arrested and interned by the US Army for collaborating with the Japanese during their occupation of the Philippines. He argued he could not be prosecuted for treason against the legitimate Philippine government because its sovereignty was suspended during the occupation. However, the court held that the legitimate government's sovereignty was not suspended or transferred even when another power occupies a territory. Rather, the legitimate government still retains sovereignty, and the inhabitants remain bound by their allegiance to it. Therefore, the petitioner could be prosecuted for treason for aiding the enemy against the national security of the legitimate Philippine government during the occupation.

    Copyright:

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

    TOPIC: THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE

    Laurel Vs Misa
    77 Phil 856 (1847)
    Ponente: ?

    FACTS:
     Sometime in May 1945, Anastacio Laurel, herein petitioner, a Filipino citizen, was arrested by the
    US Army and was interned, under a commitment order ―for his active collaboration with the
    Japanese during the Japanese occupation.
     He was charged with treason as defined and penalized by Art. 114 of the Penal Code.
     However, in September 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth government and since
    then he has been under the custody of the Director of Prisons. Petitioner then filed a petition for
    habeas corpus mainly asserting that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason for the
    reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently,
    the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a
    change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.

    ISSUES:
     WON the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by giving aid and support to the
    enemy during the Japanese occupation.

    HELD:

     YES. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was applicable to treason committed against the
    national security of the legitimate government because the inhabitants of the occupied territory
    were still bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy‘s occupation.
     Just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of
    treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way a inhabitant of a territory occupied by the
    military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate or sovereign if he
    adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort.

     The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy to
    their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy‘s occupation,
    because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the
    occupier and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the
    legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government must be
    distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed
    and transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty
    cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least
    during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights
    of sovereignty with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes
    temporarily to the occupant; and that as a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is
    not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their
    legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended
    allegiance.

    You might also like