People of the Philippines vs Gregorio Perfecto

G.R. No. 18463 – 43 Phil. 887 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Political Law Defined – Political laws are abrogated when there is a change of sovereignty

In 1920, certain documents pertaining to an ongoing senate investigation on oil companies went missing in the Senate. Gregorio Perfecto of the newspaper La Nacion wrote an article attacking the lack of development in the investigation of the theft. In his article, Perfecto labeled the Senators as robbers and thieves. As a result, Perfecto was sued for violation of Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code which provides that Spanish subjects are prohibited from speaking ill against the Spanish Royalty or their representatives (lese majeste).

The trial judge opined that Art. 256 was already abrogated when there was a change of sovereignty in the Philippines but he is constrained by a previous unpublished Supreme Court ruling (US vs Helbig) which declared that Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is still controlling. Perfecto was convicted.

ISSUE: Whether or not Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is still effective after the Treaty of Paris.

HELD: No. Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is political in nature. It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. “Political” is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. Art. 256 was meant to make criminal criticisms against the Spanish crown and their representatives by Spanish subjects.

However, when there was a change of sovereignty from Spanish to American by reason of the Treaty of Paris, political laws ceased to be in existence. Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is undemocratic and is contrary to the principles sought to be enforced in the Philippines by the Americans. With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, was set up in the Philippines. It was in no sense a continuation of the old, although merely for convenience certain of the existing institutions and laws were continued. The demands which the new government made, and makes, on the individual citizen are likewise different. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. In the eye of our Constitution and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal rights with every other man. We have no rank or station, except that of respectability and intelligence as opposed to indecency and ignorance, and the door to this rank stands open to every man to freely enter and abide therein, if he is qualified, and whether he is qualified or not depends upon the life and character and attainments and conduct of each person for himself.

Perfecto’s conviction was reversed.

Read full text.