Anastacio Laurel vs Eriberto Misa

G.R. No. L-409 – 77 Phil. 856 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – Sovereignty – Change of Sovereignty – Effect of Belligerent Occupation; No change in Sovereign but Political Laws are suspended

After the Japanese Occupation, Anastacio Laurel (a son of Pres. Jose P. Laurel) was charged with treason for allegedly giving aid and comfort to the Japanese during their occupation. Laurel was arrested. Thereafter, he filed a petition for habeas corpus against Eriberto Misa (Director of Prisons) questioning his detention on the ground that he is not liable for treason because during the Japanese occupation, the sovereignty of the US and the Philippines (note that the Philippines was under the commonwealth government before the war) was suspended and in effect, the allegiance of the people was likewise suspended. Laurel also argued that after the war, the Philippines gained independence from the US, so there is now a change of sovereign.

ISSUE: Whether or not Laurel’s prosecution for treason must prosper.

HELD: Yes. Political laws such as treason are merely suspended during the Japanese belligerent occupation. Sovereignty did not pass to the Japanese during their occupation. In fact, the Japanese need not compel the inhabitants of the Philippines to give them aid or comfort in order to control the inhabitants or to promote the safety and protection of the Japanese military. Further, if an inhabitant of the occupied territory were compelled illegally by the military occupant, through force, threat or intimidation, to give them aid and comfort, the inhabitant may lawfully resist and die if necessary as a hero, or just surrender without becoming a traitor.

To adopt Laurel’s position is to allow traitors to fight against their own government without them incurring the risk of being prosecuted for treason, and even compel those who are not to aid them in their military operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and conquer the whole nation. This will deprive the inhabitants of their own independence or sovereignty. It will validate the action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide.

There is no change in sovereign from US to Philippines. Note that the Commonwealth is still a Philippine sovereign. Besides, what changed when the Philippines transitioned from Commonwealth to a Republic was the form of government. There is no change of sovereignty if the form of government is changed.

Read full text.