Background

Anastacio Laurel, facing treason charges for his actions during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, sought relief through a habeas corpus petition. He challenged the validity of his prosecution, arguing that the concept of treason did not apply during the period of enemy occupation.

Issues

• 1. Was the sovereignty of the legitimate Philippine government suspended during the Japanese occupation?
• 2. Was the allegiance of Filipino citizens to their legitimate government suspended during the Japanese occupation?
• 3. Can Filipino citizens be prosecuted for treason for acts committed during the Japanese occupation?

Ruling

• 1. Denied the petition for habeas corpus.
• 2. The sovereignty of the legitimate Philippine government was not suspended during the Japanese occupation.
• 3. The allegiance of Filipino citizens to their legitimate government was not suspended during the Japanese occupation.
• 4. Filipino citizens can be prosecuted for treason for acts committed during the Japanese occupation.

Rationale

• 1. Sovereignty and allegiance are permanent and cannot be suspended. Only the exercise of sovereignty may be temporarily prevented.
• 2. The Hague Regulations of 1907 recognize the subsistence of sovereignty even during enemy occupation.
• 3. The occupying power has no authority to transfer the allegiance of the occupied territory's inhabitants.
• 4. Political laws, including those on treason, remain in force during occupation, even if their application against the occupant is suspended.

Doctrines

• 1. Continuity of Sovereignty: Sovereignty of a legitimate government continues even during enemy occupation, though its exercise may be temporarily impaired.
• 2. Permanence of Allegiance: Citizens owe permanent allegiance to their legitimate government, which cannot be suspended even during enemy occupation.
• 3. Limits of Occupant's Authority: An occupying power cannot compel inhabitants to swear allegiance or transfer their loyalty from the legitimate sovereign.
• 4. Applicability of Political Laws: Laws of a political nature, including treason laws, remain in force during occupation, though their application may be limited.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Considering that a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign."
• 2. "The sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state) 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."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil., 113): Cited to support the idea that sovereignty of the legitimate government subsists during enemy occupation.
• 2. Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75 Phil., 285): Referenced to reinforce the concept that sovereignty is not transferred to the occupant during enemy occupation.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article II, Section 1: "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them."
• 2. Article XVI, Section 2: Regarding the continuity of laws and their application to the new government under the Constitution.
• 3. Article XVIII: Concerning the transition from Commonwealth to Republic upon independence.