Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Laurel Vs Misa

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    The Supreme Court ruled on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel. Laurel argued that as a Filipino citizen who aided the enemy (Japan) during its occupation of the Philippines, he could not be prosecuted for treason against the Philippine government. The Court held that a citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to their legitimate government. The occupation did not change sovereignty or suspend the allegiance of citizens. Treason could be committed against both the U.S. and Philippine governments during the occupation. Additionally, the change from commonwealth to republic did not affect prosecuting those charged with treason during the commonwealth period.

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel Vs Misa

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    95 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel. Laurel argued that as a Filipino citizen who aided the enemy (Japan) during its occupation of the Philippines, he could not be prosecuted for treason against the Philippine government. The Court held that a citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to their legitimate government. The occupation did not change sovereignty or suspend the allegiance of citizens. Treason could be committed against both the U.S. and Philippine governments during the occupation. Additionally, the change from commonwealth to republic did not affect prosecuting those charged with treason during the commonwealth period.

    Original Description:

    lvm

    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 Supreme Court ruled on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel. Laurel argued that as a Filipino citizen who aided the enemy (Japan) during its occupation of the Philippines, he could not be prosecuted for treason against the Philippine government. The Court held that a citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to their legitimate government. The occupation did not change sovereignty or suspend the allegiance of citizens. Treason could be committed against both the U.S. and Philippine governments during the occupation. Additionally, the change from commonwealth to republic did not affect prosecuting those charged with treason during the commonwealth period.

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel Vs Misa

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    The Supreme Court ruled on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Anastacio Laurel. Laurel argued that as a Filipino citizen who aided the enemy (Japan) during its occupation of the Philippines, he could not be prosecuted for treason against the Philippine government. The Court held that a citizen owes absolute and permanent allegiance to their legitimate government. The occupation did not change sovereignty or suspend the allegiance of citizens. Treason could be committed against both the U.S. and Philippine governments during the occupation. Additionally, the change from commonwealth to republic did not affect prosecuting those charged with treason during the commonwealth period.

    Copyright:

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

    Laurel vs misa

    Facts: The Supreme Court, in a resolution, acted on the petition for the writ of
    habeas corpus filed by petitioner Anastacio Laurel based on the theory that a Filipino
    citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese
    occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by
    article 114 of the revised penal code for the reason that 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:
    Whether or not the allegiance of the accused as a Filipino citizen was suspended and
    that there was a change of sovereignty over the Phil Islands.
    Held:
    No, 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 of sovereign. 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 occupation, because the sovereignty of the
    government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby the occupier. Just as treason
    may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the
    same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against
    the sovereignty of the US as well as against the sovereignty of the Phil Commonwealth;
    and that the change of our form of government from commonwealth to republic does not
    affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the
    commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same
    sovereign people.

    You might also like