LAUREL V.

MISA
G.R. No. L304, January 30, 1947
Topic: Effectivity of Laws until repealed

 The existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or

divesting the possessor a period of suspension.
 Only the exercise of the rights of sovereignty may be suspended.
FACTS:

 Petitioner, Anastacio Laurel, filed a peititon of Habeas Corpus as he was charged of the
crime of treason penalized under Art. 114 of the RPC for giving the enemy (Japanese)
aid and comfort during the Japanese Colonization.
 Laurel argues that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason because
during the Japanese occupation:
o the sovereignty of the PH is suspended and, consequently, the correlative
allegiance of Filipino Citizens was also suspended;
o there was a change of sovereignty over the PH upon the proclamation of the
PH republic. Hence, his acts were against the Commonwealth not the Republic.
ISSUE: WON the sovereignty of the PH was suspended during the Japanese occupation - NO
HELD:
The Court held that 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 and that only the exercise of the rights of sovereignty (by the
government/sovereign) may be suspended as it is passed to the enemy/occupant
temporarily.
Moreover, 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, as the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not
transferred to the (Japanese) occupier.
In the case at bar, since sovereignty itself was not suspended and subsists during the
enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or
sovereign subsists. Hence, Art. 114 of the RPC is applicable to Laurel as his allegiance to the
sovereignty of the PH is not suspended.

ISSUE: WON there was a change of sovereignty over the PH – NO.

HELD:
The SC held that the change of the form of government from Commonwealth to Republic
does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed
during the Commonwealth as it is an offense against the same government and the same
sovereign people. What happened was the change of the name of the government from
Commonwealth to the Republic of the Philippines not a change of sovereignty.