Co Kim Cham

Facts:

A petition for mandamus was filed by the petitioners to continue proceedings which were
initiated under the occupation of the Imperial Japanese Forces in the Philippines. The respondent judge
refused to take cognizance to continue such proceedings on the grounds that the proclamation of
General Douglas McArthur has the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and
judgements of the courts under such occupation. Moreover, he contends that the governments
established in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation were not de facto governments.

On January 2, 1942, the Imperial Japanese Forces occupied the City of Manila, and on the next day their
Commander in Chief proclaimed "the Military Administration under martial law over the districts
occupied by the Army." In said proclamation, it was also provided that "so far as the Military
Administration permits, all the laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and judicial
institutions, shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the past," and "all public officials shall
remain in their present posts and carry on faithfully their duties as before." Thereafter, a civil
government under the name of Philippine Executive Commission was organized. The latter issued orders
to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Courts of First Instance, justices of the peace and municipal
courts.  When General McArthur returned in Leyte, he proclaimed that “the laws existing in the statute
books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines are in full force and effect and legally binding” and that
“all laws. Regulations and processes of any other government on the Philippines than that of the said
Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect.”

Issue

a. WON the government organized by the Japanese was a De Facto Government

b. WON judicial rulings (resolved cases) were good and valid and remained so even after the
liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces.

Ruling:

A. Yes. The Supreme Court announced that the Philippines under the occupation of the Japanese is
a De Facto Government. It is a De Facto Government of the second kind is that which it was
established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy the enemy in the course
of war and which is denominated a government of paramount force. In this case, it was a civil
government established by the Japanese Forces. As Halleck says, "The government established
over an enemy's territory during the military occupation may exercise all the powers given by
the laws of war to the conqueror over the conquered and is subject to all restrictions which that
code imposes. It is of little consequence whether such government be called a military or civil
government. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. In either case it
is a government imposed by the laws of war, and so far as it concerns the inhabitants of such
territory or the rest of the world, those laws alone determine the legality or illegality of its acts."
The fact that the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil and not a military government and
was run by Filipinos and not by Japanese nationals, is of no consequence. The so-called Republic
of the Philippines, apparently established and organized as a sovereign state independent from
any other government by the Filipino people, was, in truth and reality, a government established
 by the belligerent occupant or the Japanese forces of occupation. It was of the same character
as the Philippine Executive Commission, and the ultimate source of its authority was the same—
the Japanese military authority and government.
B. Yes.  It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. The
governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the PH during the
Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, which are not of a political
complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well known principle of postliminy in
international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the
Philippines by the American and Filipino forces. Thus, judicial acts done under his control, when
they are not of a political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take
effect during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain
good.
People vs Gozo

Facts:

The accused brought a house and lot located inside the United States Naval Reservation within the
territorial jurisdiction of Olangapo City. She demolished the house and built another one it its place
without a building permit from the City Mayor of Olangapo because she was told by Ernesto Evalle, an
assistant in the City Mayor’s office that such building permit was not necessary for the construction of
the house. Later, Juan Malones, a building and lot inspector of the City Engineer’s Office together with
Patrolman Ramon Macahilas apprehended four carpenters working on the house of the accused and
they brought the carpenters to the Olangapo City police headquarters for interrogation. After
investigation, Loreta Gozo was charged with violation of a municipal ordinance and sentenced her to an
imprisonment of one month as well as to pay the costs. The CFI of Zambales affirmed the decision but
modified the penalty to merely pay a fine of P200 and demolish the house erected. She appealed to the
Court of Appeals invoking the right to due process and contended the validity of the ordinance and its
constitutionality over the applicability of the ordinance in the naval base.

Issue:

WON the municipality retains administrative jurisdiction over the area where the respondent’s house
was located.

Ruling:

Yes, the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the said area. By the
agreement, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in
certain cases. This consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy or expediency. The
Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine
territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms
of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of
such offenses. The Philippine jurisdiction retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also such
ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of.