Ruffy v.

Chief of Staff provides that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.")
FACTS:
Ramon Ruffy was the provincial commander stationed in Mindoro at What may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty
the outbreak of war on December 8, 1941. When the Japanese with the control and government of the territory occupied by the
forces landed in Mindoro on February 27, 1942, Mayor Ruffy enemy passes temporarily to the occupant. The political laws which
retreated to the mountains and organized and led a guerrilla outfit prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government
known as the Bolo Combat team of Bolo Area. The case at bar is a and citizens, are suspended in abeyance during military occupation.
petition for prohibition praying that respondents be commanded to
desist from further proceedings in the trial of the petitioners on the The petitioner is subject to the Revised Penal Code for the change of
ground that petitioners were not subject to military law at the time form of government does not affect the prosecution of those
of offense. charged with the crime of treason because it is an offense to the
same government and same sovereign people. (Art. 114. Treason.
ISSUE: Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
1. Are the petitioners subject to military law at the time of war and Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies
Japanese occupation? war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or
2. Is 93d Article of War constitutional? comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished
by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed
HELD: P20,000 pesos.)
Petitioners were subject to military jurisdiction as provided for in
Article of War (2d). The Bolo Area was a contingent of the 6th DISSENT:
military district which had been recognized by the United States During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the political laws
army. The petitioners assailed the constitutionality of 93d Article of of the Philippines were suspended. This is full harmony with the
War on the ground that it violates Article VIII Section 2 par. 4 of the generally accepted principles of the international law adopted by
Constitution which provides that National Assembly may not our Constitution [ Art. II, Sec. 3 ] as part of law of the nation.
deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over all criminal
cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. The inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be
The petitioners are in error for courts martial are agencies of bound to the sole authority of the invading power whose interest
executive character and are not a portion of the judiciary. The and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of displaced
petition thus has no merits and is dismissed with costs. government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand
and enforce from the inhabitants such obedience as may be
Laurel v. Misa necessary for the security of his forces, for the maintenance of the
A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio Laurel. He claims law and order, and for the proper administration of the country.
that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid People v. Perfecto
and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted
for the crime of treason defined and penalized by the Article 114 of FACTS:
the Revised Penal Code on the grounds that the sovereignty of the About August 20, 1920 Fernando Guerrero, the Secretary of the
legitimate government in the Philippines and consequently the Philippine Sentae discovered that certain documents which
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizen thereto were then constituted the records of testimony by witnesses in the
suspended; and that there was a change of sovereignty over these investigation of oil companies had disappeared from his office. On
Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic. September 7, 1920, the newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr.
Gregorio Perfecto published an article criticizing the Senate and its
members in general. As a result, he was charged guilty of violating
ISSUE: WHETHER THE ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE OF A FILIPINO CITIZEN Article 256 of the Penal Code by the CFI of Manila. Petitioner filed an
TO THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES SUSPENDED DURING ENEMY appeal to the Supreme Court praying for the dismissal of the case on
OCCUPATION. the ground that said Article is no longer in force.

WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 114 OF ISSUE:

THE REVISED PENAL CODE. Is Article 256 of the Penal Code still in force despite the change of
Spanish sovereignty to American sovereignty over the Philippines?
HELD:
HELD:
No. The absolute and permanent allegiance (Permanent allegiance is It is a general principle of the public law that the previous political
the unending allegiance owed by citizens or subjects to their states. relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. All laws,
Generally, a person who owes permanent allegiance to a state is ordinances and regulations in conflict with the political character,
called a national.) of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the institutions and constitution of the new government are at once
enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated displaced. Article 256 was enacted to protect Spanish officials which
(repealed) or severed by the enemy occupation because the were representatives of the King. Such intent is contradictory to the
sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not ideology of the new government where In the eye of our
transferred thereby to the occupier. It remains vested in the (American) Constitution and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler
legitimate government. (Article II, section 1, of the Constitution and a freeman, and has equal rights with every other man. As such,
Article 256 is deemed abrogated and the case is consequently
dismissed and judgment reversed.

Macariola v. Asuncion

FACTS:
On August 6, 1968, petitioner, Bernadita Macariola charged
respondent Judge Elias Asuncion of CFI of Leyte, now Associate
Justice of CA, with acts unbecoming of a judge when the latter
purchased a property which was previously the subject of litigation
on which he rendered decision. Respondent and his wife were also
members of Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. to
which their shares and interests in said property were conveyed.
According to the petitioner, respondent allegedly violated Article
1491 (5) of the New Civil Code and Article 14 (1) and (5) of Code of
Commerce, Sec. 3 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 12
XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of Canons of Judicial
Ethics.

ISSUE:
Is Article 14 of the Code of Commerce still in force?

HELD:
Article 14 partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the
relationship between the government and certain public officers and
employees like justices and judges. Said provision must be deemed
to have been abrogated because where there is change of
sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign are
automatically abrogated. As such, Article 14 is not in force. The
respondent is not found to have violated the articles invoked by the
petitioner but he was advised by the Court to be more discreet in his
private and business activities.

Vilas v. City of Manila

FACTS:
Petitioners are creditors of the city of Manila before the cession of
the Philippine Islands to the United States. The Supreme Court of
the Philippine Islands denied relief, holding that the present
municipality is a totally different corporate identity from the
previous one and is not liable for the debts of the Spanish
municipality.

ISSUE:
Is the present municipality liable for the obligations of the city
incurred prior to the cession to the United States?

HELD:
The contention that the liability of the city upon such obligations
was destroyed by a mere change of sovereignty is one which is
without a shadow of moral force. The city, acting as a corporation,
possesses two kinds of powers: governmental and public. In view of
the dual character of municipal corporations, there is no public
reason for the presuming their total dissolution as a consequence of
military occupation or territorial cession. The cession did not
operate as an extinction or dissolution of corporations. The present
city is, in every legal sense, the successor of the old. As such, it is
entitled to the property and property rights of the predecessor
corporation, and is, in law, subject to all of its liabilities. All three of
plaintiffs in error are entitled to judgment.