Laurel vsmisa

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 F
ilipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort durin
g 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) th
at the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and consequen
tly, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens therto was then suspended;
and 2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these islands upon the procla
mation 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 an
d permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedien
ce 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 so
vereignty 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 Stat
e Govt, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occu
pation against the sovereignty of the US as well as against the sovereignty of t
he Phil Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of govt from commonwealth
to republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of t
reason committed during the commonwealth, bec it is an offense against the same
govt and the same sovereign people.