Está en la página 1de 11

CO KIM CHAM v EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH FACTS : The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of the proceedings

in a civil case which were initiated during the Japanese military occupation on the ground that the proclamation issued by General MacArthur that “all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control” had the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the court of the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation, and that the lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority. During the Japanese occupation, no substantial change was effected in the organization and jurisdiction of the different courts that functioned during the Philippine Executive Commission, and in the laws they administered and enforced. ISSUES : 1. Whether or not under the rules of international law the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts during a de facto government are good and valid. 2. Whether it was the intention of the Gen McArthur to annul and void thereby all judgments and judicial proceedings of the courts established in the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation. 3. Whether the present courts of the Commonwealth, which were the same court existing prior to, and continued during, the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines, may continue those proceedings pending in said courts at the time the Philippines were reoccupied and liberated by the United States and Filipino forces, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished in the Islands. HELD : 1. 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 doctrine upon this subject is thus summed up by Halleck, in his work on International Law (Vol. 2, p. 444): “The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession, is one of the incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer. We, therefore, do not look to the Constitution or political institutions of the conqueror, for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession, during its military occupation, nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws war, as established by the usage of the of the world, and

which are not of a political complexion. NO. according to the well-known principles of international law all judgements and judicial proceedings. Taking into consideration the fact that. From the stand-point of actual practice such arbitrary will is restrained by the provision of the law of nations which compels the conqueror to continue local laws and institution so . but also to administrative or legislative. which are not of a political complexion. and the various acts done during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law. .” According to that well-known principle in international law. in violation of said principles of international law. The phrase “processes of any other government” is broad and may refer not only to the judicial processes. legislative. . and can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new ones. which declares null and void all laws. excepts so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of conqueror. wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader. the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government of sovereignty. . YES. unless absolutely prevented. . or the laws which regulate private rights. regulations and processes of the governments established in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. are and remain valid after reoccupation of a territory occupied by a belligerent occupant. to refer to judicial processes. That not only judicial but also legislative acts of de facto governments. is confirmed by the Proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur on October 23. He. when they are not of a political complexion. The municipal laws of a conquered territory. of the de facto governments during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign. it should be presumed that it was not. Although in theory the authority of the local civil and judicial administration is suspended as a matter of course as soon as military occupation takes place. as above indicated. .confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts — in fine. in using the phrase “processes of any other government” in said proclamation. administrative acts so done. 1944. An Executive Order of President McKinley to the Secretary of War states that “in practice. has all the powers of a de factogovernment. so far as possible. 2. This enlightened practice is. 3.” And Taylor in this connection says: “From a theoretical point of view it may be said that the conqueror is armed with the right to substitute his arbitrary will for all preexisting forms of government. remain good. they (the municipal laws) are not usually abrogated but are allowed to remain in force and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals substantially as they were before the occupation. as well as constitutional. processes of the Republic of the Philippines or other governmental agencies established in the Islands during the Japanese occupation. for it would not have been necessary for said proclamation to abrogate them if they were invalid ab initio. except in a very few cases. from the law of nations. and could not have been. in practice the invader does not usually take the administration of justice into his own hands. . continue in force during military occupation. to be adhered to on the present occasion. Thus judicial acts done under his control. which for one reason or another it is within his competence to do. to respect. the intention of General Douglas MacArthur. executive and judicial. nevertheless. to the extent that they take effect during the continuance of his control. “does not. but continues the ordinary courts or tribunals to administer the laws of the country which he is enjoined.

ala!io a their head) and tho e 'ho follo'ed the leader hi$ of Cre $o. If the proceedings pending in the different courts of the Islands prior to the Japanese military occupation had been continued during the Japanese military administration. On the 8th of #"*" t) 1892) an en*a*e+ent too1 $la!e . /en. .S. resumes its old place with its right and duties substantially unimpaired.et'een the ari+e of the t'o $artie at 0"ena (i ta) o+e even +ile fro+ 0olivar) in 'hi!h the troo$ "nder Hernandez $revailed2 and) on the 13th of #"*" t) Hernandez entered 0olivar) and a "+ed !o++and of the !it&.& /en. 250 (1897) On a Writ of Certiorari to the United State Cir!"it Co"rt of #$$eal for the Se!ond Cir!"it. #ll of the lo!al offi!ial had in the +eanti+e left) and the va!ant $o ition 'ere filled . . As Taylor graphically points out in speaking of said principles “a state or other governmental entity. and the so-called Republic of the Philippines. and the government established by the occupant of transient character. . it stands to reason that the same courts. %n the earl& $art of 1892 a revol"tion 'a initiated in (enez"ela) a*ain t the ad+ini tration thereof) 'hi!h the revol"tioni t !lai+ed had !ea ed to . Hernandez 168 U. . Hernandez . the Philippine Executive Commission. inasmuch as belligerent occupation is essentially provisional. -he $rin!i$al $artie to thi !onfli!t 'ere tho e 'ho re!o*nized . may continue the proceedings in cases then pending in said courts.elon*ed to the antiad+ini tration $art&) and !o++anded it for!e in the vi!init& of Ci"dad 0olivar.far as military necessity will permit. this practice has been adopted in order that the ordinary pursuits and business of society may not be unnecessarily deranged. Such political resurrection is the result of a law analogous to that which enables elastic bodies to regain their original shape upon removal of the external force. — and subject to the same exception in case of absolute crushing of the whole fibre and content.” Underhill v. upon the removal of a foreign military force.” Undoubtedly. which had become reestablished and conceived of as having in continued existence upon the reoccupation and liberation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminy. without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to continue said proceedings.e the le*iti+ate *overn+ent.

e!t of ad. Underhill 'a a !itizen of the United State ) 'ho had !on tr"!ted a 'ater'or1 & te+ for the !it& of 0olivar) "nder a !ontra!t 'ith the *overn+ent) and 'a en*a*ed in "$$l&in* the $la!e 'ith 'ater2 and he al o !arried on a +a!hine& re$air .er 6th2 and on O!to.er the $art& in revolt had a!hieved "!!e *enerall&) ta1in* $o e ion of the !a$ital of (enez"ela) O!to.le therefor. Hernandez) Underhill a$$lied to hi+) a the offi!er in !o++and) for a $a $ort to leave the !it&. /eor*e 5."di!ation in the !o"rt of another *overn+ent.. #$$.e!a" e the a!t of defendant 'ere tho e of a +ilitar& !o++ander) re$re entin* a de fa!to *overn+ent in the $ro e!"tion of a 'ar) he 'a not !ivill& re $on i.& other in Underhill4 .ro"*ht to re!over da+a*e for the detention !a" ed . S.ehalf) "ntil O!to.een rendered for defendant) the !a e 'a ta1en to the !ir!"it !o"rt of a$$eal ) and .& the oldier of Hernandez4 ar+&.4 26 U. -hi a!tion 'a .& rea on of the ref" al to *rant the $a $ort) for the alle*ed !onfine+ent of Underhill to hi o'n ho" e) and for !ertain alle*ed a a"lt and affront .er 23) 1892) the 4Cre $o *overn+ent)4 o !alled) 'a for+all& re!o*nized a the le*iti+ate *overn+ent of (enez"ela .er 18th) 'hen a $a $ort 'a *iven) and Underhill left the !o"ntr&. %n O!to.Hernandez) 'ho fro+ that date) and d"rin* the $eriod of the tran a!tion !o+$lained of) 'a the !ivil and +ilitar& !hief of the !it& and di tri!t. 573. Hernandez ref" ed thi re6"e t) and re6"e t +ade .ro"*ht to thi !o"rt on !ertiorari. -he !a" e 'a tried in the !ir!"it !o"rt of the United State for the 7a tern di tri!t of 8e' 9or1) and on the !on!l" ion of $laintiff4 !a e the !ir!"it !o"rt r"led that "$on the fa!t $laintiff 'a not entitled to re!over) and dire!ted a verdi!t for defendant) on the *ro"nd that 4. -here"$on the !a" e 'a .4 :"d*+ent havin* . So+e ti+e after the entr& of /en.& the United State .& that !o"rt affir+ed) "$on the *ro"nd 4that the a!t of the defendant 'ere the a!t of the *overn+ent of (enez"ela) and a "!h are not $ro$erl& the "." ine . .

%f the $oliti!al revolt fail of "!!e ) till) if a!t"al 'ar ha .e o.e +ade o"t .& $ara+o"nt for!e a +atter of fa!t. v.& overei*n $o'er a . . 6032 -horin*ton v. S.& a!!o++odation to the fa!t the a$$li!ation of ettled r"le i readil& rea!hed.ilit&. 59@2 Ao' v. Chief :" ti!e 5U==7>) after tatin* the fa!t in the fore*oin* lan*"a*e) delivered the o$inion of the !o"rt. S+ith) 8 Wall. S. #nd) 'here the fa!t of the e?i ten!e of 'ar i in i "e in the in tan!e of !o+$laint of a!t !o++itted 'ithin forei*n territor&) it i not an a.o"nd to re $e!t the inde$enden!e of ever& other overei*n tate) and the !o"rt of one !o"ntr& 'ill not it in . S. -he i++"nit& of individ"al fro+ "it .e availed of . 0r"ff&) 96 U.a i of individ"al lia.e had thro"*h $". 2@62 5le+in* v.tained thro"*h the +ean o$en to ."d*e of the +erit of the 6"arrel."t .li! !hannel .& rea on of "!h a!t +" t .<r. 12 Willia+ v. 7ver& overei*n tate i . >i!e) @ Wheat.et'een the+ elve . U.e !onfined to la'f"l or re!o*nized *overn+ent ) or to !a e 'here redre !an +anife tl& . 8or !an the $rin!i$le .& +ilitar& for!e)) *enerall& $ea1in*) forei*n nation do not a "+e to .een 'a*ed) a!t of le*iti+ate 'arfare !annot . :ohn on) 100 U. >edre of *rievan!e . ol"te $rere6"i ite that that fa!t ho"ld . S."d*+ent on the a!t of the *overn+ent of another) done 'ithin it o'n territor&. Where a !ivil 'ar $revail (that i ) 'here the $eo$le of a !o"ntr& are divided into t'o ho tile $artie ) 'ho ta1e "$ ar+ and o$$o e one another . %f the $art& ee1in* to di lod*e the e?i tin* *overn+ent "!!eed ) and the inde$enden!e of the *overn+ent it ha et "$ i re!o*nized) then the a!t of "!h *overn+ent) fro+ the !o++en!e+ent of it e?i ten!e) are re*arded a tho e of an inde$endent nation.e +ade the .a*e) 9 Ho'.& an . S"r*et) 97 U. >evol"tion or in "rre!tion +a& in!onvenien!e other nation ) .ro"*ht in forei*n tri. 1582 and other !a e ."nal for a!t done 'ithin their o'n tate ) in the e?er!i e of *overn+ental a"thorit&) 'hether a !ivil offi!er or a +ilitar& !o++ander ) +" t ne!e aril& e?tend to the a*ent of *overn+ent r"lin* . 1762 5ord v.

elli*eren!&) a other offi!ial re!o*nition of it e?i ten!e +a& .e no do". 0." tified in !on!l"din* 4that the a!t of the defendant 'ere the a!t of the *overn+ent of (enez"ela) and a "!h are not $ro$erl& the ". 1. -he a!t !o+$lained of 'ere the a!t of a +ilitar& !o++ander re$re entin* the a"thorit& of the revol"tionar& $art& a a *overn+ent) 'hi!h after'ard "!!eeded) and 'a re!o*nized . S.e ide the 6"e tion.aditti) or +ere +o. %n thi !a e the ar!hive of the tate de$art+ent ho' that !ivil 'ar 'a fla*rant in (enez"ela fro+ the $rin* of 1892) that the revol"tion 'a "!!e f"l) and that the revol"tionar& *overn+ent 'a re!o*nized . :one v.& the United State .e!t of ad."di!ial noti!e) and for infor+ation a to 'hi!h it +a& !on "lt the de$art+ent of tate) there !an . %t i idle to ar*"e that the $ro!eedin* of tho e 'ho th" tri"+$hed ho"ld ."t that i .e "ffi!ient $roof thereof. 2022 <i*hell v.e treated a the a!t of .odie to ve? the !o++er!e of the 'orld on it !o++on hi*h'a& 'itho"t in!"rrin* the $enaltie deno"n!ed on $ira!&) and the li1e) do not involve the 6"e tion $re ented here. Ca e re $e!tin* arre t .et'een individ"al entered into in aid of in "rre!tion) or the ri*ht or revol"tionar& .& the United State a the *overn+ent of the !o"ntr&2 it .ehalf are not in $oint.a!1no'led*+ent of . en!e of the $revalen!e of 'ar) or the validit& of !ontra!t .& +ilitar& a"thorit& in the a. -he -hree 5riend ) 166 U. U. We thin1 the !ir!"it !o"rt of a$$eal 'a . 1@9.o"nd to ta1e . %t +a& .t.4 -hat the e 'ere fa!t of 'hi!h the !o"rt i . . S..& the $eo$le) in the $o e ion of the $o'er of the nation) and f"ll& e ta. S"ltan of :ahore B189@C 1 D.4 -he de!i ion !ited on $laintiff4 . S.li hed."di!ation in the !o"rt of another *overn+ent.ein*) to " e the lan*"a*e of the e!retar& of tate in a !o++"ni!ation to o"r +ini ter to (enez"ela) 4a!!e$ted .) 137 U.e that adherent of that ide of the !ontrover & in the $arti!"lar lo!alit& 'here Hernandez 'a the leader of the +ove+ent entertained a $referen!e for hi+ a the f"t"re e?e!"tive head of the nation) .t) "$on the eviden!e) that Hernandez 'a !arr&in* on +ilitar& o$eration in "$$ort of the revol"tionar& $art&. We entertain no do". .

$rought an action for its value against the latter. is a statute of such state within the meaning of the act regulating the appellate jurisdiction of this Court over the judgments and decrees of the state courts. the same should $e a$out to fall into the hands of the United States( that in o$edience to that act.enefit of the !o++"nit& and the revol"tionar& for!e )4 and that 4it 'a not "ffi!ient to have 'arranted a findin* ."r& that the defendant 'a a!t"ated . Surget 97 U. .S. 1&6 . 594 (1878) Ford v.. 1&6 . who set up as a defense that that state. in their judgment. that an enactment of the Confederate States. that the said act. Ford v. The court reaffirms the doctrine in Williams v. declared that it was the dut" of all militar" commanders in their service to destro" all cotton whenever. to $urn it( and that %.S. -he de!ree of the !ir!"it !o"rt i affir+ed. 594 Syllabus 1.& the . can have no force in an" . S. did $urn it in o$edience to the said act and the orders of that commander and the provost marshal.elo'. a resident of !dams Count".. as a measure of legislation. Held l.& +ali!e or an& $er onal or $rivate +otive)4 and 'e !on!"r in it di $o ition of the r"lin* . whose cotton was there $urnt $" %. #ississippi. Surget. was then in su$jection to and under the control of the 'Confederate States(' that an act of their congress. enforced as a law of one of the states composing that confederation. whereof he was at that date a resident. 97 U. to $urn all cotton along the #ississippi )iver li*el" to fall into the hands of the forces of the United States( that the provost marshal of that count" was charged with e+ecuting within it that order( that !. 96 U.s cotton was li*el" to fall into the hands of the United States( that the provost marshal ordered and re-uired %.We a*ree 'ith the !ir!"it !o"rt of a$$eal that 4the eviden!e "$on the trial indi!ated that the $"r$o e of the defendant in hi treat+ent of the $laintiff 'a to !oer!e the $laintiff to o$erate hi 'ater'or1 and hi re$air 'or1 for the . in #a". directed to his su$ordinate officers in that state. approved #arch 6. 176. !. Bruffy. the commander of their forces in #ississippi issued an order.

on the d of 4cto$er. as an act of war. upon demurrer. and in place thereof. that the orders. alleging that he. and within their territorial limits had entirel" su$verted. as of his own personal propert". and was then. !r*ansas. had created a new and separate government.court recogni. #ississippi. namel"7 That at and $efore the time the alleged trespasses were committed. 1&6 .ouisiana. and of 8irginia. had confederated together for revolt against. the people of #ississippi. was a voluntar" resident within the lines of the insurrection( 2. 3lorida. at the time of its destruction. $" the laws and usages of war. called the Confederate States of !merica. and of the value of 5666 per $ale( and that he $eing so possessed. $e deemed as sufficientl" averring the e+istence of such relations $etween %. !la$ama. destro" of fire the said two hundred $ales of cotton. in the "ear 1&6 . were entitled to e+ercise( 1. and within and for their territor" and people.' to the plaintiff. averaging in weight four hundred pounds per $ale. and also filed numerous special pleas. :eorgia. South Carolina. and from that date until the time when the alleged trespasses were committed. waged and prosecuted $" and $etween the United States and the . at the place aforesaid.666. that the plea should.s damage in the sum of 51 6. of two hundred $ales of cotton. on the fifth da" of #a". 9orth Carolina. and upon the da" and "ear aforesaid. The defense. was possessed. e+empted a soldier of the Confederate arm" who e+ecuted them from lia$ilit" to the owner of the cotton who. did willfull" and utterl". that it did not assume to confer upon /age 97 U. and judicial departments( that on the 6th of #arch. and the Confederate militar" authorities as entitled him to ma*e the same defense as if he had $een such soldier. and against the consent and will of the plaintiff. . is in su$stance em$raced $" the following allegations. the government of the United States. a war had $een.ing the Constitution of the United Staten as the supreme law of the land( . having e+ecutive. 090 such commanders an" greater authorit" than the". although presented $" the special pleas in different forms. 1&66. The defendant pleaded not guilt". Surget. and Te+as. S. 'at his plantation in said count". legislative. 3ord filed his complaint against Surget in the Circuit Court of !dams Count".

of e+ecuting. !le+ander <. when $urned. and inha$itants of that state were held in su$jection to and under the control of the Confederate States( that on the 6th of #arch. and $" an act on that da" approved and promulgated $" the Confederate Congress. 1&6 . propert". for the prosecution of the war and the maintenance /age 97 U.Confederate States. as $elligerent powers and nations( that the Confederate States. among others. and was. li*el" to fall into the hands of the federal forces( that the defendant was then ordered and re-uired $" said 3arrar. and in pursuance thereof was commanded $" the Confederate militar" authorities to $urn all the cotton along the $an* of that river li*el" to fall into the hands of the forces of the United States( that the cotton in the complaint mentioned was near the $an* of the #ississippi within that count". in o$edience to that act. assigning numerous causes of demurrer. in o$edience to the act of the Confederate Congress and the orders of said militar" commanders and provost marshal. To each of the special pleas the plaintiff in error demurred. and other propert" that might $e useful to the forces of the United States whenever in their judgment the same should $e a$out to fall into their hands( that afterwards. S. charged with the dut". which is the supposed trespass complained of. did $urn 3ord. The demurrers were /age 97 U. S. on the d of #a". it was declared to $e the dut" of all militar" commanders in the service of the Confederate state to destro" all cotton. directed to officers under his command in the State of #ississippi and in the service of the Confederate States to $urn all cotton along the #ississippi )iver li*el" to fall into the hands of the forces of the United States( that $efore and at the date last mentioned. and afterwards until the time the supposed trespasses were committed. acting as provost marshal under the orders aforesaid. an arm" of which :eneral %eauregard was commander where$" the territor". then and $efore had maintained in its service. within that count" the orders of militar" commanders in the State of #ississippi in the service of the Confederate States. :eneral %eauregard. 1&6 . 3arrar was acting as provost marshal of the Count" of !dams. including the cotton in controvers"( and that afterwards the defendant. to $urn certain cotton. made and issued a general ordered.s cotton. and against each other. 097 . to$acco. in the State of #ississippi. commanding the Confederate forces. 096 of its powers.

was tried $" a jur". =ustia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes onl". 2033. vs. 2035. Martinez for petitioner. the plaintiff removed the cause to the supreme court of the state.epublic of the Philippines during the 4apanese military occupation of the Islands7 that the ourt of (ppeals was not authori*ed by ommonwealth (ct #o. does not refer to judicial processes. 2033. -. The petitioner does not 6uestion the validity of said decision on the strength of the Proclamation of -eneral Douglas 8c(rthur of 9ctober $%. 66 4fficial Supreme Court caselaw is onl" found in the print version of the United States )eports. nine months and three days ofprison correccional. petitioner commenced serving his sentence. Ilocos Sur. petitioner. /age 97 U. and that only the two 4ustices constituted the majority which promulgated the decision in 6uestion. and ma" not reflect current legal developments. >e ma*e no warranties or guarantees a$out the accurac". #o. 8erdict for the defendant.called . Petitioner was convicted by the ourt !irst Instance of Ilocos Sur " riminal case #o.: This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for the release of the petitioner on the ground that the latter is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent Director of Prison in the provincial jail at Vigan. Upon the affirmance of the judgment. the ourt of (ppeals of #orthern )u*on at +aguio modified said sentence " (. on the sole ground that said court was only a creation of the so. 22%.. $eing at issue. he sued out this writ of error. /01&and sentence the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of from four months four months and twenty. FERIA.. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS. Buenaventura B. verdicts or settlements. ante&.overruled and replications filed.5 "p. =udgment having $een rendered thereon.. which according to our decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. and 4une $%.one days of arresto mayor to three years. aldez Tan Keh and !izon. respondent. completeness. -. ANICETO ALCANTARA. #o. Petitioner now 6uestions the validity of the decision of the ourt of (ppeals of #orthern )u*on. J. Office of the Solicitor General Tañada for respondent. ). The sentence as modified became final on September 2$. % to hold sessions in +aguio. or ade-uac" of the information contained on this site or information lin*ed to from this site. S. The cause. 'pon appeal. /lease chec* official sources. $%& of the crime of illegal discharge of firearms with less serious physical injuries.. .

the . etc. e. 9bviously. In that the same case this ourt held that the ourt of (ppeals which was continued throughout the 4apanese occupation. .isted prior to the 4apanese occupation and was lately abolished by :.evised Penal ode.ecutive 9rder #o." concur. ( punitive or penal sentence is said to of a political comple. but ta<en out of the territorial law and penali*ed as a new offenses committed against belligerent occupant.ample. aldez Tan Keh and !izon. and the reduction of the number of 4ustices sitting in each division.called . were crimes against the ommonwealth or 'nited States -overnment under the . as modified by the ourt of (ppeals of #orthern )u*on. (s e.cept those a political comple. is valid and enforceable. provided that such judgments do not have a political comple.called . The division of the ourt of (ppeals into several District ourt of (ppeals.ion. were good and valid and remain good and valid. and against public order. %/.ion. espionage. the regime of the so. such as rebellion.ion. acts which tend. and therefore enforceable now after the liberation or occupation of the Philippines..." Ozaeta" $aras" #aranilla" $ablo and Ben%zon" ##. Therefore. in accordance with the authorities therein cited.#. li<e those of the court which were continued during the 4apanese occupation. :ven assuming that the ourt of (ppeals of #orthern )u*on was a new court created by the belligerent occupant or the de facto governments established by him. the judgments of such court. to aid or favor the enemy and are directed against the welfare. as this court held in its decision in the abovementioned case of Co Kim Cham vs. the sentence of the ourt of !irst Instance of Ilocos Sur. incident to a state of a war and necessary for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupier. of the belligerent occupant. Moran" C. the petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus is denied. such as treason. In view of the foregoing. which were made crimes against the belligerent occupant.ecutive ommission established in the Philippines during the 4apanese regime were governments de facto organi*ed by the belligerent occupant by the judicial acts thereof were good and valid and remained good and valid after the restoration of the ommonwealth -overnment.In the said case of Co Kim Cham vs. aldez Tan Keh and !izon supra.ion when it penali*es either a new act not defined in the municipal laws. sedition. directly or indirectly.epublic of the Philippines and the Philippine :. They are acts penali*ed for public rather than private reasons. or acts already penali*ed by the latter as a crime against the legitimate government. safety and security.epublic effected no substantial change in its nature and jurisdiction. the sentence which petitioner is now serving has no political comple. =e was charged with and convicted of an offense punishable under the municipal law of the ommonwealth. was the same ourt of (ppeals e. the crimes against national security . this ourt ruled that the so.evised Penal ode. etc.