across its territory, it generally implied a waiver of jurisdiction over that army.

[4]
This custom was firmly enough established and necessary for
international relations that it would be wrongful for a country to violate it
without prior notice.[5]
SCHOONER EXCHANGE V. MCFADDON, 11 Marshall further noted that while the right of free passage by an army need
U.S. 116 (1812) usually be explicitly granted (likely because such passage inevitably
involves physical damage of some sort), by maritime custom a nation's
ports were presumptively open to all friendly ships. While a nation could
Brief Fact Summary. Two Americans (P) laid claims of ownership and close its ports to the warships of another country, it would have to issue
entitlements to the schooner Exchange. some form of declaration to do so. Without such a declaration, a friendly
foreign warship could enter a nation's port with its implied consent.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. National ships of war are viewed as been [6]
Marshall further distinguished the difference between private merchant
exempted by consent of the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the ships and citizens (who are subject to a nation's jurisdiction when they enter
ship enters. its ports with the nation's implied consent), and military ships. Namely,
private ships do not carry with them the sovereign status of military ships,
Facts. Two Americans (P) claimed they owned and were entitled to the with the privileges that accompany it.[7] From this, Marshall arrived at the
schooner Exchange they seized on the high seas. The claim which the conclusion that, by customary international law, a friendly warship that
United States Attorney (D) put forward for the prevention of the ship leaving enters a nation's open port are exempted from that nation's jurisdiction.[8]
was that, the ship which was owned by the Emperor of France had been Applying this analysis to the facts at hand, Marshall found that the courts did
forced to enter the port of Philadelphia due to bad weather conditions. not have jurisdiction over the case.
At this point in time, the U.S and France were on friendly terms. The United
States’ (D) request for the dismissal of ownership and release of the ship Significance:
was granted by the district court. However, this judgment was reversed by
the circuit court and this did not prevent the United States (D) from The decision is regarded as the "first definitive statement of the doctrine of
appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. foreign state immunity"[10][11] Additionally, the unwillingness of the Court to
find jurisdiction without action by the political branches of government, along
Issue. Are National ships of war viewed as been exempted by the consent with some explicit dicta,[12] led to a tradition of great deference by the courts
of the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the ship enters? to official and individual determinations of immunity by the State
Department.[13] This system was only revised in favor of judicial
Held. (Marshall, C.J.) Yes. National ships of war are viewed as been interpretations with the passage of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in
exempted by consent of the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the 1976.
ship enters. A nation’s jurisdiction within its sovereign territory is exclusive
and absolute.

The Exchange been a public armed ship, currently under the control and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
supervision of a foreign power, who at the time of the ship’s entry into the
United States territory, was at peace with the United States, must be viewed
vs.
as having entered the states territory under an implied promise that while in SEGUNDO M. ACIERTO
such environment, would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the country.
Reversed.
TUASON, J.:
Discussion. The absolute form of sovereign immunity from judicial
jurisdiction was implicated in this case. Three principles were brought This is an appeal from two separate decisions, one in a case for falsification
forward by the court in this case; the immunity that all civilized nations allow of a private document and another in six cases for estafa. The charges for
to foreign ministers; the exemption of the person of the sovereign from estafa are similar in all respects except as to the dates of the commission of
arrest or imprisonment within a foreign country; and when a sovereign the crimes and the amounts alleged to have been swindled. In the cases of
permits troops of a foreign prince to pass through his territory, such estafa, the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months and
sovereign is understood to mean he has ceded a portion of his territorial one day of arresto mayor in each, to indemnify the United States Army in
jurisdiction. the amount of P305.08, P353, P316.44, P221.08, P233.48 and P209.60,
respectively, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency but not to
exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. In the case of
Another Source: falsification, in which the defendant pleaded not guilty, he was condemned
to an indeterminate penalty of from one year and eight months to four years
The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812) is a United and nine months, to indemnify the United States Army in the amount of
StatesSupreme Court case concerning the Federal courts' jurisdiction over $100.46, or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting an American port. costs.
The court, interpreting customary international law, determined that there On this appeal, the seven cases have been consolidated in the briefs and
was no jurisdiction. for decision, and in all of them these questions are raised: (1) former
jeopardy, (2) want of jurisdiction of the court a quo, on both of which the
Facts: Solicitor General sides with the appellant, and (3) sufficiency of the
evidence, besides others be briefly mentioned in the latter part of this
The schooner Exchange, owned by John M'Faddon and William Greetham, opinion.
sailed from Baltimore, Maryland, on October 27, 1809, for San Sebastián, For a background, it is well to state the pertinent facts.
Spain. On December 30, 1810, the Exchange was seized by order Prior to August 23, 1947, the accused was employed by the Army of the
of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Exchange was then armed and commissioned United States as court martial reporter on a salary basis in the Judge
as a French warship under the name of Balaou. When the vessel later Advocate Section, Headquarters PHILRYCOM, Camp Rizal, Quezon City.
docked in Philadelphia due to storm damage, M'Faddon and Greetham filed On that date, at this request, he was "dropped from the strength report of
an action in the district court to seize the vessel, claiming that it had been this section" and became a reporter on piece-work arrangement. As piece
taken illegally. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over worker he was paid for so much work of reporting and transcribing as he
the dispute. On appeal, the circuit court reversed the decision of the district performed. It was when he was working in the latter capacity, in 1948, that
court, and ordered the district court to proceed to the merits of the case. he was said to have made false claims and received compensation for
[1]
The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, and affirmed the services not rendered.
district court's dismissal of the action.
Charged with violation of the 94th Article of War, in the belief that defendant
Held: was still an employee of, or serving with, the Army subject to its jurisdiction,
on March 20, 1948, he was placed under arrest by the United States Military
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. He noted that by authorities, detained in a United States Army stockade, and brought to trial
the definition of sovereignty, a state has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction before a general court martial appointed and convened by the Commanding
within its own territory, but that it could also by implied or express consent General on April 7, 1948.
waive jurisdiction.[2] Moreover, Marshall also noted that under international Before the court martial, the defendant, on arraignment, interposed a
custom jurisdiction was presumed to be waived in a number of situations. special plea to its jurisdiction. But he was overruled, after which, trial
For instance, a foreign sovereign and his diplomatic representatives were proceeded on a plea of not guilty. On April 8, 1948, after trial, he was found
generally free from the jurisdiction of domestic courts when visiting. guilty of all the specifications with which he stood charged, and sentenced
[3]
Similarly, if a state granted permission for a foreign army free passage

Whenever for special reasons the United States may desire not to and pleading double jeopardy on the strength of his trial by the court martial. therein. proceedings was on December 13. authority of the civil court to take jurisdiction of his offenses. A party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by making the officer holding the offender in custody shall so notify the fiscal inconsistent position which if allowed would result in brazen (prosecuting attorney) of the city or province in which the offense has been deception. and in such a case the principles of right dealing and good faith. the Court of First Instance of Quezon City inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court martial. In several cases of public employees brought to trial by court the armed forces of the United States on active duty) or the offense is martial during the late war the convictions were disapproved on the ground against the security of the Philippines. merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. were one in holding that he was not. he was subjected to hard labor like all other military Court of First Instance and submitted a memorandum for the prosecution. and Construction of the United States Military Law by the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army is entitled to great respect. After his discharge as regular employee he was in fact paid for records of trial prepared by him The appellant states in his brief that in all the above seven cases he set up from a fund entirely different from that set aside to pay regular employees' the plea of double jeopardy. Vols.]) forces of the United States in which the offended party is also a member of the armed forces of the United States. a had jurisdiction of the accused and his crime under the terms of the Bases member of the armed forces. it is alleged. a statement which is belied by the fact that in salaries. exercise the jurisdiction reserve to it in paragraphs 1 and 6 of this Article. disapproved the court martial proceedings. in that the former pay from the organization. Bases Agreement. He was not required to Consequently. He could act as reporter but was not under any obligation to the United States Army to do so. the Philippine Government certainly is not the party to dispute it. He was privileged to preliminary investigation. it is also conceded. Wurfel. in which event he was paid under Army regulations for so this accused was not subject to military law and without prejudice to his trial much work accomplished. was not invoked. the mere fact of employment by the Government "(a) Any offense committed by any person within any base except where the within the theatre of war does not bring the person within the application of offender and offended parties are both Philippine citizens (not members of the article. offenses. Both counsel thus described the nature of the defendant's work and his relation with the United States Army. Immediately after the sentence officer. he could not in his status as piece worker be before a proper tribunal. Upon the circumstances set forth. he which is a matter of defense. the Commanding General as reviewing authority disapproved the above verdict and sentence in an order of the Defendant worked as he pleased and was not amenable to daily control and following tenor: disciplines of the Army. He was remunerated for so much of his work of laws of the Philippines. a military base or installation in 1948.to be confined at hard labor for sixty months. 1947. could not be considered as serving with the Army. As held by the Judge Advocate General. in creating an exceptional ARTICLE XIII jurisdiction over civilians. the plea of double commodity to the Army as distinguished from employees who draw regular jeopardy is interwoven with the plea of want of jurisdiction. the defendant was estopped from demurring to the Philippine court's jurisdiction 3. courtesy. 2nd ed. which says: effective upon its acceptance by the two governments. the fact that in the six cases for estafa double jeopardy. he was conducted by a United States Military present himself for work nor could he be marked absent for failure to appear office to the City Attorney of Quezon City for prosecution under the penal regularly in his office. to tell the court to which he has been turned over that the Camp Rizal where the crimes in question were committed was. is to be strictly construed and confined to the JURISDICTION classes specified. the sentence is disapproved upon the sole ground that proceedings. the United States Government upon consultation with. and divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed thanks to his objections. that it did not appear that at the time of their offenses they were "serving with the army" in the sense of this article. for an accused to tell one Philippines shall exercise jurisdiction. a United States Military The first proposition is implied from the fact of Philippine sovereignty . the Philippine Government properly and legally tried by a duly constituted by a military court. a person accompanying and privileges he previously enjoyed and which accrue to regular United States serving with the Army of the United States without the territorial jurisdiction Army employees. United States over American Military bases signed on March 14. court that it lacks authority to try him and. Since paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 1 refer to offenses "committed outside the bases" by members From another angle. Then he was at liberty to depart once more. and was By the agreement. A civil offender who is not certainly within its terms cannot 1. His position was comparable to that of any vendor who sells all the six cases for estafa he pleaded guilty. to say the "(c) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed very least. nor had he been called upon to act in Because of this interrelationship between the two pleas. the office. prisoners. offenses committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States. however. It is trifling with the courts. after he has succeeded in his effort. on June 19. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional The question that meets us at the threshold is: Was the defendant an rights not granted. it should be noted. Military law? Defense counsel at the court martial. He contends that he was an employee of the Army of the United States. any case or to report in any section of the Headquarters of the Philippine for the present. page 100. he there attacked the court martial's jurisdiction with the sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or same vigor that he now says the court martial did have jurisdiction. and 1 and 2. compelled to do so.. after conducting a reporting and transcribing as he volunteered to make. Staff Judge Advocate General of was promulgated. However. Ryukus Command for any purpose. This is the exact reverse of the position defendant took at the military or expediency. nevertheless properly and legally took cognizance of the cases and denied Paragraph (a) is the provision in virtue in which the appellants disputes the the defendant's motion to quash. On June 18. conceded. now sustained by the defendant. Irrespective of the correctness of the views of the Military authorities. 1947. The Philippines shall have the right to exercise jurisdiction over all other enhanced the dignity of the Philippines and its interest promoted. and the recommendation of. and Lt. Upon the change of his status he ceased to be an integral parts of the Army with the corresponding loss of the rights and In the foregoing case of Segundo M. way performed any work for the Army. When such construction is a disclaimed of jurisdiction under the forces of the United States against the security of the United States. filed the information which initiated the several remain in his home except for the purpose of bringing his finished report to cases now on appeal. Colonel Seymour W. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its trial. As stated. the Commanding General. it seems immaterial whether or not the court martial of the armed forces. and the said City Attorney. in part provides: The article to be strictly construed. "(b) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed paragraph 2[d. and since the accused was not. it is first has committed error in yielding to his plea. Since that date he had not in any that the court martial had jurisdiction of the offenses and his person. Under the terms of the treaty. (Referring to Article of War 2. contrary to the elementary committed within ten days after his arrest. the Judge Advocate has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such General in Washington. he was committed to the general prisoners branch by the Philippines Ryukus Command who appeared as amicus curiae in the which. we may disregard. these paragraphs may be eliminated from our Agreement. This article. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity. so we incline to believe. Acierto. 1948. but also all such ceded rights as the United States employee of the United States Army within the meaning of the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of. While the Army could request him to record court martial of the United States. The Bases Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the Colonel Wurfel cited Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents. the fewer the rights asserted by the United States the more is 2. The Philippines consents that the United States shall have the right to be subjected under it to a military trial in time of war with any more legality exercise jurisdiction over the following offenses: then he could be subjected to such a trial in time of peace. The last time he reported court martial is directly predicated on the proposition. Granting that it had.

the petitioner was prosecuted in and convicted by United States to turn the offender over to the Philippine authorities a General Court Martial appointed by the Commanding General of the within ten days works as a forfeiture of the Philippine Government's Philippine-Ryukus Command of the United States Army and accordingly jurisdiction is a paradox. of the Constitution. the court below quarters and installations located within the present limits of the City of found that on March 11. a second trial under the Articles of War. for the Solicitor General. of this Article. The Solicitor General invites attention to the fact that "appellant was arrested by the United States Army on March 20. and cannot on principle or authority be construed as a limitation upon the rights of the Philippine Porfirio V. This provision is not. the officer holding the offender in custody shall so notify the Bautista Angelo and Labrador. Marcelo Mallari and Rachel Enriquez-Fidelino for Government. The treaty expressly stipulates that offenses included therein may be As the lower court said. 1947. By the appellant's and the Solicitor General's sentenced. to confinement at hard labor for five years. the defendant was properly prosecuted should be transferred to the Philippine authorities is to a matter about for falsification of a private document. sec. on March 4. (which was the only case tried. threefold the length of the time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties. State. In other words. GODOFREDO DIZON like the appellant. Bases Agreement provides in Article XIII. W. and confined until June 18. It cannot and does not pretend to diminish or impair the On March 14. granted to the United States by the treaty insure solely that country and can not be raised by the offender. JAG [1912] under the Agreement are specified and enumerated in Annex "A" and annex p. provided for in Article XXI of the Agreement. Other legal theories are urged in the appellant's brief but they were not Then carrying out of the provisions of the bases Agreement is the raised in the court below and. Bowers. It concern of the contracting parties alone. 1948.. he believes that "this delay of three months does not vs. If anything. it is an emphatic recognition and petitioner. F. are obviously unmeritorious. Gianzon and Solicitor Francisco Carreon exercised by the latter are reserved by the Philippine for itself. United States Army. APO 900.. for Quezon City which has been used as headquarters by the Philippine- that matter. Ryukus Command of the United States Army since before March 14. Annex B" (paragraph 1) and that "the terms of this Agreement pertaining to bases shall be applicable to temporary quarters and installations referred to On the question of the sufficiency of the evidence in the case for falsification in paragraph 1 of this article while they are so occupied by the armed forces of a private document. a given suffices to say that on the facts charged and found by the court in case No. and violates section 1 of Article III of the could not have attached. 283. reaffirmation of Philippine sovereignty over the bases and of the truth J. Feria. naval authorities in appropriate cases fail or refuse to act. Jugo. 1948. J. this Government would be penalized by the fault of the other signatory to the treaty over whose action it has no control. 1342. In effect. 1948.J. the petitioners contends that reason of the borrower's neglect to return it within the time promised. The offender has no interest in this clause of the bases. and that by these the same undoubtedly falls under the classification of temporary installations fraudulent pretenses he succeeded in being paid the amount itemized. said Agreement is unconstitutional because it deprives the Philippine courts of Partly for the reasons already shown. Stat. is not much unlike divesting a lender of the ownership to his property by lastly amended by motion dated April 9. offenses not purely military in character perpetrated in was committed in a place not a base of the United States Army within the military or naval reservations would be left unpunished where the military or meaning of the Agreement concerning military bases of March 14. paragraph 3. 286. located at proceed with reasonable dispatch. in the six cases for of the United States. UNITED The appellant and the Solicitor General labor. (Funk vs. 1947. provided. 1948. 1947. non-compliance with any of the conditions imposed on maximum duration of the appellant's imprisonment shall not be more than the United States cannot benefit the offender. Even so.) By the The judgment appealed from will be affirmed with the modification that the same token. Whether. in its Article XXI provides that "the in response to the defendant's plea based on lack of jurisdiction. C.: procedure. A. inserted merely for the convenience of the Philippine Government.. Pablo. Bengzon. The bases granted to the United States sentence adjudged or the sentence has been disapproved (Dig. that all jurisdiction rights granted to the United States and not First Solicitor General Roberto A. art. that in case the The appellant will pay the costs of both instances. The accused. Reyes. pending final decision of this case. 1948. treaty beyond the right to demand that whoever is to try him should Philrycom Engineer Depot. under a STATES ARMY misapprehension as to the purpose and meaning of the treaty provision just cited. without deciding. United States waives its jurisdiction over them. United States renounce the jurisdiction reserved to it in paragraphs 1 and 6 Paras. To say that failure on the part of the Quezon City. that offenses committed within the temporary estafa the defendant having entered the plea of guilty). This proposition is too well-established and Constitution guaranteeing to every person in the Philippines due process too well-known to need citation of authorities. 208 S. Villaroman. it has been held that a former trial may be pleaded when the Agreement between the Philippines and United States regarding when there has been a trial for the offense. 167). Wolfson for respondent. JJ. confining himself to raising questions of law. For an offense allegedly committed at the main storage area. The ten-day requirement is of directory character relating to PARAS. Philippines. 2. therefore. whether or not there has been a military bases was concluded." and. Hence document the signature of Captain Eaton J. however. 8.) In such case the former trial may not installations now existing outside the bases mentioned in Annex A and be pleaded in bar in the second trial. he falsely made it appear that he was entitled to collect $100. the plea of double jeopardy is the jurisdiction over all offenses exclusively vested in them by Article VIII. 2nd. without any merit.46 from the It is not pretended on the part of the respondent that the site in question is United States Army for services allegedly rendered. What the General Court Martial had no jurisdiction over the alleged offense which is more serious. Although under Rev. It is an obligation imposed on the United States precisely with and use certain portions of the Philippine territory as military bases and to a view to enabling the Philippine Government the better to exercise its exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses committed within and outside said residual authority. PHILIPPINE RYUKUS COMMAND." In their opinion this THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE delay was fatal. the idea In his petition for habeas corpus filed with this Court on March 24. 1948. and equal protection of the law. and that even assuming that the offense was committed in a base. the terms of . Montemayor. Padilla. 509. even assuming. forging in said included within any of the bases specific in Annex "A" and Annex "B". the rule is and should be otherwise when the disapproval was made "B" of said Agreement which. the defendant submitted a voucher in which Manila shall not be considered as offenses within the bases" (paragraph 3). concur fiscal of the city or province in which the offense has been committed within 10 days after his arrest. the military There is no dispute that the main storage area in which the offense in trial in the instant cases has not placed the appellant in jeopardy such as question is alleged to have been committed is located within a site in would bar his prosecution for violation of the Philippine penal laws or. an Agreement was concluded between the Philippines fundamental rights of jurisdiction reserved by the treaty for this and the United States of America whereby the latter is authorized to occupy Government. we believe. that which the accused has nothing to do or say. theory. Even if it be granted that the court martial did have jurisdiction. case which by the treaty comes within the United States jurisdiction 1701 and established by the proof. the rights they also constitute violation of other laws. moreover. the defendant did not introduce any evidence to tried by the proper Philippine courts if for any special reason the disprove the above findings. the second from the express provisions of the treaty. obviously comply with the requirement of the foregoing section. (Ex United States shall retain the right to occupy temporary quarters and parte Castello. as said temporary installation is not located within the limits of the City of Manila. which is explicit on its terms and provides for no exceptions. and that from the sentence as thus reduced there shall be This brings up the last ground for the contention that the Court of First deducted one-half of the preventive imprisonment undergone by the Instance of Quezon City was without jurisdiction of the cases at bar. jeopardy section 1. If the court martial had no jurisdiction.over the bases..

herein-above Philippine territory and to exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses. 1945. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits. 1934.. In like manner. we are bound to uphold the immunities above referred to. ed. October 10." (The Schooner Exchange vs.. movement of vessel and aircraft.. . "A nation would justify be acquisition of bases by the United States under the Agreement of March 14. it was recited that not insisted by the petitioner that his case comes under any of the exception "Whereas the Act of Congress approved March 24. exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the usages and received But the point we want to bring out is that. on behalf of the United States of America I do hereby recognize the independence of the Philippines as a separate and self-governing nation Although already superfluous. means as he finds appropriate to withhold or to acquire and to retain such the offense in question falls under the jurisdiction of the United States as a bases. Griess. the offense is against the security of the Philippines . directed that on the 4th day of July by the petitioner. but it into an agreement called the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). America should by proclamation withdraw and surrender all rights of decided on September 13. No. we applied the well-settled principles of States of America in and over the territory and people of the International Law that a foreign army allowed to march through a friendly Philippines except certain reservations therein and thereafter authorized to country or to be stationed in it. now therefore. the constitutional point raised by alleged denial of due process and equal protection of the law becomes the petitioner becomes untenable.3 G. McFaddon the United States under the Constitution. We would be the authorized. which provides that “foreign military bases. .the Agreement pertaining to bases are applicable thereto by virtue of the Republic. (En Banc) McFaddon and Others. 3821). . the Nation. 3 Law. Briones. troops. inter alia. Gaz. Bengzon.) BUENA. by treaty or by agreement. Padilla and Tuason. 287. deriving validity from an external source. which should suddenly and without previous notice. It is Indeed. (The Schooner Exchange vs. any offense committed by any person within any base of the United States under the Philippine Independence Act was enlarged except where the offender and offended parties are both Philippine citizens by the Joint Resolution of June 29. the independence of the Philippines. Harry S.. Gaz.S. in addition to any provided for by the Act of March 24. Agreement. there is every reason to state that: The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. it follows that petitioner's contention regarding sovereign. not only by the Philippine Independence Act of March 24. Resolution approved by the United States Congress on June 29. 2 44 Off. Philippine-Ryukus Command.. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. The may. being a sovereign nation.) the lesser attribute of the jurisdiction cannot be waived. 1947). and the Philippine governments in the matter to have and acquire naval reservations and fueling stations in the of criminal jurisdiction. consent that the United States or any agreement was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government and was other foreign nation. immediately following a ten-year transitional period leading to the independence of the Philippines the President of the United States of In at least two recent cases (Raquiza vs. J. the generally accepted provisions of the existing acts of Congress. 138570. 1934. and the rights incident consequence of Article XIII of the Agreement which stipulates that "the thereto. And this in the Proclamation of the Philippine Independence plainly lead to the should be true as long as the civilized world or majority of the conclusion that the withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States independent countries composing it still abide by the rules of the over the territory and people of the Philippines is subject to the right international law. as he Philippines consents that the United States shall have the right to exercise may deem necessary for the mutual protection of the Philippine Islands and jurisdiction over . and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extend in that power DECISION which could impose such restriction. so as to include not only naval (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty) or reservations and fueling stations but other military bases in the Philippines. 1944. 2712. Commanding General. greater right. but the facts remains that the lesser right is fundamentally The petition is therefore hereby denied. Article XVIII of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. admitting the correctness of our pronouncement. President of the United States of America. Bradford. supervision. Any Bayan v. G. The already quoted. reserves to the United States the right defines the rights of the U. approved by the United Philippines. Accordingly. to have an intercourse with such countries. 1944. the United States of America principles of international law have been adopted as part of the law of hereby withdraws and surrenders all rights of possession. 287. troops and personnel visiting the advanced that the Philippine Independence Act. and as long as the Philippines continues. Counsel for the petitioner. jurisdiction. by permission of its government or be made and on behalf of the United States of America should recognize sovereign. or . . the President of the United States is hereby authorized by such provision of paragraph 3 of Article XXI already above quoted. materials and supplies.: Thus in the most recent case of Miquiabas vs. in connection with section 5. I. and the rights incident express permission to establish military bases on certain portions of the thereto. (See section 10. I. . control or sovereignty now existing and exercised by the United derogation of the jurisdiction of the local courts if we are recognized the States of America in and over the territory and people of the Philippines and immunities of foreign sovereigns and ministers. 1 41 Off. acting under and by virtue of the does not contend that such exemption is an unconstitutional diminution or authority vested in me by the aforesaid Act of Congress. Zamora. 3 Law. Gaz. in the Proclamation of Philippine Independence. would 2000 imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction. THE FACTS decided on February 24. if bases may be validly granted to obligations of the civilized world. possession. it was provided (section 2) that "after negotiation with the President of Petitioners argued. we do not hesitate to hold that even in the and acknowledge the authority and control over the same of the absence of an express declaration in the Constitution that the generally Government instituted by the people thereof under the constitution now in accepted principles of international law are made a part of the law of the force. States under the Agreement may be wider than what is recognized by international law.) In the Joint exportation of equipment. Pablo. . is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place. 1944. United States Army. 1934. L-1988. ed. that the VFA violates §25. considered as violating its faith. or the President of the Philippine 1987 Constitution.S. do proclaim that. 293." (Emphasis supplied. The jurisdiction granted to the United unfounded. In further support of the Agreement in question. shall exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the committed within certain portions of said territory. although that faith might not be expressly 1944. control or sovereignty of the United decided on April 7. as it must of the United States to withhold and acquire such military bases as are continue. restriction upon it. there is no plausible reason while and Others. From another point of view. waiver of jurisdiction may well be considered as included within Under the Agreement of March 14. supervision. Truman. with costs against the petitioner. concur. there would be not be an unconstitutional jurisdiction." For this reason. but also by the Joint Resolution of June 29. plighted. This brings us to the constitutional point raised Philippine Independence Act. cannot be constitutionally objectionable. If the latter right were to be invoked in the absence of the Feria. No. total membership of the Philippine Senate. So as much a diminution of the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts as the ordered. Hence the impugn or disregard any international practice.R. and further States Congress on March 24.R. rights thus granted are no less than those conceded by the rule of international law to "a foreign army allowed to march through a friendly Jurisdiction being validly waived in favor of the United States under the country or to be stationed in it. because by virtue of accord with and subject to the reservations provided for in the pertinent section 3 of Article II of the Constitution. 1948 (45 Off.. 1944. 1947. importation and Philippines. JJ. last to suppose that the farmers of the Constitution would ever intend to 1934. The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America entered has jurisdiction over all offenses committed within its territory. 626. by permission of its government or Agreement in question.) The emphasized portions of this declaration Nation. the United States was given the terms "necessary appurtenances to such bases. known as the mentioned in this provision. the argument may be The VFA defines the treatment of U. in deprivation of the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts. necessary appurtenances to such bases." (paragraph 1)." appearing in the Joint Resolution of June 29. and Tubb vs. if for no other. this Court enunciated the principle that as a rule "the Philippines.

with the evil and corruption that smuggling brings in boundary but for the intervention of a customs patrol which. or facilities respective cargoes of blue seal cigarettes and rattan chairs for violation of in the country. 1968 towards Tawi-tawi.' 'Lahat- lahat. employed. who found cause for Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the Constitution are forfeiture under the law of the vessels and the cargo contained therein. It met the repudiation that it deserved. . beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines. the provision they were heading towards Tawi-tawi. It has been established that the five vessels came from Sandakan. a customs patrol There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case team on board Patrol Boat ST-23 intercepted the five (5) sailing vessels in of the VFA. and come a long way back laden with highly The principal question raised by petitioners. held that the petitioners did not commit grave abuse of discretion. . To require the other required import license under Republic Act No. It is quite irrational for Filipino sailors assumed epidemic proportions. the controlling principles of law do not Judge Luciano in rejecting such a plea deserve to be quoted.' and 'Business. and binds itself further to comply with its obligations under the treaty. Thus: "We perfectly see the there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the Constitution. 38. To be sure. a domestic port within the Sulu sea. The records reveal that the United States Government. British North Borneo. 1964. Luciano. Respondent Commissioner of Customs. 426. an declare the forfeiture of the vessels in question and their cargo. the contention being concurred in by the Senate . 113. point of the petitioners but considering the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the vessels in question. The first two errors assigned by petitioners would impugn the jurisdiction of Moreover. L-24170 DECEMBER 16. all of them were heading G. (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Republic Act No. to have incurred the liability of Ambassador Thomas C. as affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals. unless the following conditions are sufficiently met. the the articles laden therein were apprehended and seized on the high seas. affirmed the decision rendered by the Collector of Customs of Jolo. II. ET. Their cargoes were not covered by the acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. [The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions. a foreign port. THE RULING November 19. 426 in relation with Section 1363(f) of the Revised Senate and. Their course announced loudly their intention not merely to skirt along the territorial boundary of the Philippines but to come within our limits and land somewhere in Tawi-tawi towards which their prows The policy relentlessly adhered to and unhesitatingly pursued to minimize. from all its wake would be frustrated and set at naught if the action taken by appearances.' 'Sulu Area Command. as long as the justify their stand thus: "In the light of the fact that the vessels involved with VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law."2 VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution. As a matter of fact. in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. at about noon time. between British North Borneo and Sulu while 18 is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution . 181 cases of a national referendum being unnecessary since Congress has not required 'Herald' cigarettes. Article XVIII] requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in stop. Commissioner of Customs to engage in importation into any port in the Sulu THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS sea. under international law. NO. They would executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. The sailing vessels are all of Philippine registry. when so required by congress. the opinion being penned by the late Associate Judge Augusto M. Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases. said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty. and recognized as a treaty by the other raised that importation had not yet begun and that the seizure was effected contracting State."3 government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA.' with their Section 25. otherwise known as the contracting state. and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. that at times has simpleton or a perennial optimist. and some pieces of rattan it." respondent Commissioner of Customs in this case. . dated September 26. as also already made known. and sustained the constitutionality His opinion starts thus: "This is an appeal from the decision of the Acting of the VFA. For as long as the United States of America accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a Such a contention was advanced by petitioners before the Court of Tax treaty. the said vessels could not have touched any place or port in the Philippines. is the validity of their interception . through whether a port or place of entry or not. to submit the Import Control Law. as noted at the outset. we believe that Section 1363(a) of the Revised Administrative Code should be applied to the case at bar. of the Court of Tax Appeals. 426. 1961.” outside our territorial waters. AL foreign manufactured cigarettes. sustained by the Court of Tax Appeals. Fortunately. owned and manned by Filipino residents of Sulu. troops. It cannot be otherwise if the legitimate entertain even for a moment the thought that these vessels were probably authority vested in the government were not to be reduced to futility and not bound for a Philippine port would be too much a concession even for a impotence in the face of an admittedly serious malady. ratified by a majority of the Administrative Code. nor did they carry a permit from the VS. 1950. has stated that the United States forfeiture under Section 1363(a) of the Revised Administrative Code." votes cast by the people in a national referendum. (Jolo Seizure Identification Cases Nos. whether a port or place of xxx xxx xxx entry or not. language should be understood in the sense they have in common use. He to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are was. it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA the Bureau of Customs to institute seizure proceedings and thereafter to only as an executive agreement because. if were pointed.facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly and seizure by customs officials on the high seas. they were about to cross our aquatic not to do away entirely. but did not possess any permit from the Commissioner of Customs to engage in the importation of This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a merchandise into any port of the Sulu sea. as required by Section 1363(a) treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or of the Revised Administrative Code. chairs. 40. The concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. Hubbard. After ordering the vessels to in [in §25. were to be set aside and this appeal from the decision of the The sense of realism and the vigorous language employed by the late latter were to succeed. the United States of America in this case."5 Commissioner of Customs for smuggling. 9 cases of 'Camel' cigarettes. 41 & 42) decreeing NO. Sulu. viz: (a) it Section 1363(a) of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 20 of must be under a treaty. Thus: "To call for a contrary conclusion. and when intercepted. manning five Philippine vessels to sneak out of the Philippines and go to British North Borneo. Appeals. consequently. THE ISSUE Why such a plea could not be given the least credence without doing violence to common sense and placing the law in disrepute would be Was the VFA unconstitutional? apparent from a statement of the case and the findings of facts as set forth in the decision now under review. They xxx xxx xxx came from Sandakan. was more than eager to accomplish its mission.] Commissioner of Customs in Customs Case No. and of less than thirty (30) tons burden. Its Hence this petition for review. 39. is to accord strict meaning to the phrase. The facts according to the above opinion "are not controverted. owners of five sailing vessels taxable goods only to turn about upon reaching the brink of our and the cargo loaded therein declared forfeited by respondent territorial waters and head for another foreign port. Laden with ILLUH ASAALI.R. the VFA is not unconstitutional. they did not possess the import license required by Republic Act No. the said vessels could not have been engaged in the importation of the articles laden therein into any Philippine port or place. dated III. the forfeiture of five (5) sailing vessels (kumpits) named 'Iroc-Iroc." Thus: "It appears that on September 10.' 'Liberal Wing III. . the customs officers boarded and found on board. question on the high seas. British North Borneo.

We thus could rest our decision affirming that of the Court of Tax Appeals Roxas v. Thus: "Herein. dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax effect of declaring legal the importation of goods which were illegally problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject.. In the the action taken by respondent Commissioner of Customs... Reyes. With costs against petitioners-appellants.. only questions of law being for us to resolve. and that question could not have been abated by the mere expiration of Republic Act No. at his election. Petitioners-appellants would further assail the validity of the action taken Moreover. we believe that despite the expiration deprivation of property without due process of law and the abatement of of Republic Act No. November 19. maintain an action for damages at law. by the very nature of the effect that the expiration of the Import Control Law "did not produce the its function.1.. the mere expiration of Republic Act No. in other words it could not have the effect of annulling or setting aside the decision of the It is unquestioned that all vessels seized are of Philippine registry. The vigor of the war against smuggling must not be The question asked in the brief of petitioners-appellants as to whether the hampered by a misreading of international law concepts and a misplaced seizure of the vessels in question and the cargoes on the high seas and reliance on a constitutional guaranty that has not in any wise been infringed. JJ. 650 "did not have the effect of to have violated the applicable provisions of the Revised depriving the Commissioner of Customs of the jurisdiction. The argument on the alleged lack of validity of the action taken by the Commissioner of Customs is made to rest on the fact that the alleged offense imputed to petitioners-appellants is a violation of Section 1363(a) and not Section 1363(f). that It is thus most evident that the Court of Tax Appeals had not in any wise a state has the right to protect itself and its revenues. thus beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines was legal must be WHEREFORE.S. for the main question brought in by the appeal by the respondent Commissioner of Customs. that would be an undeserved reflection and an unwarranted reproach. Such contention of which were illegally imported. 4. in Bombay Dept. 571 (1953) subsection thereof. the above terms of the statute would appear to be undeniable." Moreover. an 1804 decision. Certainly. the decision of the Collector of Customs. with the right of trial by jury. 426 abated whatever liability could have been incurred appreciation of the relevant facts and its appraisal of their significance. we lack the power of instrument for escaping a liability arising from one's own nefarious acts.." The first 345 U. . Sayoc 12 announced that principle earlier. a right not refused to adhere faithfully to controlling legal principles when it sustained limited to its own territory but extending to the high seas. Zaldivar. basic and fundamental. prior thereto. we feel extreme reluctance to by the respondent Commissioner of Customs by the plea that the repeal of substitute our own discretion for that of the Court of Tax Appeals in its Republic Act No. which in the opinion of the Collector of Customs have been used are or -Larsen based assertion of federal jurisdiction on board reading of Jones were intended to be used as instrument in the importation or exportation of Act. Commissioner of Customs. States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of appellants.. Not one of the jurisdiction over the case and could continue to take cognizance thereof principles of law relied upon suffices to call for reversal of the action taken until its final determination. 650 the Commissioner of Customs retained his liability consequent upon the repeal of Republic Act No. Sanchez. 1964. Concepcion. the decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals of answered in the affirmative. which are in the nature of proceeding in rem. the Randa." had been made clear above. most clearly that the due process question raised is insubstantial. concerned with the effect of the expiration of a law. Statute stated: Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of From the above recital of the legal provisions relied upon. discussed jointly 650 will not divest him of his jurisdiction thereon duly acquired while said by petitioners-appellants. The principle of law had occasion to reaffirm the doctrine in the above two decisions. They could not reached by the Court of Tax Appeals. We firmly From the apprehension and seizure of the vessels in question on the high believe that the expiration of Republic Act No. The Collector of Customs which was rendered while the law was in force and Revised Penal Code leaves no doubt as to its applicability and which should stand until it is revoked by the appellate tribunal. as injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its territory.. On those facts the liability of the vessels and merchandise under personal injury to railway employees shall apply. LARSEN clear. if supported by all seriousness a due process question.. the absence of the effect (1) of declaring legal the importation of the cotton counterpanes jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs is predicated. But its power to secure itself from violative of the constitutional rights of petitioners-appellants. It would be a language of Chief Justice Marshall: "The authority of a nation within its own reproach and a reflection on the law if on the facts as they had been shown territory is absolute and exclusive. the law was still in force. the importation of -Danish seaman brought suit under Jones Act to recover for injuries on the which is effected or attempted contrary to law and all other merchandise Danish ship. such forfeiture and seizure. the present that sustains the validity of such a provision equally supplies a firm Chief Justice. Fortunately. For it is now beyond question that its finding. substantial evidence. 650 could not have produced seas beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines.J. The . In other words." 2. We find no plausible reason not to accept in its entirety such a conclusion right to a hearing of petitioners-appellants was respected. Such a constitutional guaranty. certainly should not be allowed to lend itself as an Where the issue raised belongs to the former category. Subsection (f) FACTS speaks of any merchandise of any prohibited importation." of Customs illegal or null and void." enforceability not only within the Philippines. ISSUE Should the Danish law apply or should US law apply? How could there be a denial of due process? There was nothing arbitrary about the manner in which such seizure and forfeiture were effected. The action taken then by the Commissioner of Customs was in accordance with law. Store v. 5. acquired by him Administrative Code. it is a well settled doctrine of International Law that goes back to Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Church v. and is a to be characterized as outside the legal competence of our government and hostile act which it is its duty to repel. we are on the above consideration. for understandable reasons. and (2) of declaring the seizure and forfeiture petitioners-appellants is without merit. 13 we committing offense while on a Philippine ship . ordered by the Collector of Customs illegal or null and void. Makalintal. even if the facts presented a from the decision of the Collector of Customs was the legality or illegality of situation less conclusive against the pretension of petitioners-appellants. is affirmed. concur. Dizon. even if the persuasive element in have been unaware of what they were doing. it would appear his employment may. the seizure and forfeiture of the vessels and cargo in question were of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory. to act on cases of forfeiture pending before him. speaking for the Court. legal points raised in the above two assignment of errors. The seizure of a vessel within the range to exist. 426. its interior waters and maritime zone. and we hold the view that once the Commissioner of Customs has It might not be amiss however to devote some degree of attention to the acquired jurisdiction over the case. "Property subject to forfeiture under customs laws. Nor. The next question raised is the alleged denial of due process arising from Castro and Capistrano. This argument raised before the Court of Tax Appeals was we had occasion to state in a relatively recent decision: "Nor as a matter of correctly held devoid of any persuasive force. NY business contracts. stating that such expiration of the foundation for the seizure of the five sailing vessels found thereafter period of effectivity of Republic Act No. It would be an affront to the above view were not so overwhelming. J. not with the abrogation of a law. binds us. (a) cover any vessel including cargo unlawfully engaged in the importation of merchandise except a port of entry. C. The title of Section 1363 is LAURITZEN V.L. and in such action all statutes of the United the facts on which the seizure was based were not unknown to petitioners. imported and the seizure and forfeiture thereof as ordered by the Collector there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of its authority. Hubbart. 650.B. that encompassed all sailors and on Lauritzen company’s significant the former.. Commissioner of Customs 11 to an agency such as the Court of Tax Appeals which is. The decision under review principle is it advisable for this Court to set aside the conclusion reached by cited our opinion in Golay-Buchel & Cie v. while docked in Cuba. could we alter the decisive facts reason if under the above circumstances they could be allowed to raise in as found by it. review. but also outside of its jurisdiction against those As late as 1965. As thereunder. alleging the absence of jurisdiction..

Seafarers' International Union. Laburnum Construction made by the foreign shipowner and the foreign seamen in this case cannot Corp. A British applicable to wage disputes arising on foreign vessels between nationals of form of articles of agreement was opened at Bremen. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. though not passing on the question. but that Oregon law did not permit be read into the Labor Management Relations Act. We granted certiorari in order to settle the important question of John D. On September 15.S. specifically set out.2d 62. and therefore do not reach other questions raised by the parties. 1952." 233 F. 143. v. 1952. sailed into harbor at Portland. Court of Appeals. for a follows that if Congress had so chosen. all to the damage of is temporarily in an American port. including wages and hours of employment. and the cargo. because of public policy or for other under a Liberian flag. the stores. Pp. specifically stating that the Act does not [353 U. and the Act court was without jurisdiction because the Labor Management Relations Act therefore does not preclude a remedy under state law for such damages.S. P. 90 of the National Organization of Masters. between a foreign ship and its foreign crew. 889 . Oregon. the injunction orders were vacated on appeal to the Court of Appeals and were ordered dismissed as moot. Lofton L. The ship sailed in December 1952. Co. These three cases have local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to been consolidated for consideration here. 232 Minn. Pp. n. port. 146-147. the petitioners was Richard R. When they declined to work he of foreign contact as the situation at bar. a Panamanian corporation. With him on the brief standing against the individual representatives of the unions. the trial court entered judgment for Pp. 347 U. but Congress did not do so. 46 N. The court found that other countries when the vessel comes within territorial waters of the United respondent had no remedy under the Labor Management Relations Act States. their wages be increased. (a) Congress could have made the Labor Management Relations Act The judgments were based on a common-law theory that the picketing was applicable to wage disputes arising on foreign vessels between nationals of for an unlawful purpose under Oregon law. The parties point to nothing in the Act itself or its legislative history that whether on board. and to complete an insurance Wildenhus's Case. The ship had not returned to an American port at the BENZ v. the United States. to situations with as many points their work or they would be discharged. another country subjects itself to the laws and jurisdiction of that country. Indeed the District Court found to the On or about September 9. 138. 1952. 138." The demanded that their term of service be reduced." The Court of Appeals (c) An intent on the part of Congress to change the contractual agreement thought that United Construction Workers v. It should be noted at the outset that the dispute from which these actions While the petitioners in this diversity case present several questions. 1952. until with [353 U. 262 U. We decide that it does not. It was owned by respondent. well be that American laws should not be construed to apply. U. or on shore. and sailed mandatory but discretionary. The crew had under foreign laws. for repairs. damages against the three unions as well as their principal representatives. 1952. at 65. representative.2d 944. L.S. COMPANIA NAVIERA HIDALGO. in boats. and not to lose representatives in the second action for injunction and damages filed by that character when in navigable waters within the territorial limits of respondent and consolidated here. The crew further agreed to obey all lawful commands of the Master of the Riviera in regard to the ship. Cunard S.2d. 144] industrial strife between American employers . It is beyond question that a ship voluntarily entering the territorial limits of The S. the local sovereign may exert only limited jurisdiction and countries other than the United States. until they withdrew the picket line on RULES October 13. September 26. or until the vessel returned to a European port. Mellon. All of the picketing was peaceful. The conditions other countries when the vessel comes within our territorial waters.S. recovery against the unions since they were unincorporated [353 U. It was between a foreign employer and a sole one decided is whether the Labor Management Relations Act of foreign crew operating under an agreement made abroad under the laws of 1947 1 applies to a [353 U. 138.S. v. With him on the brief was jurisdiction posed. 5 The whole background of the Act is concerned picketed the vessel from September 9. 2d 94. left the judgments Kneland C. S. Germany. On December 10. when the strike began. This picketing was stopped by a writ issued against that union and its part of the territory of that sovereignty (whose flag it flies). W. here. 352 U. The Master told the crew to continue National Labor Relations Act. should be left by the an injunction [353 U. Riviera on September 3.. board the vessel and refused to obey the orders of the Master. and Norris American workers between American concerns and their employees in Grain Co. jurisdiction of personnel of a merchant ship). 100 (1923). they had HOLDING designated the Sailors' Union of the Pacific as their collective bargaining Danish Law should apply. principally German and British. nor does it cover a dispute are inapposite to the question for decision here. The court further The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 does not apply to a found that as a result of the picketing the employees of the firms repairing controversy involving damages resulting from the picketing of a foreign ship and loading the vessel refused to cross the picket line and the ship was operated entirely by foreign seamen under foreign articles while the vessel forced to stand idly by without repairs or cargo. the sprang arose on a foreign vessel. though American unions to which the respondent. all of which were coverage of the Act. 141] and damages. discharged them and ordered them to leave the ship. it and its principal representatives by the respondent.Each state under international law may determine for itself Riviera on October 14 and continued to do so until restrained by an the conditions on which it will grant its nationality to a merchant ship. At the trial the court found that the purpose of the picketing "was to compel the [respondent] to re-employ" the striking members of the crew for a shorter term and at more favorable wage rates Argued: March 6. as amended.S. 4 This. which the vessel belongs as the laws of that nation or the interests of its commerce requires. However. It had agreed to serve on a voyage originating at Bremen. because that Act "is concerned solely with the labor relations of (b) The cases of Sailors' Union of the Pacific. The exercise of that jurisdiction is not survey. another picket another sovereignty. affirmed.S. in effect. and it is not intended to. The crew was made up entirely of nationals of reasons. 1957 and conditions than those agreed upon in the articles. because it is deemed to be a 1952. (1957) time of trial in 1954. 142] associations. demanding their back pay and transportation or more explicit Congressional indication than we are able to find in the its cost to their ports of engagement. without some 140] They refused to work. It was maintained this time by the Atlantic -All matters of discipline and all things done on board which affected and Gulf Coast District. They sometimes none at all. Mosser argued the cause for respondent.2d 62. The prescribed by the British Maritime Board were incorporated into the question here therefore narrows to one of intent of the Congress as to the agreement. The cases were returned to the District Court for trial on the damage claims. 1952. 138.S. MR. S. 138-147. to load a cargo of wheat. The unions and their representatives contended that the trial foreign seamen did not belong participated in the picketing. 233 F. 547. the members of the crew went on strike on contrary. Tanner argued the cause for petitioners. 1957 Decided: April 8. 656 (1954). R. 120 U. 2 [353 U. This situation continued until September 26. The Sailors' Union of the Pacific began picketing the Law of the Flag. 1952. 92 N. Carney. which they refused to do. indicates in any way that the Congress intended to bring such disputes within the coverage of the Act. Mates and Pilots of America set -Law of the flag supersedes the territorial principle (even for criminal up a picket line at the Riviera which was maintained until December 8. I. S. The only American connection was that the controversy resulting from the picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign erupted while the ship was transiently in a United States port and seamen under foreign articles while the vessel is temporarily in an American American labor unions participated in its picketing. 138. and do not involve the peace in a third action filed by the respondent in which the prayer likewise was for or dignity of the country or the port’s tranquility. Two days later Local -Nationality is evidenced to the world by the ship’s papers and its flag. when the striking Our study of the Act leaves us convinced that Congress did not fashion it to crewmen left the vessel pursuant to an order of the United States District resolve labor disputes between nationals of other countries operating ships Court entered in a possessory libel filed by the respondent. 1 (1887). B. 142-147. 3 until it too was enjoined on December 12 only the vessel or those belonging to it. noted that "It may and more favorable conditions of employment be granted. 5. The striking crew or others acting for them continued the picketing from September 26. In June 1953. when they left the ship.S. Tatum. 91.. 205 F. Often. 233 F. 138. governed. had pre-empted the field. They 143] "cover a dispute between a foreign ship and its foreign crew. 139] controversy involving damages another nation. injunction issued in an action for injunctive relief and damages filed against thereby accepting responsibility for it and acquiring authority over it. 1952.S. it could have made the Act period of two years. line was established at the vessel.

245. recover one-half the wages could not be enforced in face of a contractual obligation to the contrary. holidays. and sets up wage scales. 1915. 107 maritime [372 U.C. S. 343 (1961). Manchester were illegal and void. at it petitioned for a writ of certiorari (No. Jackson v. We.S. We cannot read into the Labor United Fruit. conclude that any such appeal should be directed II. as the representative of the unlicensed seamen 41 Stat. at 470. See also Neilson v... R. 463 . terms and condition of employment. cargoes and sailings. United Fruit maintains a fleet of cargo vessels which it utilizes in this trade." Id. 484. The section was made applicable to "seamen employed upon certain Honduran-flag vessels owned by Empresa on foreign vessels while in harbors of the United States. opinion. allowances. accident prevention. sugar." Id. Rhine Shipping Co. . 61 Stat. at 355. 38 Stat. had intervened in the proceeding. In 1920 Congress amended 4 of the Seamen's Act of 1915. are controlled by a bargaining agreement between Empresa provisions of the statute. 46 U. 7 The seamen agreed in Germany to work on the foreign ship under British articles.C. M. renewing the ship's articles. the Netherlands. 348 (1920). we think it plain the proof was that United Fruit is owned by citizens of the United States and that it manifests the purpose of Congress to place American and foreign maintains its principal office at Boston." The report declares further that because of the of its flag. but the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the requested relief. fulfills neither requirement.. The Court pointed out: stock and elects its directors. It alone has the intervals at Honduran ports for the purpose of taking on and discharging facilities necessary to make fairly such an important policy decision where cargo and. Congress." Ibid. While 138. as amended.S. The crews on these In 1928. A. Chairman Hartley. Rep. Supp. The question arising is whether the Act extends to the crews inadequacies of legislation "the American workingman has been deprived of engaged in such a maritime operation. 13] would have stated that intention. M. The Court of Appeals for The problem presented is not a new one to the Congress. The Court added that "such We have concluded that the jurisdictional provisions of the Act do not extend sweeping and important requirement is not found specifically made in the to maritime operations of foreign-flag ships employing alien seamen. 91). the vessels each call at regular affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed. The Board MR. 205 (1918). We granted each law sanctioned such contract and payment. determines the ports of call of the vessels. Before the amendment . etc. the right to sold in the United States. 93). to the Congress rather than the courts. their Management Relations Act an intent to change the contractual [353 U. The National Labor Relations Board his dignity as an individual. 107. Further. and their wages. Archimedes. It appears not to United States beneficially owns seagoing vessels which make regular have even occurred to those sponsoring the bill. holding the election. holding that the Act did not apply to the Act of March 4. Germany. Denmark. McDonald. The Sess." Id.S. In the Seamen's the Second Circuit reversed. L. and Canada all agreement in addition to recognition of Sociedad provides for a union shop. this Court construed the Act as not covering advancements on application of the foreign bargaining agent of the vessels' crewmen. stated that "the bill herewith reported owned by a foreign subsidiary of the American corporation. 151 et seq.S. S.S. 82. and granted to The National Maritime Union of America.S. seamen before leaving [353 U. 80th Cong.S. 185 (1918). 915 . Italy. 136. This Court had pointed out in Under the Honduran Labor Code only a union whose "juridic personality" is the Sandberg case [supra] that such a sweeping provision was not recognized by Honduras and which is composed of at least 90% of specifically made in the statute .S. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras. 73 Stat.S. held that Empresa was engaged in "commerce" within the meaning of 2 (6) of the Act and that the maritime operations "affected commerce" within 2 . 10.'s petition. and the courts of Hondurena de Vapores." Id. as did the Regional Director (No. . Soon thereafter several Honduran citizens can represent the seamen on Honduran-registered ships. In turn "taking the provisions of the act as the same are written." the Court said. 6 In each instance the bills with a no-strike-or-lockout provision. B. 46 U. where necessary. . I. 597.C.) H. by Empresa and time chartered to United Fruit. U. a New Jersey corporation which was Court in Strathearn Steamship Co. vacation time. history that indicates in the least that Congress intended the coverage of the 29 U.S. A storm of diplomatic protest resulted." and that it is the purpose of the bill to correct in a representation proceeding on the application of the National Maritime these inadequacies..S. . with equal opportunity to resort to the courts of the United other tropical produce raised in Central and South American countries and States for the enforcement of the act. U. 15] operations involved substantial United States contacts. 1164. M. specified in the Act.S. (1963) Steamship Co. Had Congress [353 U. Supp. 10. joined in vigorously denouncing the proposals. and consolidated the 138. The N. carries a foreign crew and has other contacts with the nation for their employers. gathering. 287. special died in Congress. Affirmed. For us to run interference in the voyages are for the most part between Central and South American such a delicate field of international relations there must be present the ports and those of the United States. 599 (e). Meanwhile. 1st Union held that it does and ordered an election. L. The Report made to the sailings between United States. The current Sweden.. filed a petition in 1959 every seaman on a vessel of the United States the right to demand one-half with the National Labor Relations Board seeking certification under 9 (c) of of his then earned wages at every port the vessel entered during a voyage. cacao and concerned. integrating the same into its fleet organization. SOCIEDAD NACIONAL. 1006. The Board concluded from these facts that United Fruit operated a single.. Norway.and employees. question the coverage of been called to our attention from the thousands of pages of legislative the National Labor Relations Act. amended the act so as to permit the recovery upon the conditions named in A portion of the fleet consists of 13 Honduran-registered vessels operated the statute. of the three petitions for certiorari. the possibilities of international discord are so evident and retaliative action so certain. (Emphasis added. the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. which vessels were included in National Maritime Union's representation proceeding. though no officer or director of Empresa is an officer or director of United Fruit and all are residents of Honduras. The crew are required to sign Honduran New York and return. 147] provisions made by these parties. 138. a Honduran corporation. it concluded that the No. A corporation organized and doing business in the Act to extend to circumstances such as those posed here. .C. the Congress declared it unlawful to maritime operations here and thus the Board had no power to direct the pay a seaman wages in advance and specifically declared the prohibition election. as amended. It was contended that the advances made in shipping articles. 146] Manchester on her voyage to 14] residence and home port.S. Great Britain. . 201 F. No. 159 (c). involving the same facts. 4. 1 [372 U. In Sandberg v. 200 F. S.. statute. each of the vessels is legally coauthor of the bill. is plain. 252 U. "to advance payments made by and a Honduran union. and other details of employment as And so here such a "sweeping provision" as to foreign applicability was not well. It involved advance payments made by a British vessel to foreign (save one Jamaican) and claim that country as their [372 U. That there was "no intention to extend the discipline. . 130 N. exclusively with it on all matters covered by the contract. 300 F. outweighing the numerous foreign contacts present. at 195. v. under Honduran law Seamen's Act so as to prohibit advancements made by foreign vessels in recognition of Sociedad as the bargaining agent compels Empresa to deal foreign ports. reasoning that United Fruit was a joint employer with Empresa of the seamen covered by N. 541. 248 U.2d 222. Its business was shown to be the seamen on an equality of right in so far as the privileges of this section are cultivation. for reasons which it deemed sufficient. Empresa the applicability of the section to a British seaman on a British vessel under intervened and on hearing it was shown that United Fruit owns all of its British articles. was decided by this vessels are recruited by Empresa in Honduras. maintenance and cure provisions. 370 U. Latin American and other ports transporting House by its Committee on Education and Labor and presented by the the corporation's products and other supplies. therefore. transporting and sale of bananas. integrated maritime operation within which were the Empresa vessels. . What was said inescapably describes the boundaries of the Act as vessels' foreign owner sought to enjoin the Board's Regional Director from including only the workingmen of our own country and its possessions. flies the flag of a has been formulated as a bill of rights both for American workingmen and foreign nation. 248 U." This filed against United Fruit Company..S. no discussion in either House of Congress has These companion cases. R. not leaving such an important regulation to be gathered from implication. foreign vessels while in foreign ports.S. 134 N. B. 10. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. AFL-CIO. the Act. proposals were made in Congress designed to extend the coverage of the The N. R. U. 1169. 145] intended to make void such contracts and payments a few words cases for argument. Citing its own West India Fruit & McCULLOCH v. upheld alleged to be the owner of the majority of Empresa's stock. In fact. however. overtime. hours of work. The petition was the United States shall be open to such seamen for its enforcement. and applicable to foreign vessels "while in waters of the United States. They are Honduran citizens Court. "when the contract and payment were made in a foreign country where the enjoined the Board members in No. 29 U. Dillon. 275 U.

the to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains . at least while they are in American waters." 353 U. namely. that the Board members were indispensable parties to the presume the validity of the "balancing of contacts" theory of the Board. not to imply. is prohibited from representing the seamen on Compania Naviera Hidalgo. therefore. Where the balancing of the vessel's contacts Since neither we nor the parties are able to find any such clear expression. 237. The only the workingmen of our own country and its possessions. 107. Colombos." 353 U.No.questions of such international import would the parties and the amici curiae. In Nos. That order has the effect of relations as well. Compania Naviera Hidalgo.S. 29 U. we conclude here that the arguments foreign articles while the vessel [was] temporarily in an American port. here there is a fleet of vessels not temporarily in United 107. Chief Justice Marshall in The Charming Betsy. Cf. since the disposition of Act as written was intended to have any application to foreign those cases is controlled by our decision in No. 29 U. merely because no challenge was made including foreign-flag vessels within its coverage. Larsen. 21] but also by the their international complexion is a uniquely compelling justification for Congress. 91 and 93. 91 and 93 . or limitation of the power of Congress" in this field. to indirect review as part of a petition for ships is in turn owned by an American corporation. registered vessels employing alien seamen. regulate the jurisdiction of courts" differs from the application of the Taft- Hartley Act "to regulate the conduct of people engaged in labor disputes. as in West India Fruit & Steamship Co. however. Six years ago this Court considered the question of the application of the 578 (1953)." Id. at 12. . This obviates our passing on the The question. It therefore ordered question as to "whether the picketing . 69 Yale L. we do not reach the other questions raised by highly unlikely circumstance . the foreign owner of the 9 (d) of the Act. was tortious under state or federal an election to be held among the seamen signed on Empresa's vessels to law" was either presented or decided. second. therefore. JUSTICE GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of cannot be regarded as limiting the earlier Benz holding.S. 17] the translate such thoughts into describing the boundaries of the Act as representation of foreign seamen aboard vessels under foreign flags has including foreign-flag vessels manned by alien crews. Co.No. question whether Congress exercised that power..a being dispositive of the case.S.(7). Sociedad.S. Maurer. 571. That test led the Board to conclude exercise of local sovereignty under such conditions in this "delicate field of here. In that case judicial intervention was permitted since the characterizing the Act as "a bill of rights both for American Board's order was "in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a workingmen and for their employers. 244 (1934). two respects.S. at 144. at 144. Benz v. we go directly to the Honduran-flag ships even in the absence of a recognized bargaining agent. Our decision on this point Thus even though Sociedad withdrew from such an intramural labor fight . M. That case MR. 22] be present the ships' activities affected "commerce" and brought [372 U. our attention is called to the well-established rule prompt judicial resolution of the controversy over the Board's power.S.S.and Sociedad in the[372 It is contended that this case is nonetheless distinguishable from Benz in U. a purely domestic adversary situation. The challenge based upon 9 (d) was not raised or adjudicated in to follow such a suggested procedure to the ultimate might require that the Sociedad's action against the Board members . . Benz v. both Empresa and Sociedad brought suits in Federal Ibid. We note that both of enforcement or review of an order entered under 10 (c). enforcement of Board orders would project the canceling Sociedad's bargaining agreement with Empresa's seamen. a head-on collision with N.Nos. Taft-Hartley amendments to the Act in a suit for damages "resulting from the which "alone has the facilities necessary to make fairly such an important picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen under policy decision. U. deprived District Court for dismissal of the complaint in light of our decision in No. We are not of course precluded from reexamining the jurisdiction of the Petitioners say that the language of the Act may be read literally as District Court in Sociedad's action. 91 and 93 the jurisdiction of the District Court was challenged States waters but operating in a regular course of trade between foreign on two grounds: first. appears to us more basic. not apply. whether the jurisdictional questions raised in Nos. 107. that the foreign-flag international relations there must [372 U. 353 U. Having have been unable to point to any specific language in the Act itself or examined the question whether the District Court had jurisdiction at the in its extensive legislative history that reflects such a congressional instance of Sociedad to enjoin the Board's order. that "an act of congress ought never to be construed application of the National Labor Relations Act and its amendments. Lauritzen v. we held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Sociedad is not a calling at American ports. J. as we did in Benz. that for us to sanction the compared with its American contacts. No. these points rely on additional American contacts and therefore necessarily and. meeting the jurisdictional requirement of 9 (c) (1). at 147. of international discord cannot therefore be gainsaid. which was internal affairs of a ship. they by the parties. 10. Important interests of the and apply its laws to the internal management and affairs of the vessels immediate parties are of course at stake. 1. Lauritzen v.. The presence of such highly charged international circumstances brings to The question of application of the laws of the United States to foreign-flag mind the admonition of Mr. Indeed. 20] we pointed to the language of Chairman Hartley 184 (1958). second. and we have chosen it as the embarrassment in foreign affairs and be entirely infeasible in actual practice. 91 and 93 is vacated and the Subsequently. a Federal District Court of jurisdiction to enjoin picketing of a foreign-flag 107." Id.. since courts into application of the sanctions of the Act to foreign-flag ships on a Sociedad is not on the ballot called for by the Board. 29 U. and. see Comment. judgment of the Court of Appeals in Nos..is felt by it. at 593. . But action. 10. 498. ed. In addition." should be directed to the Congress rather than to us. supra.S.C. . "any impairment of our own sovereignty..S.S. searching the language and the legislative history and concluding that the latter "inescapably describes the boundaries of the Act as including The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed in No. where [372 falls within the limited exception fashioned in Leedom v. The Exchange. But the presence of public here flying the Honduran flag. Especially is this true on account of the concurrent application of the Act and the Honduran Labor III. the overriding consideration is that the conceived of the application now sought by the Board they failed to Board's assertion of power to determine [372 U. 107. U. M.S. We continue to specific prohibition in the Act. 358 U.S. since no these cases. 118 (1804).S. with instructions that it remand to the 365 (1960). . 345 U. 11 (1887). District Courts to prevent the election. the Court specifically determine whether they wished N. The exception recognized today is The International Law of the Sea (3d rev. Sindicato Maritimo Nacional de noted that the application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act "to curtail and Honduras. has resulted in a contrary finding. First. at 139. 523-525 (1960). 101. No of international law that the law of the flag state ordinarily governs the question of remotely comparable urgency was involved in Kyne. 362 U. 138. Such activity would raise considerable party in Nos. Wildenhus's Case. 18] them affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed. Kyne.S. 143 (1812). But.C. the injunction it did under the circumstances shown.S. supra. 16] District of Columbia against the members of the Board . currently Since the parties all agree that the Congress has constitutional power to the exclusive bargaining agent of Empresa under Honduran law. at 372. S. contrary to the recognition long afforded them questions particularly high in the scale of our national interest because of not only by our State Department [372 U. We held that the Act did Larsen. 160 (c). Mitchell v.S. 107 . 1954). 10. we hold that the action intent. While here the Board has violated believe that if the sponsors of the original Act or of its amendments no specific prohibition in the Act.. although the impact of the Board order .C. . the opposite is true as we found in Benz. at 188. 120 U." As we have indicated.S.the same disturbance not only in the field of maritime law but in our international order challenged in No. Ibid. 10. Empresa proceeding in New York against the Regional Director . Code that would result with our approval of jurisdiction. Therefore. supra. within the coverage of the Act. 107 .. U. M. in Marine Cooks & Stewards v. as in Benz. As to the Cranch 64. 7 agent under the Act. however.S. would have apply the National Labor Relations Act to the crews working foreign. 91 and 93. ship. Honduran law N. 159 (d). purely ad hoc weighing of contacts basis. 142 (1957). This would be aggravated by the fact that under Cranch 116.. See Wildenhus's Case. 293 U. 2 ships and their crews has arisen often and in various contexts. 10. 10. In fact.. This would inevitably lead to presents the question in better perspective. that review of representation proceedings is limited by ports and those of the United States." 353 U. vehicle for our adjudication on the merits. the Board has concluded that the Act we hold that the Board was without jurisdiction to order the election." Id.and the Board inquire into the internal discipline and order of all foreign vessels indispensable-parties challenge is of course not an issue. cases are remanded to that court. at 147. supra. should it become the exclusive bargaining flag ships. we find no aroused vigorous protests from foreign governments and created basis for a construction which would exert United States jurisdiction over international problems for our Government. Panama S.. U. This is does not apply. Indeed. or no union to represent them. The possibility therefore not to be taken as an enlargement of the exception in Kyne." Board has evolved a test relying on the relative weight of a ship's foreign as We therefore conclude. specifically limiting the holding to the jurisdiction of the court "to issue It is so ordered. remain as to invite retaliatory action from other nations as well as Honduras. just as we directed the parties in Benz to the Congress. 222-223. In addition.

In the absence of any controlling treaty provision. of the Congo river. I. 150 U. United States v. Jurisdiction. S. and § 238 of the Judicial Code. interpreted in the light of recognized principles of included in this grant of power remained with the states. 234. 289 U. § 682. 289 U. see States while on the high seas. . by § 41 of the Judicial Code. specifically granting to without jurisdiction to try the offense charged. § 2. S. is broad enough to include crimes in the territorial punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas. has made its exercise of the power power shall extend "to all cases of admiralty and maritime coextensive with the grant. S. following its earlier decision in United States ex rel." that provision must be regarded as a 7. The clause of the Constitution. a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. being States the system of admiralty and maritime law as it had been developed attached to the shore by cables at a point 250 miles inland from the mouth in the admiralty courts of England and the Colonies. murdered another A proposal independently made and considered in the Convention that "the citizen of the United States upon the Steamship Padnsay. foreign vessel in territorial waters is concurrent in the territorial sovereign what captures on land or water shall be legal. A merchant ship.2d 518. § 2. committed on vessels of the United on board a vessel lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of a state. Art.C. was transferred to the National Government. granted were in substance the same as those later conferred on the national government by Article I. as amended by provision of Art. P. Co. . them while in foreign territorial waters. on board any vessel The court below thought. 18 U. S. or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any government powers which were common attributes of sovereignty before particular state or district" is "in the district where the offender is found. 28 U. which section was adopted to carry out a resolution of the Convention "that the charged the appellee. rather than supplementing. 21 F. at the time of the offense charged. The powers thus international law. as appellee argues. while at anchor in the Port of Matadi. that as § 8 of Art. Section 272 of the Criminal Code. By indictment found in the District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania.S.Supp. crimes committed on vessels of the United States while in navigable waters within the territorial jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns. The District Court. 289 U. Mathues.C. This Appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment. and that appellee. venue to try offenses purpose of their enactment. 28 U. whether the extension of the judicial power of the federal government "to all cases of admiralty and 5. S. 149 249. resorted to as extending either the legislative or judicial power over offenses committed on vessels outside the territorial limits of the United States and 9. subject to well recognized limitations not here material. and. 264 U. it is the duty of the courts of the United States to apply to offenses committed by its citizens on vessels flying So much of the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as was not its flag. it was conceded. 18 U. ." and the general Stat. shall have the sole and 10. and within that of a foreign sovereignty. other would be to ignore their history. as the specific grant of power to punish offenses outside the territorial limits of the United States was thus restricted to 8. III. 265. Section 272. the court below rested its decision." by Art. 1925. 27 F. was unloading. The jurisdiction is not affected by the fact that the vessel is on a river at a maritime Jurisdiction. Article IX of the Articles of Confederation provided that "the United States in Congress assembled. and crimes of every grade committed on Wynne v. and waters of foreign sovereignties. or the adoption of the Constitution. 454. . the more general grant could not be be given extraterritorial effect is inapplicable to our merchant vessels. 289 U. independently taken in the Convention.S. an American admiralty jurisdiction ought to be given wholly to the national government" vessel. 3 F. a citizen of the United States. extending the judicial power "to all cases of Act of February 13. The case Congress the power "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed comes here by direct appeal under the Act of March 2. § 102. 217 U. to deny to both the states and the national "committed upon the high seas. and. that the judicial constitutional grant of power. . 264 U. S. . of less gravity than felonies. sovereignty whose flag it flies to punish crimes committed upon it. second. either legislative or judicial. III. qualify. P. 289 U. makes punishable offenses defined by the grant of power to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high other sections of the Criminal Code. by incorporating in the statute the very language of the limitation on the general provision of § 2 of Art. 137 (1933) v. or supplement it as experience or changing conditions may require. jurisdiction in admiralty and character when in navigable waters within the territorial limits of another maritime cases was distributed between the Confederation and the sovereignty. to alter. define murder and fix its punishment." jurisdiction by the territorial sovereign. in the Belgian Congo. Philadelphia. The general rule that criminal statutes of the United States are not to offenses occurring on the high seas. 1907. an American citizen. 18 U. P. the belonging in whole or in part to the United States" or any of its nationals. P. 289 U. "when committed within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state." that.S. S. 289 U. under which the indictment was found." Its primary purpose and effect was to transfer to the newly organized government the powers in a admiralty MR. previously divided between the Confederation and the States." As the offense charged here was committed crimes. 289 U." and "to make rules concerning captures on land and water. P. and. 155 Offences against the Law of Nations. the court below was without jurisdiction to try and punish the offense unless it was within the 4. 155 individual states. v. by which the jurisdiction in admiralty. Panama R. aff'd. the jurisdiction to punish crimes committed on a exclusive right and power . United States was extended to all cases of admiralty and maritime after the commission of the crime.2d 533. that This section has been consistently interpreted as adopting for the United the Padnsay.. III. For some purposes. decision was founded upon its construction of § 272 of the Criminal Code. By stipulation. 375. § 8.C. trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of 11. Sections 273 and 275 of the Criminal Code. S. § 2. including the power to define and punish into which he is first brought. etc. matters previously vested in the Confederation. the court below certifying that its admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.C.S. § 345. was first brought into the Port of jurisdiction. its own statutes. and offenses against the law of nations. of the Federal Constitution. Maro US v. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. of the Constitution confers on place remote from the sea where the water is not salt or tidal. 2564. upon the construction of which 2. United States. by implication. conferring on Congress the power. Two questions are presented on this appeal: first. 6. and not to lose that Before the adoption of the Constitution. I of the belonging in whole or in part to the United States" Constitution specifically granted to Congress the power "to define and or any of its citizens. S. making murder and other offenses whether Congress has exercised that power by the enactment of § 272 of punishable the Criminal Code. by which the judicial power of the subject to the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Belgium. as though stated in a bill of particulars. appointing courts for the and the sovereign of the vessel's flag. Congress. 34 on the high seas. §§ 452. In view of the history of the two clauses and the manner of their adoption. of establishing rules for deciding in all cases." are the results of separate steps. "when committed within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state on board any vessel 3. a place resulted in the adoption of Article III. c. 159. . among other cases. . 134. § 8. Pp. 1264.S. it was charged that appellee. S.S. Johnson. Congress power to define and punish offenses perpetrated by a citizen of 153 the United States on board one of its merchant vessels lying in navigable waters within the territorial limits of another sovereignty. sustained a demurrer to the indictment and discharged the prisoner on the ground that the court was 1.C. is deemed to be a part of the territory of that sovereignty. for purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts of the not on the high seas. 150 U. conferred on the National Government by Art. . 157. and of any assertion of captures. To construe the one clause as limiting. 145. Flores. § 451. without effecting any discernible And. The jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases extends to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. § 2. Rodgers. seas cannot be deemed to be a limitation on the powers. S. Congress by the Confederation. with having murdered another national legislature ought to possess the legislative rights vested in American citizen aboard an American ship in foreign territorial waters. III.

22. As was pointed out by Mr. and in the other There is not entire agreement among nations or the writers on because the offense. conferred on the national government by On this point also. 1. may arise when Boston Harbor. The Act of report on these sections by the Special Joint Committee on the Revision of April 30. as was one charged with manslaughter jurisdiction over an offense committed on a foreign vessel is asserted by the committed on a vessel on a Chinese River in United States v. in which it was murder committed "upon the high seas. 781. supra. 1st Sess. and the statute cannot rightly be lost in the process of transfer. p. The position of the United States exemplified punishment of any person committing murder "upon the high seas. Boit. supra. Jemot. Queen v. 21 Stat. It was held that they were. for purposes of the jurisdiction of the courts of the sovereignty extends to the punishment of crimes committed on vessels of the United whose flag it flies to punish crimes committed upon it. on the ground that Article XI of the Convention between exercise of the power of Congress to define and punish offenses occurring Belgium and the United States of March 9. The criminal jurisdiction of the United States is wholly statutory. the Belgian Consul sought release on assault with a dangerous weapon committed under similar circumstances. to vessel outside the jurisdiction of a state "within the admiralty and deny to both the states and the national government powers which maritime jurisdiction of the United States" is broad enough to include were common attributes of sovereignty before the adoption of the crimes in the territorial waters of a foreign sovereignty. or in any river. and "all cases offender in the district where he might be apprehended or "into which he arising on board such vessels while on any such waters. 438. c. But the judgments were based not upon a want of power in since. even though Congress has power to define and surprising result. was discharged.C. Lane. Bevan. analogous to that exercised by English courts of admiralty. In that case. Queen v. quoted with ports and rivers within the territorial jurisdiction of foreign approval in United States v. 927. 280 F. for the reason that the place of the offense was not out of the jurisdiction of a state. Jemot. and his conviction was sustained by this belonging to the crew. c. 115. Rex v. were upheld in United States v.. It said. since the criminal jurisdiction of the United States is devoted to the redistribution of governmental powers. gave in American vessels while within territorial waters of another sovereignty. part 1. 153. and one plainly not anticipated by the framers or justified punish crimes on American vessels in foreign waters. and other continental countries.120 U. where it does not affirmatively appear that the water is salt or tidal. if part of them were based upon the territorial principle. and criminal statutes of the United felonies on the high seas operated to curtail the legislative or judicial power States are not by implication given an extraterritorial effect. 4th ed. who was held in a New Jersey jail The provisions of the latter section. committed on them while in foreign territorial waters. 1 Stat. 10. disturbing the peace of the port. and the power civilized nations that all matters of discipline and all things done on board which affected only the vessel or those belonging to her. compare Thomas v. This qualification of the territorial principle held that jurisdiction is not restricted to vessels within the navigable in the case of vessels of the flag was urged by Mr. or in any in Wildenhus' Case. Wheat. S. Allen. Belgium. and .." Section 12 of this Act dealt with manslaughter. was transferred to the national government. For Congress. Justice Story in the a part of the territory of that sovereignty. 264-265. 9. international law. for there Article III. 1 Crown cases Reserved 161. statute making it applicable to offenses committed on an American and without effecting any discernible purpose of their enactment.S. Congress has also asserted the jurisdiction of a state. but within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. international law as to which sovereignty should yield to the other when the jurisdiction is asserted by both. 1842. provided for the punishment of the Laws. Rex v. 1790. provided for the Territorial Waters. by which the jurisdiction in nontidal fresh water. 4 Stat. was not committed on the high seas. If the crimes committed on vessels of the United States while on the high seas or meaning of the statute were doubtful. by comity. 285 U. and without intermission. 65. we cannot say that the language of the waters of the United States. It was assumed that the statute was applicable only with respect to to the crime of murder. offences by fine and imprisonment. Carr & Wilson. was expressly affirmed. 386-388. 150 U. The two clauses are the result of separate steps the offense committed within a foreign territorial jurisdiction was upon independently taken in the Convention. S. has made its exercise of the power coextensive with the of the United States while on the high seas and crimes of every grade grant. 1880. Rodgers. has exercised a very extensive criminal jurisdiction. is controlling.Cas. to punish jurisdiction of the United States. 16 U. previously divided between the Confederation and the states. the prisoner. supra. 60th Congress. that the statute did not apply. and not to lose that character course of an elaborate review of the history of admiralty jurisdiction in De when in navigable waters within the territorial limits of another Lovio v. But the language of the rather than supplementing. consular officers of the sovereignty of the vessel sole cognizance of Rodgers had been convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon. at least in the case of arm of the sea. See Jessup. within the major crimes affecting the peace and tranquillity of the port. in his letter to Lord Ashburton of August 1. 39. Anderson. interpreted to be a departure from that principle. 336. Compare 71 U. supra. pointed out that the jurisdiction extends to vessels of the United States out of the jurisdiction of any particular state. are clearly cases may first be brought. see The of Congress to punish offenses committed on an American vessel within the Oconee. Rodgers. but it has never been doubted that the grant of admiralty and maritime In view of the wide recognition of this principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction jurisdiction to the federal government includes the legislative power to over crimes committed on merchant vessels and its explicit adoption define and punish crimes committed upon vessels lying in navigable in United States v. Webster while Secretary waters of the realm. United States v. manslaughter. 113. 3 Wheat. supra. in United States v. Carr & Wilson. we come to the question principally argued. The result would be to deny to both the power to define by incorporating in the statute the very language of the constitutional grant and punish crimes of less gravity than felonies committed on vessels of power. charged with murder on a warship in A related but different question. in Congress to define and punish the crimes charged. § 8. Rodgers. see Rex v. supra. 1 Russell on Crimes. it came to be generally understood among within the meaning of the statute. 3 Wheat. Bevans. not presented here. p. 76. 7 Fed. supra. it has been supported by writers on 494. 555. 1. § 2. Rex v. and upheld the jurisdiction of the local court as offenses committed on the high seas and waters tributary to them. the jurisdiction may be regarded as concurrent. It is true that the criminal jurisdiction of the United States is in general As we cannot say that the specific grant of power to define and punish based on the territorial principle. habeas corpus of Wildenhus. creek. 10 Q. Rodgers.D. basin or bay. S. 112. S. the sea. It is true that. United States v.B. principle has never been thought to be applicable to a merchant vessel whether the jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases which it gave which. United States v." only when committed upon the high seas. but follows its ships upon the high seas and into of state. is deemed to be States while in foreign waters. the Law of The Act of March 3. Constitution. the doubt would be resolved by the on navigable waters not within the territorial jurisdiction of a state. 2 antiquity. basin or bay. Benson. the grant of power to define and punish piracies and felonies affected by the fact that she was then at a point on the Congo remote from on the high seas cannot be deemed to be a limitation on the powers. 336. 1 Moody C. 1825. and has been recognized by France. for some purposes. S. territorial waters of Canada. S. S. in the one case. the other would be to ignore their history. L." The English courts have consistently Allen. The court construed the Convention as inapplicable Court. either legislative or judicial.R. admiralty." was not intended to give effect to it. Queen v. No. To construe the one clause as limiting. As the offense charged here appears to have been committed on an In view of the history of the two clauses and the manner of their American vessel while discharging cargo in port. 418. 4 Wall. and the conforming to the principles of international law. 3. admiralty "from the highest sovereignty. "when committed within the admiralty and maritime power. 5 sovereignty in whose waters it was lying at the time of its commission. the jurisdiction is not adoption. Wiltberger. haven. but upon the ground that the courts of either sovereignty may try the offense. 389. § 4. 12: decision turned on whether the Great Lakes were to be deemed "high seas" "And so. and punished Sumn. 144-193. the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction asserted by the sovereignty of the port must prevail over jurisdiction of any particular state. Rodgers. From the very organization of the present statute punishing offenses on United States vessels out of the government. the right of the territorial sovereignty to assert jurisdiction over offenses Anderson. Rep. as well as by England and the United States. § 2. 10. it has not done so by by principles which ought to govern the interpretation of a Constitution the present statute. haven. carried into § 5346 of the Revised on a charge of homicide committed on a Belgian vessel lying in New Jersey Statutes." and provided for the trial of the when on navigable waters within the limits of a foreign state. offenses on board ship. But that conferred by Article III. a seaman." and § 22 provided for the punishment of that of the vessel. Trevor. has been that. supra.776. Crowell v. 76. tributary to the Lakes. 120 U. Queen v. or in any river. as a constitutional waters. It would be a The appellee insists that. 285 U. supra. except those of a nature to disturb the committed on a vessel of the United States lying in the Detroit River within tranquillity and public order on shore and those involving a person not the territorial jurisdiction of Canada. Subject to sovereigns.

this court held that: Although the mere possession of an article of prohibited use in the Philippine Islands.. note 105. a public vessel is NOT triable by our courts There are two fundamental rules on this particular matter in connection with Laws Applicable: Art. there was also 4 cans of opium found on the part of the ship prevailing in the United States on this matter are authority in the Philippines where the firemen habitually sleep which is now a territory of the United States. . the indictment here sufficiently charges an The demurrer alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court. M'Faddon and Others (7 amounts of opium. if G. 255. The principle which governs the whole matter is this: Disorder which Philippine soil. whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands. 1910 The point at issue is whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime. Opium Law International Law. No. Latour. aboard the merchant the territorial sovereign. Of this two rules. and Ø Look Chaw admitted that he had bought these sacks of opium. La Mer Ter. . the French rule. So applied. and would subject the o unlawful possession of opium laws to continual infraction.) The ship and her crew were then subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign subject to such HELD: YES.]. supra. . Le Droit Int. Bull (15 Phil. to wit. Ø The court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction. as his hold had already been searched several times for In United States vs. L-5887 DECEMBER 16. Hence in United States vs. but when she came within three miles of a line drawn from the additional subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvencyxxx It further headlands. which so held and dismissed the case. § the firemen and crew of foreign vessels. sustaining the demurrer presented by the where the local sovereign has not asserted its jurisdiction. on account of such vessel being and Wildenhus vs. based on the territorial principle and followed Cebu.000 political agency. crimes perpetrated under such the cargo. with country. (Wheaton. and that if the proper authorities are proceeding with the case in the regular way the consul has no right to interfere to prevent it. When merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade. aboard a foreign vessel in transit. 573). like the one herein involved. in favor of the Insular Government. pursuant to the instructions he had from the Manila custom-house.R. according to which. were permitted to retain certain In the cases of The Schooner Exchange vs. the offenders itself had competent jurisdiction. Look Chaw (18 Phil. " This doctrine does not impinge on that laid down in United States v. thus committing an open violation of the laws of the land with disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with respect to which. he ordered two other Chinamen to keep the sack. . she was within ordered the confiscation. October 19..]. and that. according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in FACTS: the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were Ø Upon arrival of steamship Erroll of English nationality. NO. and the judgment below must be The question that presents itself for our consideration is whether such ruling is erroneous or not. always provided it should not be taken shore so it was Cranch [U. But. 490 et seq.. 1. S. and any assertion of jurisdiction by appellee is accused of having illegally smoked opium.: Rodgers. but all must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction. . Chief Justice Marshall said: returned Ø 2 charges were filed against Look Chaw at the Court of First Instance of .. . its own statutes. it is the last one that obtains o larger sack in the hold in this jurisdiction. as in Mali a crime triable by the courts of this country. should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged as the laws of that nation or the interests of its commerce should require. which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay. unless their commission affects the peace and security of the Hongkong. circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the country within o Smaller sack of opium on the cabin near the saloon territory they were committed. it would be Cebu: obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society. via the call ports of Manila and territory. if such o unlawful sale of opium individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance. In the absence defendant to the information that initiated this case and in which the of any controlling treaty provision. that it came from committed. 2 RPC.R. because at present the theories and jurisprudence o Later on. ISSUE: W/N the Philippine court has jurisdiction. by comity or usage. It may not be international treaty.did not involve the peace or dignity of the country or the tranquility of the port. and the English rule. Hongkong with the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz. L-18924. to pay a fine of P10. ch. if need be. the offenders have never. 116).. . committed aboard merchant Lesson: Crimes NOT involving a breach of public order committed on board vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters. . No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offense or been committed within its district. and the government to degradation. territorial waters. on the wharf of Cebu. Modified by reducing the imprisonment and the fine imposed limitations as have been conceded by that sovereignty through the proper to six months and P1. and. been entitled to any vs. only the court established in that said place disturb the public peace may be suppressed. 1922 crimes are committed on board of a character to disturb the peace and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS tranquillity of the country to which the vessel has been brought. but those which the commission of the crime. p. is landed from the vessel upon . . this court held: opium. offense within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. International Law [Dana ed. in were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. G. 7). secs.000. aboard a foreign vessel in transit in any local port. and a new set of principles became applicable. in the present case a can of opium. in any of their ports. · GR: mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands.. easy at all times to determine which of the two jurisdictions a particular act of disorder belongs. J. does NOT constitute It is true that in certain cases the comity of nations is observed. Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city. as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship. that the United States may define and punish offenses In this appeal the Attorney-General urges the revocation of the order of the committed by its own citizens on its own vessels while within foreign waters Court of First Instance of Manila. Keeper of the Common Jail (120 U. LOOK CHOW court has or has no jurisdiction over said offense. in the absence of an agreement under an punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction. Much will undoubtedly depend on the attending circumstances of the particular case. it is the duty of the courts of the United States vessel Changsa of English nationality while said vessel was anchored in to apply to offenses committed by its citizens on vessels flying its flag. inasmuch as the crime had . and that it was bound for Mexico. interpreted in the light of recognized principles of international law. wherein it was considered as an extension of its own nationality said that: · EX: when the article. The court crime committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of any other sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment. . and it will or will not be erroneous according as said US V.. 2 sacks of opium where found during the inspection and search of in the United States. exemption from the operation of the local laws for their punishment if WONG CHENG the local tribunals see fit to assert their authority. Bonfils. . ROMUALDEZ. . 1). .

no court other than 1. or in port?" effect so far as England is concerned. and subsequently convicted. without being used in our territory. either at sea or in port. Material While a Belgian vessel was docked in the port of Jersey City. Treaties have been entered into which codify the "tranquility of the port" principle in order to "prevent the inconvenience that might arise from But to smoke opium within our territorial limits. or the clamor which attends it. They then committed him to jail in New Jersey. the "disorder" was "of such a nature as to disturb the tranquility and public order on shore.S.] B. to enter into the same. Avanceña. 1 (1887) RULE: "It is not alone the publicity of the act. because it being the should be left by the local government to be deal with by the authorities of primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines the nation to which the vessel belonged." . 1880 treaty between the United States Kourt 5-6 nautical miles north of Cape Sigri (around the area between and Belgium. the use of This case is an appeal to the U. Moreover. Supreme Court. TURKEY) pending trial for murder. THE HOLDING liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all such "The judgment of the [U.-France Treaty.. leading to eight deaths.-Belgium Treaty "is the law which now governs the has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. generally. transit was held by this court not triable by or courts. What "disorders" so "disturb the tranquility and public order on shore. etc." foreign merchant ship. The authorities shall not interfere. such vessels being considered as an extension of its own remanded them to jail. the V." In the 1859 Jally case. but subject always to B.. such a nature as to disturb the tranquility and public order on shore. So ordered. we find nothing to this order on shore. shall captain was also tried. in the Belgium? absence of an agreement under an international treaty. and in port" as to give the local state jurisdiction? all the territories of His Britanic Majesty in Europe. In this case. Supreme Court Reports. a Frenchman. the offenders have never by comity or being about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates usage been entitled to any exception from the operation of the local laws for avoiding. which is prohibited in the Islands. is simply subversive of public order. in his work "Treaties. The local leading to ten rescues. if the local tribunals see fit to assert their authority. Circuit Court refused to deliver the prisoners to the consul and the Islands." A. Article IX provided that consular officials "shall alone take Greece and Turkey).-Belgian Treaty to be interpreted? What As to whether the United States has ever consented by treaty or otherwise is specifically meant by a "disorder" that "disturb[s] the tranquility and public to renouncing such jurisdiction or a part thereof. Specific force at the place of the commission of the crime. does not which the vessel has been brought. 120 U. a Belgian crew member [fought and] killed another Belgian crew member on board the vessel. [The Jersey City police boarded the steamer THE CASE OF SS LOTUS (FRANCE V. In this case.-Belgium Treaty may be interpreted as providing . it is a 'disorder' the nature of which is to affect the community at large. Much will depend on the attending special findings as to costs. CITATION Volume 120 of the U. The consul's petition for habeas corpus was denied.S. officers. without "may not be easy at all times. is certainly a breach of the public order here * U. and crews." D. 1. respectively. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our Legislature C. . II. and. March 9. In cases involving disturbances of the tranquility of the port. ports and rivers. any parts of the said territories. Besides. . Legal THE LOTUS CASE (France v Turkey): The Belgian consul sought a [writ of] habeas corpus to obtain the release of the Belgian national.. Ostrand and Johns. or in the ship may come into the port of Manila and allow or solicit Chinese residents port. U." The order appealed from is revoked and the cause ordered remanded to the Determining when an act disturbs the tranquility and public order on shore court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law." disturbance of the public order. The language of the U.S. The idea of a person smoking opium securely on board a foreign vessel the basis for rightful American jurisdiction. the laws and statutes of the two countries. or the tranquility of the port. to which nation the ship where the B. 1. constitute a crime triable by the courts of The U. 2. LEGAL RATIONALE [Opinion of Chief Justice Waite] merchants and traders of each nation respectively shall enjoy the most A.J.) 2. Facts: The French steamer Lotus collided with the Turkish cargo ship Bos- The consul relied upon a March 9. WILDENHUS’ CASE. the United States] are impotent to lay hands on him. In this case. or when a person of the country or not belonging to the crew. as it is a violation of the penal law in A.S. at anchor in the port of Manila in open defiance of the local authorities. respectively.S. Hence such a mere possession is not considered a their punishment. General crime in question was committed belongs. JJ.S.. Malcolm.S. LEGAL ISSUES committed with respect to which. but ended up continuing to Constantinople. The inhabitants of the two countries.. circumstances of the particular case.does not." In this case a determination may be made.S. which state has rightful jurisdiction? The United States or that established in the said place has jurisdiction of the offense. shall have IV. on what legal basis is jurisdiction to be determined? 3. be concerned therein. however." and Navigation Convention.S. is landed from the vessels upon Philippine soil." to smoke opium on board. November 14. the U. "[A]ll must concede that that felonious assault is a subject for local concur. How is the language of the U. But if crimes are committed on against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug. the same rule does not apply when the article.S. in such a case an open violation of the laws of the land is III. how is Conventions. Villamor." The Supreme places. This general principle of international law is based on "comity. Malloy says the following: jurisdiction to be determined? 2. because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects Treaty. as the conduct of the United States and Belgium towards each other in this Attorney-General aptly observes: particular. and cognizance of all differences which may arise. If it I. also to hire and occupy houses and warehouses for the purposes of their commerce. jurisdiction. but this is irrelevant). the highest French judicial tribunal held that French courts had rightful jurisdiction when an American merchantman killed another American on board an American ship while in a French port. The principle provides that "all matters of discipline and all things done on board which affected only the vessel or those belonging to her. respectively. 1880 within our territory. except when the disorder that has arisen is of officer on watch on board the Lotus was Monsieur Demons. page 625. 1887 is of a character to awaken public interest when it becomes known. In this case. Commerce 1. as a general rule. even though aboard a attempts to exercise conflicting jurisdictions. Araullo. a reciprocal liberty of commerce. causing it to sink. or in who was tried by the Turkish Court for involuntary manslaughter (the Turkish the port. without exception . The treaty provides that local authorities [in this case. (Art. 3. The Lotus tried to support the shipwrecked persons. that affixes the nature of the crime. It may exercise their jurisdiction "when the disorder that has arisen is of such requires no unusual stretch of the imagination to conceive that a foreign a nature as to disturb the tranquility and public order on shore.] Circuit Court [was] affirmed. The United States has jurisdiction in this case. Street. between the captains. 2. complete protection and security for their commerce. New Jersey [in 1886].S. The Boz-Kourt was cut in two. to which other foreigners Court ruled that the Belgian crew members would remain in American are permitted to come. and arrested Wildenhus. and to remain and reside in custody for trial.. in the territories aforesaid. or in the port. but the act itself. who 1. jurisdiction is based on the "tranquility of the port" principle. its mere board of a character to disturb the peace and tranquility of the country to possession in such a ship. C." volume 1. and did not We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in involve the peace or dignity of the country. THE FACTS and consequently to invoke the power of the local government. 1788 * U.-Belgium established. or There shall be between the territories of the United States of America. nationality.

we refer to the general principles that all states adhere to. there was no explanation as to the French reservation-. It recognizes that a -Presumption: Restrictions on the independence of States are not sovereign can adopt criminal laws that apply to the person who has presumed.unless alleged. to the exclusion of France. but his application was denied. What nations tend to do is Issue: whether Israel had the authority to put him in the trial or not? that offenses. The Turkish take cognizance-. Eichmann was tried for his crimes in Israel in the District Court of Jerusalem and was convicted of various violations of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Turkey: Art. one cannot know how the relations ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF under the treaty may be modified. Turkish cognizance was proper. and (3) any such principles derived are applicable to District Court of Jerusalem to stand trial for war crimes. Conclusion: They have concurrent jurisdiction. he was captured by Israeli Security Forces in Argentina. but again. (2) IL recognizes the exclusive reached after traveling many European country then having a fake identity jurisdiction of the State whose flag is flown over all offenses on board ships of Red Cross as being Ricardo Klement. and therefore. Even then. PEÑA-IRALA jurisdiction. it can still be treated as if the offense was committed not so much whether or not Art. should not conflict with the limits set by international law. the transfer of money from evacuated Jews to the State and was responsible for the administration of the Torture camps. it's just that Turkey exercised Court: No. the Adolf Eichmann. Though there are municipal cases that may bolster the French British. only outside its territory. 6 is in line with international law (which can't within that foreign territory. No source of IL has established a contrary rule. where he because the victims were their Nationals. Hence. In fact. these are only part of a rich body of jurisprudence that actually favors on this. 15 alone can apply for as long as it does not conflict with a (Punishment) Law 5710-1950 (the Law). that Turkey's actions conflict with such limits. 6 of their Penal Code. humanity and crimes against the Jewish people. Weighing these two. Applicable Law: Art. Next. In this capacity. This means that a view France: Decide based on the evolution of the Convention. This implies that the state of the victim can jurisdiction lies in whose flag the errant vessel sails. are regarded as having been committed in the national territory for as Decision: He was convicted of all 15 counts and sentenced to death. hence when we speak of international law. As to the first argument: No such law exists. leading to the case in the ICJ. arguing that both the Law and Israel’s exercise of jurisdiction its define territory. generally interpreted based on the ordinary meaning of words. 15 of the Convention of Lausanne. After that ISF handed over to the on the high seas.200. which the French government As to the second argument: In these situations. etc. They must be established. because the possibility that a State can take jurisdiction over offenses committed offenses had occurred outside of Israel in Germany. The issue then is ship on the high seas. this rule in IL does not preclude the over Eichmann pursuant to the Law violated international law. it can be treated as if there were a territorial France's primary argument is that in a collision in the high seas. As for the argument that manslaughter cannot be localized at the point where mortal effect is felt: Manslaughter is punished precisely due to the Synopsis of Rule of Law. Eichmann appealed his -It is established that a state may generally exercise jurisdiction only within convictions. was an Austrian by birth who worked as the Head of sources of law show that there is concurrent jurisdiction between Section for Jewish Affairs charged of the Final Solution to the Jewish Turkey and France. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute. of freedom on the high seas. Turkey exercised jurisdiction FIRST. Eichmann had petitioned the government of West Germany for extradition. The only limitation is that such laws promulgated Germany had jurisdiction over the offenses. he killed more than 4. Basis of Turkish Jurisdiction and the Concept of Territoriality: Facts Adolf Eichmann (defendant) was a German Nazi officer involved in the France: The Turkish courts must find some title to jurisdiction in internment and extermination of Jewish people during World War II. prosecution was improper because it was not in accord with principles of international law. and conventions to prove that they should have exclusive jurisdiction. common law offenses. it was rejected by the prohibited. 6 were held incompatible of IL. which that argue that in a case when offenses were committed on board a foreign allows extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases such as these. France's arguments are three-fold: (1) IL does not allow a State to take proceedings with regard to offenses committed by foreigners abroad merely Later. Lausanne. Mass Killing etc. committed any crime of universal nature (Jus Cogence. barring Question. receiving a death sentence as a principle of international law. 6 of their Penal Code. NO. if Art. Principle: The universal principle (Jurisdiction). taking jurisdiction over Demons is contrary to the intention behind the Turkish. War Crime. The French rely on publicists. there is no belief that they had a duty to defer/abstain. international law in favour of it in order to take jurisdiction. When the Turkish pointing towards jurisdiction on the hand of the offended State is not government adopted Art. To start. Both Courts have applied this principle. where no dispute/overlap between the two States-. be considered to violate law of nations. Such an error with respect to applicable law is a municipal issue that does not extend to IL unless a treaty provision enters into account. there is no shortage of publicists The Turkish base their jurisdiction on Art. It is general international law that applies. crimes against collision cases. long as one or more constituent elements OR effects occur there. while the French entered into a reservation with respect to it.no rule of IL prevents them. was filed by Filartiga (P). ADOLF EICHMANN Convention can only refer to GP/IL. However. Treaties are it first. decisions. Based side. it's established that the echoed on appeal. or when the possibility of a denial of justice arises. result. with the offense committed principal of jus cogence so every country has the right to try that type of on a French ship and the effects felt on a Turkish ship. precedent is actually lacking with respect really change their local law).) Anywhere in the world when the conduct is recognized by -The question is whether or not there is support for the French contention nations as being of universal concern. Moreover. it seems crime. ships are treated in the same position as national territory. torture may effect. Whether or not there is a source of law prohibiting Turkey from assuming jurisdiction. . and there have been no records of Reasoning: His crimes were crimes against humanity. the foreign State would defer to the State of the offender. IL in the Lausanne ISRAEL V. the authors of which are in the territory of another State. which ought to be treated differently from matters such as slave trade. Finally. A suit against Pena-Irala (D) on the premise that he had tortured to death the decedent of Filartiga (P). Questions of jurisdiction are to be decided in accordance with As to the third argument: it appears that there may be state practice where the principles of international law. it may still be possible to find some other general principle that would allow the Turks to have FILÁRTIGA V. he violated the protests challenging this principle. most conventions do not refer to offense. when they clash and collide.000 Jewish people and France. Hence.His lone defense was lack of jurisdiction. of which both states are parties. fisheries. but merely on who has jurisdiction over the to cases in favour of France.this is a corollary of the basic rule other countries are involved except the flags of the ships involved. submarine sables.

” The case was dismissed by the district court for lack of jurisdiction to which Filartiga (P) appealed. Actual practice. and not U. It is not new for many members of the United Nations to make pronouncements and not be pronouncements into action. Various United Nations declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1975 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture further portrays the fact that prohibition against torture has become part of customary international law.S. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute. A suit claiming that Pena-Irala (D) had tortured Filartiga’s (P) decedent to death while he was a police Inspector General. torture may be considered to violate law of nations.N. Issue. 28 U. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute. All parties were Paraguayan citizens. may torture be considered as a violation of the law of nations? Held. Jurisdiction was based on the Allen Tort Statute. which provided jurisdiction for tort committed in violation of “the law of nations. (Judge not stated in casebook excerpt). Discussion. .Facts. It is no secret that torture is still widely practiced if not by a majority of countries then in a significant manner.C. Yes. declarations have been argued by commentators as what constitute international law. was brought by Filartiga (P). S 1350. Torture has been officially renounced in the vast majority of nations and this is the reason why this court concluded that torture violates the law of nations. The prohibition against torture has become part of customary international law.