Laurel vs.

Misa

77 Phil. 856

Facts:

During the Japanese occupation in the Philippines, Anastacio Laurel adhered to

the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort. He was then charged with
treason. He claimed that he could not be prosecuted for the crime of treason
for the reasons that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the
Philippines and the allegiance of Filipino citizen to the government were
suspended at that time of occupation. He likewise contended that there was a
change of sovereignty upon the proclamation of the Republic and his acts were
against the Commonwealth.

Issue:

Whether or not the absolute allegiance of a Filipino citizen to the government

was suspended during the Japanese occupation.

Ruling:

No, the absolute and permanent allegiance of a Filipino citizen to the Philippine
government, which although was occupied by the Japanese, was not
abrogated or severed by the latter’s occupation. The sovereignty of the
government is not transferred to the enemy by mere occupation. Since there
was no transfer of sovereignty, it is presumed that the Philippine government still
had the power.

Moreover, sovereignty cannot be suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated.

What may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty; but not
sovereignty itself.