RAQUIZA v BRADFORD 75 Phil.

50 (1945)
FACTS: By virtue of the proclamation issued by General of the Army
MacArthur, petitioners were arrested by the 306 CIC and detained under
security commitment order No 385.

The petitioners Raquiza, Tee Han Kee, and Infante were charged with
Espionage activity with the Japanese, active collaboration with the enemy
respectively. Power for Commander of the US Army to proclaim by virtue
of military necessity is not questioned. He based proclamation on the
reasons that the apprehended have violated due allegiance to the US and
it is a military necessity. Petitioners move for writ of Habeas Corpus.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the war terminated within the meaning of that part in the
proclamation? [Note: The power of commander in chief of the US Army to
issue a proclamation providing for military measures to be taken upon the
apprehension of Filipino citizens who voluntarily have given aid, comfort
and sustenance to the enemy, cannot be seriously questioned.]

No. “The war, in the legal sense, continues until, and terminated at the
same time of, some formal proclamation of peace by an authority
competent to proclaim it. It is the province of the political department, and
not the judicial department, to determine if war has ended. The fact that
delivery of certain persons under custody of the US Army has already
begun does not mean that the war has, in the legal sense, already
terminated, which clearly it has not. Delivery within the power of military
authorities to make even before was terminates.

2. Whether or not this court has jurisdiction or legal power to afford relief
to the petitioners in the sad and sorry plight to which they have been and
are being subjected?

No. Civil Courts should not interfere. A foreign army permitted to march
through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, is exempt from civil and
criminal jurisdiction of the place. Grant of free passage implies a waiver of
all jurisdiction over troops during passage (let them exercise their own
discipline). Any attempt by our civil Courts to exercise jurisdiction over US
troops would be a violation of our country’s faith. On the other hand,
petitioners may have recourse to proper military authorities.