4. Raquiza v. Bradford G.R. No.

L-44
September 13, 1945 | HILADO, J. | Characteristics of Criminal Law

Petitioner: Lily Raquiza et al.

Respondents: Lt Col. L.J. Bradford et al.

Summary: Raquiza, Tee Han Kee, and Infante petitioned for the writ of habeas corpus as they were arrested by the
United States Army and have since then been detained under the custody of the respondents by virtue of a proclamation
issued by General MacArthur providing military measures for the apprehension of Filipino citizens who have espionage
activity with the Japanese and voluntarily collaborated with the enemy. However, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction
to afford relief to the petitioners given that the agreement for stationing the United States Army or a part of its forces in
the Philippines implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over their troops during the time covered by such agreement.

Doctrine: Mutual waiver of jurisdiction between nations - “This perfect equality and absolute independence of
sovereigns, and this common interest impelling them to mutual intercourse, and an interchange of good offices with
each other, have given rise to a class of cases in which every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of
that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be attribute of every nation.”

Facts:
1. Lily Raquiza, Haydee Tee Han Kee, and Emma Link Infante were charged with “espionage activity with the
Japanese,” “active collaboration with the Japanese,” and “active collaboration with the enemy” respectively.
2. The petitioners were arrested by the Counter Intelligence Corps Detachment of the United States Army Forces and
detained under Security Commitment Order Nos. 385-386 by virtue of the proclamation issued by General of the
Army MacArthur. The proclamation states that military actions are to be implemented upon the apprehension of
Philippine citizens who have voluntarily provided aid, comfort, and sustenance to the enemy.
3. They petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, stating that they have been and are being “confined, restrained and
deprived” of their liberty in the Correctional Institution for Women. They pray that the officers namely, Lt. Col. L. J.
Bradford and Capt. Inez L. Twidle of the CIC, U.S. Army, “or whoever acts in her place or stead,” be directed to
appear before this Court and produce the bodies of petitioners, and to show cause why petitioners should not forthwith
be set at liberty.

Issue:
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to afford relief to the petitioners. – NO

Ruling:
A foreign army, permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or
sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place at least for the time covered by the agreement of
the two Governments. An attempt of our civil courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States Army before such
period expires, would be considered as a violation of this country's faith, which this Court should not be the last to keep
and uphold. The agreement for the stationing of the United States Army or a part of its forces in the Philippines implies a
waiver of all jurisdiction over their troops during the time covered by such agreement, and permits the allied general or
commander in chief to retain that exclusive control and discipline which the government of his army may require.

Dispositive Portion:
In conclusion, we hold that the petition should be dismissed. No special pronouncement as to costs.