ANASTACIO LAUREL,petitioner,vs.ERIBERTO MISA,respondent.Claro M. Recto and Querube C. Makalintal for petitioner.First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Hernandez, Jr., for respondent.R E S O L U T I O NIn G.R. No. L-409,Anastacio Laurel vs. Eriberto Misa, etc.,the Court, acting on the petition forhabeas corpusfiled by Anastacio Laurel and based on a theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason defined and penalized by article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason (1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and (2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic:(1) Considering that a citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or sovereign; and that this absolute and permanent allegiance should not be confused with the qualified and temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides, so long as he remains there, in return for the protection he receives, and which consists in the obedience to the laws of the government or sovereign. (Carlislevs.Unite States, 21 Law. ed., 429; Secretary of State Webster Report to the President of the United States in the case of Thraser, 6 Web. Works, 526);Considering that the absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or sovereignde jureis not transferred thereby to the occupier, as we have held in the cases ofCo Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon(75 Phil., 113) and ofPeralta vs. Director of Prisons(75 Phil., 285), and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that the sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the state) must be distinguished from the exercise of the rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; that the subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government in a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy during the war, "although the former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy over them" is one of the "rules of international law of our times"; (II Oppenheim, 6th Lauterpacht ed., 1944, p. 482), recognized, by necessary implication, in articles 23, 44, 45, and 52 of Hague Regulation; and that, as a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance, the basic theory on which the whole fabric of the petitioner's contention rests;Considering that the conclusion that the sovereignty of the United State was suspended in Castine, set forth in the decision in the case of United Statesvs.Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, 253, decided in 1819, and quoted in our decision in the cases ofCo Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and DizonandPeralta vs. Director of Prisons, supra,in connection with the question, not of sovereignty, but of the existence of a governmentde factotherein and its power to promulgate rules and laws in the occupied territory, must have been based, either on the theory adopted subsequently in the Hague Convention of 1907, that the military occupation of an enemy territory does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant; that, in the first case, the word "sovereignty" used therein should be construed to mean the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, because as this remains vested in the legitimate government and is not transferred to the occupier, it cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting said government thereof; and that in the second case, that is, if the said conclusion or doctrine refers to the suspension of the sovereignty itself, it has become obsolete after the adoption of the Hague Regulations in 1907, and therefore it can not be applied to the present case;Considering that even adopting the words "temporarily allegiance," repudiated by Oppenheim and other publicists, as descriptive of the relations borne by the inhabitants of the territory occupied by the enemy toward the military government established over them, such allegiance may, at most, be considered similar to the temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives as above described, and does not do away with the absolute and permanent allegiance which the citizen residing in a foreign country owes to his own government or sovereign; that just as a citizen or subject of a government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, in the same way an inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit treason against his own legitimate government or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them aid and comfort; and that if the allegiance of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign is nothing more than obedience to its laws in return for the protection he receives, it would necessarily follow that a citizen who resides in a foreign country or state would, on one hand,ipso factoacquire the citizenship thereof since he has enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life, in return for the protection he receives, and would, on the other hand, lose his original citizenship, because he would not be bound to obey most of the laws of his own government or sovereign, and would not receive, while in a foreign country, the protection he is entitled to in his own;Considering that, as a corollary of the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government in the territory occupied by the enemy military forces, because the authority of the legitimate power to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant (Article 43, Hague Regulations), the political laws which prescribe the reciprocal rights, duties and obligation of government and citizens, are suspended or in abeyance during military occupation (Co Kim chamvs.Valdez Tan Keh and dizon,supra), for the only reason that as they exclusively bear relation to the ousted legitimate government, they are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant; that the crimes against national security, such as treason and espionage; inciting to war, correspondence with hostile country, flight to enemy's country, as well as those against public order, such as rebellion, sedition, and disloyalty, illegal possession of firearms, which are of political complexion because they bear relation to, and are penalized by our Revised Penal Code as crimes against the legitimate government, are also suspended or become inapplicable as against the occupant, because they can not be committed against the latter (Peraltavs.Director of Prisons,supra); and that, while the offenses against public order to be preserved by the legitimate government were inapplicable as offenses against the invader for the reason above stated, unless adopted by him, were also inoperative as against the ousted government for the latter was not responsible for the preservation of the public order in the occupied territory, yet article 114 of the said Revised Penal Code, was applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimate government, because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation;Considering that, although the military occupant is enjoined to respect or continue in force, unless absolutely prevented by the circumstances, those laws that enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the country, he has, nevertheless, all the powers ofde factogovernment and may, at his pleasure, either change the existing laws or make new ones when the exigencies of the military service demand such action, that is, when it is necessary for the occupier to do so for the control of the country and the protection of his army, subject to the restrictions or limitations imposed by the Hague Regulations, the usages established by civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience (Peraltavs.Director of Prisons,supra; 1940 United States Rules of Land Warfare 76, 77); and that, consequently, all acts of the military occupant dictated within these limitations are obligatory upon the inhabitants of the territory, who are bound to obey them, and the laws of the legitimate government which have not been adopted, as well and those which, though continued in force, are in conflict with such laws and orders of the occupier, shall be considered as suspended or not in force and binding upon said inhabitants;Considering that, since the preservation of the allegiance or the obligation of fidelity and obedience of a citizen or subject to his government or sovereign does not demand from him a positive action, but only passive attitude or forbearance from adhering to the enemy by giving the latter aid and comfort, the occupant has no power, as a corollary of the preceding consideration, to repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason, essential for the preservation of the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimate government, or compel them to adhere and give aid and comfort to him; because it is evident that such action is not demanded by the exigencies of the military service or not necessary for the control of the inhabitants and the safety and protection of his army, and because it is tantamount to practically transfer temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the titular government or sovereign; and that, therefore, if an inhabitant of the occupied territory were compelled illegally by the military occupant, through force, threat or intimidation, to give him aid and comfort, the former may lawfully resist and die if necessary as a hero, or submit thereto without becoming a traitor;Considering that adoption of the petitioner's theory of suspended allegiance would lead to disastrous consequences for small and weak nations or states, and would be repugnant to the laws of humanity and requirements of public conscience, for it would allow invaders to legally recruit or enlist the Quisling inhabitants of the occupied territory to fight against their own government without the latter incurring the risk of being prosecuted for treason, and even compel those who are not aid them in their military operation against the resisting enemy forces in order to completely subdue and conquer the whole nation, and thus deprive them all of their own independence or sovereignty such theory would sanction the action of invaders in forcing the people of a free and sovereign country to be a party in the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own freedom and independence and repressing the exercise by them of their own sovereignty; in other words, to commit a political suicide;(2) Considering that the crime of treason against the government of the Philippines defined and penalized in article 114 of the Penal Code, though originally intended to be a crime against said government as then organized by authority of the sovereign people of the United States, exercised through their authorized representative, the Congress and the President of the United States, was made, upon the establishment of the Commonwealth Government in 1935, a crime against the Government of the Philippines established by authority of the people of the Philippines, in whom the sovereignty resides according to section 1, Article II, of the Constitution of the Philippines, by virtue of the provision of section 2, Article XVI thereof, which provides that "All laws of the Philippine Islands . . . shall remain operative, unless inconsistent with this Constitution . . . and all references in such laws to the Government or officials of the Philippine Islands, shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the Government and corresponding officials under this constitution;Considering that the Commonwealth of the Philippines was a sovereign government, though not absolute but subject to certain limitations imposed in the Independence Act and incorporated as Ordinance appended to our Constitution, was recognized not only by the Legislative Department or Congress of the United States in approving the Independence Law above quoted and the Constitution of the Philippines, which contains the declaration that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them" (section 1, Article II), but also by the Executive Department of the United States; that the late President Roosevelt in one of his messages to Congress said, among others, "As I stated on August 12, 1943, the United States in practice regards the Philippines as having now the status as a government of other independent nations in fact all the attributes of complete and respected nationhood" (Congressional Record, Vol. 29, part 6, page 8173); and that it is a principle upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in many cases, among them in the case of Jonesvs.United States (137 U.S., 202; 34 Law. ed., 691, 696) that the question of sovereignty is "a purely political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of the country.Considering that section I (1) of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution which provides that pending the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States "All citizens of the Philippines shall owe allegiance to the United States", was one of the few limitations of the sovereignty of the Filipino people retained by the United States, but these limitations do not away or are not inconsistent with said sovereignty, in the same way that the people of each State of the Union preserves its own sovereignty although limited by that of the United States conferred upon the latter by the States; that just as to reason may be committed against the Federal as well as against the State Government, in the same way treason may have been committed during the Japanese occupation against the sovereignty of the United States as well as against the sovereignty of the Philippine Commonwealth; and that the change of our form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during the Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government and the same sovereign people, for Article XVIII of our Constitution provides that "The government established by this constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines";This Court resolves, without prejudice to write later on a more extended opinion, to deny the petitioner's petition, as it is hereby denied, for the reasons above set forth and for others to be stated in the said opinion, without prejudice to concurring opinion therein, if any. Messrs. Justices Paras and Hontiveros dissent in a separate opinion. Mr. justice Perfecto concurs in a separate opinion.DISSENTINGThe inhabitants of the occupied territory should necessarily be bound to the sole authority of the invading power, whose interest and requirements are naturally in conflict with those of the displaced government, if it is legitimate for the military occupant to demand and enforce from the inhabitants such obedience as may be necessary for the security of his forces, for the maintenance of law and order, and for the proper administration of the country (United States Rules of Land Warfare, 1940, article 297), and to demand all kinds of services "of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country" (Hague Regulations, article 52);and if, as we have in effect said, by the surrender the inhabitants pass under a temporary allegiance to the government of the occupant and are bound by such laws, and such only, as it chooses to recognize and impose, and the belligerent occupant `is totally independent of the constitution and the laws of the territory, since occupation is an aim of warfare, and the maintenance and safety of his forces, and the purpose of war, stand in the foreground of his interest and must be promoted under all circumstances or conditions." (Peraltavs.Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 285, 295), citing United Statesvs.Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, and quoting Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. II. Sixth Edition, Revised, 1944,p. 432.)He would be a bigot who cannot or would refuse to see the cruel result if the people in an occupied territory were required to obey two antagonistic and opposite powers. To emphasize our point, we would adopt the argument, in a reverse order, of Mr. Justice Hilado inPeralta vs. Director of Prisons(75 Phil., 285, 358), contained in the following passage:To have bound those of our people who constituted the great majority who never submitted to the Japanese oppressors, by the laws, regulations, processes and other acts of those two puppet governments, would not only have been utterly unjust and downright illegal, but would have placed them in the absurd and impossible condition of being simultaneously submitted to two mutually hostile governments, with their respective constitutional and legislative enactments and institutions on the one hand bound to continue owing allegiance to the United States and the Commonwealth Government, and, on the other, to owe allegiance, if only temporary, to Japan.The only sensible purpose of the treason law which is of political complexion and taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offense committed against the belligerent occupant, incident to a state of war and necessary for the control of the occupant (Alcantaravs.Director of Prisons, 75 Phil., 494), must be the preservation of the nation, certainly not its destruction or extermination. And yet the latter is unwittingly wished by those who are fond of the theory that what is suspended is merely the exercise of sovereignty by thede juregovernment or the latter's authority to impose penal sanctions or that, otherwise stated, the suspension refers only to the military occupant. If this were to be the only effect, the rule would be a meaningless and superfluous optical illusion, since it is obvious that the fleeing or displaced government cannot, even if it should want, physically assert its authority in a territory actually beyond its reach, and that the occupant, on the other hand, will not take the absurd step of prosecuting and punishing the inhabitants for adhering to and aiding it. If we were to believe the opponents of the rule in question, we have to accept the absurd proposition that the guerrillas can all be prosecuted with illegal possession of firearms. It should be borne in the mind that "the possession by the belligerent occupant of the right to control, maintain or modify the laws that are to obtain within the occupied area is an exclusive one. The territorial sovereign driven therefrom, can not compete with it on an even plane. Thus, if the latter attempt interference, its action is a mere manifestation of belligerent effort to weaken the enemy. It has no bearing upon the legal quality of what the occupant exacts, while it retains control. Thus, if the absent territorial sovereign, through some quasi-legislative decree, forbids its nationals to comply with what the occupant has ordained obedience to such command within the occupied territory would not safeguard the individual from the prosecution by the occupant." (Hyde, International Law, Vol. III, Second Revised Edition, 1945, p. 1886.)As long as we have not outlawed the right of the belligerent occupant to prosecute and punish the inhabitants for "war treason" or "war crimes," as an incident of the state of war and necessity for the control of the occupied territory and the protection of the army of the occupant, against which prosecution and punishment such inhabitants cannot obviously be protected by their native sovereign, it is hard to understand how we can justly rule that they may at the same time be prosecuted and punished for an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code, but already taken out of the territorial law and penalized as a new offense committed against the belligerent occupIn much the same way, we should hold that no treason could have been committed during the Japanese military occupation against the United States or the Commonwealth Government, because article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was not then in force. Nor may this penal provision be applied upon its revival at the time of the reoccupation of the Philippines by virtue of the principle ofpostliminium, because of the constitutional inhibition against anyex post factolaw and because, under article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal laws shall have a retroactive effect only in so far as they favor the accused. Why did we refuse to enforce the Constitution, more essential to sovereignty than article 114 of the Revised Penal Code in the aforesaid ofPeralta vs. Director of Prisonsif, as alleged by the majority, the suspension was good only as to the military occupant?

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.LORETA GOZO,defendant-appellant.Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor Norberto P. Eduardo for plaintiff-appellee.Jose T. Nery for defendant-appellant.FERNANDO,J.:Appellant seeks to set aside a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, convicting her of a violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, requiring a permit from the municipal mayor for the construction or erection of a building, as well as any modification, alteration, repair or demolition thereof. She questions its validity, or at the very least, its applicability to her, by invoking due process,1a contention she would premise on what for her is the teaching ofPeople v. Fajardo.2If such a ground were far from being impressed with solidity, she stands on quicksand when she would deny the applicability of the ordinance to her, on the pretext that her house was constructed within the naval base leased to the American armed forces. While yielding to the well-settled doctrine that it does not thereby cease to be Philippine territory, she would, in effect, seek to emasculate our sovereign rights by the assertion that we cannot exercise therein administrative jurisdiction. To state the proposition is to make patent how much it is tinged with unorthodoxy. Clearly then, the lower court decision must be affirmed with the sole modification that she is given thirty days from the finality of a judgment to obtain a permit, failing which, she is required to demolish the same.The facts are undisputed. As set forth in the decision of the lower court: "The accused bought a house and lot located inside the United States Naval Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. She demolished the house and built another one in its place, without a building permit from the City Mayor of Olongapo City, because she was told by one Ernesto Evalle, an assistant in the City Mayor's office, as well as by her neighbors in the area, that such building permit was not necessary for the construction of the house. On December 29, 1966, Juan Malones, a building and lot inspector of the City Engineer's Office, Olongapo City, together with Patrolman Ramon Macahilas of the Olongapo City police force apprehended four carpenters working on the house of the accused and they brought the carpenters to the Olongapo City police headquarters for interrogation. ... After due investigation, Loreta Gozo was charged with violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, S. of 1964 with the City Fiscal's Office."3The City Court of Olongapo City found her guilty of violating Municipal Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1964 and sentenced her to an imprisonment of one month as well as to pay the costs. The Court of Instance of Zambales, on appeal, found her guilty on the above facts of violating such municipal ordinance but would sentence her merely to pay a fine of P200.00 and to demolish the house thus erected. She elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but in her brief, she would put in issue the validity of such an ordinance on constitutional ground or at the very least its applicability to her in view of the location of her dwelling within the naval base. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution of January 29, 1973, noting the constitutional question raised, certified the case to this Court.There is, as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this petition, no support in law for the stand taken by appellant.1. It would be fruitless for her to assert that local government units are devoid of authority to require building permits. This Court, fromSwitzer v. Municipality ofCebu,4decided in 1911, has sanctioned the validity of such measures. It is much too late in the day to contend that such a requirement cannot be validly imposed. Even appellant, justifiably concerned about the unfavorable impression that could be created if she were to deny that such competence is vested in municipal corporations and chartered cities, had to concede in her brief: "If, at all; the questioned ordinance may be predicated under the general welfare clause ... ."5Its scope is wide, well-nigh all embracing, covering every aspect of public health, public morals, public safety, and the well being and good order of the community.6It goes without saying that such a power is subject to limitations. Certainly, if its exercise is violative of any constitutional right, then its validity could be impugned, or at the very least, its applicability to the person adversely affected could be questioned. So much is settled law. Apparently, appellant has adopted the view that a due process question may indeed be raised in view of what for her is its oppressive character. She is led to such a conclusion, relying onPeople v. Fajardo.7A more careful scrutiny of such a decision would not have led her astray, for that case is easily distinguishable. The facts as set forth in the opinion follow: "It appears that on August 15, 1950, during the incumbency of defendant-appellant Juan F. Fajardo as mayor of the municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed the ordinance in question providing as follows: "... 1. Any person or persons who will construct or repair a building should, before constructing or repairing, obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor. ... 2. A fee of not less than P2.00 should be charged for each building permit and P1.00 for each repair permit issued. ... 3. [Penalty]-Any violation of the provisions of the above, this ordinance, shall make the violator liable to pay a fine of not less than P25 nor more than P50 or imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor more than 24 days or both, at the discretion of the court. If said building destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner of the building or house. ... ." Four years later, after the term of appellant Fajardo as mayor had expired, he and his son-in-law, appellant Babilonia, filed a written request with the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo's name, located along the national highway and separated from the public plaza by a creek ... . On January 16, 1954, the request was denied, for the reason among others that the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza ... . On January 18, 1954, defendants reiterated their request for a building permit ..., but again the request was turned down by the mayor. Whereupon, appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on leased property."8Clearly then, the application of such an ordinance to Fajardo was oppressive. A conviction therefore for a violation thereof both in the justice of the peace court of Baao, Camarines Sur as well as in the Court of First Instance could not be sustained. In this case, on the contrary, appellant never bothered to comply with the ordinance. Perhaps aware of such a crucial distinction, she would assert in her brief: "The evidence showed that even if the accused were to secure a permit from the Mayor, the same would not have been granted. To require the accused to obtain a permit before constructing her house would be an exercise in futility. The law will not require anyone to perform an impossibility, neither in law or in fact: ... ."9It would be from her own version, at the very least then, premature to anticipate such an adverse result, and thus to condemn an ordinance which certainly lends itself to an interpretation that is neither oppressive, unfair, or unreasonable. That kind of interpretation suffices to remove any possible question of its validity, as was expressly announced inPrimicias v. Fugoso.10So it appears from this portion of the opinion of Justice Feria, speaking for the Court: "Said provision is susceptible of two constructions: one is that the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; and the other is that the applicant has the right to a permit which shall be granted by the Mayor, subject only to the latter's reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used for the purpose, with a view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. After a mature deliberation, we have arrived at the conclusion that we must adopt the second construction, that is, construe the provisions of the said ordinance to mean that it does not confer upon the Mayor the power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the discretion, in issuing the permit, to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade or procession may pass or the meeting may be held."11If, in a case affecting such a preferred freedom as the right to assembly, this Court could construe an ordinance of the City of Manila so as to avoid offending against a constitutional provision, there is nothing to preclude it from a similar mode of approach in order to show the lack of merit of an attack against an ordinance requiring a permit. Appellant cannot therefore take comfort from any broad statement in the Fajardo opinion, which incidentally is taken out of context, considering the admitted oppressive application of the challenged measure in that litigation. So much then for the contention that she could not have been validly convicted for a violation of such ordinance. Nor should it be forgotten that she did suffer the same fate twice, once from the City Court and thereafter from the Court of First Instance. The reason is obvious.Such ordinance applies to her.2. Much less is a reversal indicated because of the alleged absence of the rather novel concept of administrative jurisdiction on the part of Olongapo City. Nor is novelty the only thing that may be said against it. Far worse is the assumption at war with controlling and authoritative doctrines that the mere existence of military or naval bases of a foreign country cuts deeply into the power to govern. Two leading cases may be cited to show how offensive is such thinking to the juristic concept of sovereignty,People v. Acierto,12andReagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.13As was so emphatically set forth by Justice Tuason in Acierto: "By the Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of. The first proposition is implied from the fact of Philippine sovereignty over the bases; the second from the express provisions of the treaty."14There was a reiteration of such a view in Reagan. Thus: "Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of sovereignty."15Then came this paragraph dealing with the principle of auto-limitation: "It is to be admitted any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction." A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence."16The opinion was at pains to point out though that even then, there is at the most diminution of jurisdictional rights, not its disappearance. The words employed follow: "Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory."17Can there be anything clearer, therefore, than that only a turnabout, unwarranted and unjustified, from what is settled and orthodox law can lend the slightest degree of plausibility to the contention of absence of administrative jurisdiction. If it were otherwise, what was aptly referred to by Justice Tuason "as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency" becomes one of obeisance and submission. If on a concern purely domestic in its implications, devoid of any connection with national security, the Military-Bases Agreement could be thus interpreted, then sovereignty indeed becomes a mockery and an illusion. Nor does appellant's thesis rest on less shaky foundation by the mere fact that Acierto and Reagan dealt with the competence of the national government, while what is sought to be emasculated in this case is the so-called administrative jurisdiction of a municipal corporation. Within the limits of its territory, whatever statutory powers are vested upon it may be validly exercised. Any residual authority and therein conferred, whether expressly or impliedly, belongs to the national government, not to an alien country. What is even more to be deplored in this stand of appellant is that no such claim is made by the American naval authorities, not that it would do them any good if it were so asserted. To quote from Acierto anew: "The carrying out of the provisions of the Bases Agreement is the concern of the contracting parties alone. Whether, therefore, a given case which by the treaty comes within the United States jurisdiction should be transferred to the Philippine authorities is a matter about which the accused has nothing to do or say. In other words, the rights granted to the United States by the treaty insure solely to that country and can not be raised by the offender."18If an accused would suffer from such disability, even if the American armed forces were the beneficiary of a treaty privilege, what is there for appellant to take hold of when there is absolutely no showing of any alleged grant of what is quaintly referred to as administrative jurisdiction? That is all, and it is more than enough, to make manifest the futility of seeking a reversal.WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of November 11, 1969 is affirmed insofar as it found the accused, Loreta Gozo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, series of 1964 and sentencing her to pay a fine of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and modified insofar as she is required to demolish the house that is the subject matter of the case, she being given a period of thirty days from the finality of this decision within which to obtain the required permit. Only upon her failure to do so will that portion of the appealed decision requiringdemolition be enforced. Costs against the accused.Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., concur.Barredo, J., took no part.WILLIAM C. REAGAN, ETC.,petitioner,vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,respondent.Quasha, Asperilla, Blanco, Zafra and Tayag for petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, Solicitor Lolita O. Gal-lang and Special Attorney Gamaliel H. Mantolino for respondent.FERNANDO,J.:A question novel in character, the answer to which has far-reaching implications, is raised by petitioner William C. Reagan, at one time a civilian employee of an American corporation providing technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines. He would dispute the payment of the income tax assessed on him by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the United States Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his contention, seriously and earnestly expressed, that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax.Such a plea, far-fetched and implausible, on its face betraying no kinship with reality, he would justify by invoking, mistakenly as will hereafter be more fully shown an observation to that effect in a 1951 opinion,1petitioner ignoring that such utterance was made purely as a flourish of rhetoric and by way of emphasizing the decision reached, that the trading firm as purchaser of army goods must respond for the sales taxes due from an importer, as the American armed forces being exempt could not be taxed as such under the National Internal Revenue Code.2Such an assumption, inspired by the commendable aim to render unavailing any attempt at tax evasion on the part of such vendee, found expression anew in a 1962 decision,3coupled with the reminder however, to render the truth unmistakable, that "the areas covered by the United States Military Bases are not foreign territories both in the political and geographical sense."As thus clarified, it is manifest that such a view amounts at most to a legal fiction and is moreoverobiter. It certainly cannot control the resolution of the specific question that confronts us. We declare our stand in an unequivocal manner. The sale having taken place on what indisputably is Philippine territory, petitioner's liability for the income tax due as a result thereof was unavoidable. As the Court of Tax Appeals reached a similar conclusion, we sustain its decision now before us on appeal.In the decision appealed from, the Court of Tax Appeals, after stating the nature of the case, started the recital of facts thus: "It appears that petitioner, a citizen of the United States and an employee of Bendix Radio, Division of Bendix Aviation Corporation, which provides technical assistance to the United States Air Force, was assigned at Clark Air Base, Philippines, on or about July 7, 1959 ... . Nine (9) months thereafter and before his tour of duty expired, petitioner imported on April 22, 1960 a tax-free 1960 Cadillac car with accessories valued at $6,443.83, including freight, insurance and other charges."4Then came the following: "On July 11, 1960, more than two (2) months after the 1960 Cadillac car was imported into the Philippines, petitioner requested the Base Commander, Clark Air Base, for a permit to sell the car, which was granted provided that the sale was made to a member of the United States Armed Forces or a citizen of the United States employed in the U.S. military bases in the Philippines. On the same date, July 11, 1960, petitioner sold his car for $6,600.00 to a certain Willie Johnson, Jr. (Private first class), United States Marine Corps, Sangley Point, Cavite, Philippines, as shown by a Bill of Sale . . . executed at Clark Air Base. On the same date, Pfc. Willie (William) Johnson, Jr. sold the car to Fred Meneses for P32,000.00 as evidenced by a deed of sale executed in Manila."5As a result of the transaction thus made, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, after deducting the landed cost of the car as well as the personal exemption to which petitioner was entitled, fixed as his net taxable income arising from such transaction the amount of P17,912.34, rendering him liable for income tax in the sum of P2,979.00. After paying the sum, he sought a refund from respondent claiming that he was exempt, but pending action on his request for refund, he filed the case with the Court of Tax Appeals seeking recovery of the sum of P2,979.00 plus the legal rate of interest.As noted in the appealed decision: "The only issue submitted for our resolution is whether or not the said income tax of P2,979.00 was legally collected by respondent for petitioner."6After discussing the legal issues raised, primarily the contention that the Clark Air Base "in legal contemplation, is a base outside the Philippines" the sale therefore having taken place on "foreign soil", the Court of Tax Appeals found nothing objectionable in the assessment and thereafter the payment of P2,979.00 as income tax and denied the refund on the same. Hence, this appeal predicated on a legal theory we cannot accept. Petitioner cannot make out a case for reversal.1. Resort to fundamentals is unavoidable to place things in their proper perspective, petitioner apparently feeling justified in his refusal to defer to basic postulates of constitutional and international law, induced no doubt by the weight he would accord to the observation made by this Court in the two opinions earlier referred to. To repeat, scant comfort, if at all is to be derived from such anobiter dictum, one which is likewise far from reflecting the fact as it is.Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of its sovereignty.It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction."7A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence.Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory.Decisions coming from petitioner's native land, penned by jurists of repute, speak to that effect with impressive unanimity. We start with the citation from Chief Justice Marshall, announced in the leading case ofSchooner Exchange v. M'Faddon,8an 1812 decision: "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction." After which came this paragraph: "All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source."Chief Justice Taney, in an 1857 decision,9affirmed the fundamental principle of everyone within the territorial domain of a state being subject to its commands: "For undoubtedly every person who is found within the limits of a government, whether the temporary purposes or as a resident, is bound by its laws." It is no exaggeration then for Justice Brewer to stress that the United States government "is one having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory, and acting directly upon each [individual found therein]; . . ."10Not too long ago, there was a reiteration of such a view, this time from the pen of Justice Van Devanter. Thus: "It now is settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to its jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and control the ports, harbors, bays, and other in closed arms of the sea along its coast, and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or 3 geographic miles."11He could cite moreover, in addition to many American decisions, such eminent treatise-writers as Kent, Moore, Hyde, Wilson, Westlake, Wheaton and Oppenheim.As a matter of fact, the eminent commentator Hyde in his three-volume work on International Law, as interpreted and applied by the United States, made clear that not even the embassy premises of a foreign power are to be considered outside the territorial domain of the host state. Thus: "The ground occupied by an embassy is not in fact the territory of the foreign State to which the premises belong through possession or ownership. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of acts there committed is determined by the territorial sovereign. If an attache commits an offense within the precincts of an embassy, his immunity from prosecution is not because he has not violated the local law, but rather for the reason that the individual is exempt from prosecution. If a person not so exempt, or whose immunity is waived, similarly commits a crime therein, the territorial sovereign, if it secures custody of the offender, may subject him to prosecution, even though its criminal code normally does not contemplate the punishment of one who commits an offense outside of the national domain. It is not believed, therefore, that an ambassador himself possesses the right to exercise jurisdiction, contrary to the will of the State of his sojourn, even within his embassy with respect to acts there committed. Nor is there apparent at the present time any tendency on the part of States to acquiesce in his exercise of it."122. In the light of the above, the first and crucial error imputed to the Court of Tax Appeals to the effect that it should have held that the Clark Air Force is foreign soil or territory for purposes of income tax legislation is clearly without support in law. As thus correctly viewed, petitioner's hope for the reversal of the decision completely fades away. There is nothing in the Military Bases Agreement that lends support to such an assertion. It has not become foreign soil or territory. This country's jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not excluding the power to tax, have been preserved. As to certain tax matters, an appropriate exemption was provided for.Petitioner could not have been unaware that to maintain the contrary would be to defy reality and would be an affront to the law. While his first assigned error is thus worded, he would seek to impart plausibility to his claim by the ostensible invocation of the exemption clause in the Agreement by virtue of which a "national of the United States serving in or employed in the Philippines in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases and residing in the Philippines only by reason of such employment" is not to be taxed on his income unless "derived from Philippine source or sources other than the United States sources."13The reliance, to repeat, is more apparent than real for as noted at the outset of this opinion, petitioner places more faith not on the language of the provision on exemption but on a sentiment given expression in a 1951 opinion of this Court, which would be made to yield such an unwarranted interpretation at war with the controlling constitutional and international law principles. At any rate, even if such a contention were more adequately pressed and insisted upon, it is on its face devoid of merit as the source clearly was Philippine.InSaura Import and Export Co. v. Meer,14the case above referred to, this Court affirmed a decision rendered about seven months previously,15holding liable as an importer, within the contemplation of the National Internal Revenue Code provision, the trading firm that purchased army goods from a United States government agency in the Philippines. It is easily understandable why. If it were not thus, tax evasion would have been facilitated. The United States forces that brought in such equipment later disposed of as surplus, when no longer needed for military purposes, was beyond the reach of our tax statutes.Justice Tuason, who spoke for the Court, adhered to such a rationale, quoting extensively from the earlier opinion. He could have stopped there. He chose not to do so. The transaction having occurred in 1946, not so long after the liberation of the Philippines, he proceeded to discuss the role of the American military contingent in the Philippines as a belligerent occupant. In the course of such a dissertion, drawing on his well-known gift for rhetoric and cognizant that he was making anas ifstatement, he did say: "While in army bases or installations within the Philippines those goods were in contemplation of law on foreign soil."It is thus evident that the first, and thereafter the controlling, decision as to the liability for sales taxes as an importer by the purchaser, could have been reached without any need for such expression as that given utterance by Justice Tuason. Its value then as an authoritative doctrine cannot be as much as petitioner would mistakenly attach to it. It was clearlyobiternot being necessary for the resolution of the issue before this Court.16It was an opinion "uttered by the way."17It could not then be controlling on the question before us now, the liability of the petitioner for income tax which, as announced at the opening of this opinion, is squarely raised for the first time.18On this point, Chief Justice Marshall could again be listened to with profit. Thus: "It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision."19Nor did the fact that such utterance of Justice Tuason was cited inCo Po v. Collector of Internal Revenue,20a 1962 decision relied upon by petitioner, put a different complexion on the matter. Again, it was by way of pure embellishment, there being no need to repeat it, to reach the conclusion that it was the purchaser of army goods, this time from military bases, that must respond for the advance sales taxes as importer. Again, the purpose that animated the reiteration of such a view was clearly to emphasize that through the employment of such a fiction, tax evasion is precluded. What is more, how far divorced from the truth was such statement was emphasized by Justice Barrera, who penned the Co Po opinion, thus: "It is true that the areas covered by the United States Military Bases are not foreign territories both in the political and geographical sense."21Justice Tuason moreover made explicit that rather than corresponding with reality, what was said by him was in the way of a legal fiction. Note his stress on "in contemplation of law." To lend further support to a conclusion already announced, being at that a confirmation of what had been arrived at in the earlier case, distinguished by its sound appreciation of the issue then before this Court and to preclude any tax evasion, an observation certainly not to be taken literally was thus given utterance.This is not to say that it should have been ignored altogether afterwards. It could be utilized again, as it undoubtedly was, especially so for the purpose intended, namely to stigmatize as without support in law any attempt on the part of a taxpayer to escape an obligation incumbent upon him. So it was quoted with that end in view in the Co Po case. It certainly does not justify any effort to render futile the collection of a tax legally due, as here. That was farthest from the thought of Justice Tuason.What is more, the statement on its face is, to repeat, a legal fiction. This is not to discount the uses of afictio jurisin the science of the law. It was Cardozo who pointed out its value as a device "to advance the ends of justice" although at times it could be "clumsy" and even "offensive".22Certainly, then, while far from objectionable as thus enunciated, this observation of Justice Tuason could be misused or misconstrued in a clumsy manner to reach an offensive result. To repeat, properly used, a legal fiction could be relied upon by the law, as Frankfurter noted, in the pursuit of legitimate ends.23Petitioner then would be well-advised to take to heart such counsel of care and circumspection before invoking not a legal fiction that would avoid a mockery of the law by avoiding tax evasion but what clearly is a misinterpretation thereof, leading to results that would have shocked its originator.The conclusion is thus irresistible that the crucial error assigned, the only one that calls for discussion to the effect that for income tax purposes the Clark Air Force Base is outside Philippine territory, is utterly without merit. So we have said earlier.3. To impute then to the statement of Justice Tuason the meaning that petitioner would fasten on it is, to paraphrase Frankfurter, to be guilty of succumbing to the vice of literalness. To so conclude is, whether by design or inadvertence, to misread it. It certainly is not susceptible of the mischievous consequences now sought to be fastened on it by petitioner.That it would be fraught with such peril to the enforcement of our tax statutes on the military bases under lease to the American armed forces could not have been within the contemplation of Justice Tuason. To so attribute such a bizarre consequence is to be guilty of a grave disservice to the memory of a great jurist. For his real and genuine sentiment on the matter in consonance with the imperative mandate of controlling constitutional and international law concepts was categorically set forth by him, not as anobiterbut as the rationale of the decision, inPeople v. Acierto24thus: "By the [Military Bases] Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein."Nor did he stop there. He did stress further the full extent of our territorial jurisdiction in words that do not admit of doubt. Thus: "This provision is not and can not on principle or authority be construed as a limitation upon the rights of the Philippine Government. If anything, it is an emphatic recognition and reaffirmation of Philippine sovereignty over the bases and of the truth that all jurisdictional rights granted to the United States and not exercised by the latter are reserved by the Philippines for itself."25It is in the same spirit that we approach the specific question confronting us in this litigation. We hold, as announced at the outset, that petitioner was liable for the income tax arising from a sale of his automobile in the Clark Field Air Base, which clearly is and cannot otherwise be other than, within our territorial jurisdiction to tax.4. With the mist thus lifted from the situation as it truly presents itself, there is nothing that stands in the way of an affirmance of the Court of Tax Appeals decision. No useful purpose would be served by discussing the other assigned errors, petitioner himself being fully aware that if the Clark Air Force Base is to be considered, as it ought to be and as it is, Philippine soil or territory, his claim for exemption from the income tax due was distinguished only by its futility.There is further satisfaction in finding ourselves unable to indulge petitioner in his plea for reversal. We thus manifest fealty to a pronouncement made time and time again that the law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and that he who would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.26Petitioner had not done so. Petitioner cannot do so.WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals of May 12, 1966 denying the refund of P2,979.00 as the income tax paid by petitioner is affirmed. With costs against petitioner.Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Teehankee, JJ.,concur.Reyes, J.B.L., J.,concurs in the result.Barredo, J.,took no part.

REID V COVERTFacts of the CaseWhile residing at an airbase in England as a military dependent, Mrs. Clarice Covert was tried and convicted by court-martial for the murder of her husband, a sergeant in the United States Air Force. Mrs. Covert was not a member of the armed forces. Her trial and subsequent conviction by court martial in the United States was authorized under Article 2(11) of the United States Code of Military Justice. Mrs. Covert filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court alleging that her conviction by military authorities had violated her constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The district court, holding that a civilian is entitled to a civilian trial, granted her petition. The Government appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.In its initial decision of the case (351 U.S. 487), the Court held that Mrs. Coverts military trial was constitutional, that the Constitutional right to a trial by jury did not apply to American citizens tried in foreign lands. Congress, the Court held, could provide for trial by any means it saw fit so long as such means were reasonable and consistent with due process. Justice Felix Frankfurter issued a lengthy reservation, and Chief Justice Earl Warren together with Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas issued a strong dissent. The Court subsequently granted a petition for rehearing.QuestionDo American citizens abroad retain the rights granted to them by the Bill of Rights thus rendering Article 2(11) of the United State Code of Military Justice unconstitutional?ArgumentReid v. Covert - Oral Reargument, Part 2Reid v. Covert - Oral Reargument, Part 1ConclusionDecision:6 votes for Covert, 2 vote(s) againstLegal provision:Uniform Code of Military JusticeYes. In a plurality opinion written by Justice Hugo L. Black and joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justices William O. Douglas and William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that American citizens outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the decision below granting Mrs. Coverts habeas petition was affirmed. Black wrote: [W]e reject the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. Consequently, the plurality asserted that neither a treaty nor the Necessary and Proper Clause could confer upon Congress the sweeping power to try civilians by military court martial.While a majority of the Court agreed with the ultimate result, they did so for different reasons. Concurring in the decision, Justice Felix Frankfurter rejected the idea that the Necessary and Proper Clause could prevent Congress from mandating the court martial of civilians in all cases. He opposed what he termed a recourse to the literal words of the Constitution. Merely to hold that Mrs. Covert could not stand trial before a military tribunal since she was not a member of the armed forces signified too narrow a review. In his opinion, that determination required the Court to assess the Constitution in its entirety and not simply the single provision granting Congress the power to regulate the nations land and naval forces. He advocated a balancing test that would require a court to weigh all the factors involved...in order to decide whether [military dependents] are so closely related to what Congress may allowably deem essential for the effective...regulation of the land and naval forces that they may be subjected to court-martial jurisdiction in...capital cases, when the consequence is loss of [their constitutional] protections.Also concurring in the judgment, Justice John Marshall Harlan II essentially agreed with Frankfurter. Accordingly, he saw the determination as analogous to issues of due process. Having first determined that military dependents overseas bear a rational connection to the armed forces such that they could be validly subjected to court martial, he then asserted that the analysis turned on a question of what process was due a military dependent under the particular circumstances of a particular case. While capital cases such as this one certainly necessitated a full Article III trial, most petty offenses committed by military dependents almost certainly would not. He thus advocated a case-by-case approach, rejecting the sweeping conclusion set forth by the plurality. Since Harlan had originally voted with the majority in the initial decision of this case, his concurrence on rehearing was narrow but significant. Perhaps as a consequence of his earlier vote in the previous term, his opinion on rehearing was considerably less at odds with the arguments set forth in the dissent written by Justice Tom C. Clark and joined by Justice Harold Burton.In that staunch dissent, Clark gave substantial weight to historical practice. He asserted that the military has always exercised jurisdiction by court-martial over civilians accompanying armies in time of war, and that for explicit reasons of policy concerning military morale and discipline, none of the Courts relevant precedents had ever questioned that authority. He pointed out several troublesome and practical consequences of the Courts holding. Not least among these were the vast distances between the United States and its various military instillations around the world. By setting forth an overly broad standard, the plurality, argued Clark, had opened the door to a myriad of petty offenses to be tried in the federal court system, thus incurring needless cost, delay, and disruption.Justice Charles Whitaker took no part in the decision.TANADA vs ANGARABrief Historical BackgroundTo hasten worldwide recovery from the devastation wrought by the Second World War, plans for the establishment of three multilateral institutions -- inspired by that grand political body, the United Nations -- were discussed at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods.Thefirstwas the World Bank (WB) which was to address the rehabilitation and reconstruction of war-ravaged and later developing countries; thesecond, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was to deal with currency problems; and the third, the International Trade Organization (ITO), which was to foster order and predictability in world trade and to minimize unilateral protectionist policies that invite challenge, even retaliation, from other states.However, for a variety of reasons, including its non-ratification by the United States, the ITO, unlike the IMF and WB, never took off.What remained was only GATT -- the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.GATT was a collection of treaties governing access to the economies of treaty adherents with no institutionalized body administering the agreements or dependable system of dispute settlement.After half a century and several dizzying rounds of negotiations, principally the Kennedy Round, the Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round, the world finally gave birth to that administering body -- the World Trade Organization -- with the signing of the Final Act in Marrakesh, Morocco and the ratification of the WTO Agreement by its members.[1]Like many other developing countries, the Philippines joined WTO as a founding member with the goal, as articulated by President Fidel V. Ramos in two letters to the Senate (infra), of improving Philippine access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products.The Presidentalso saw in the WTO the opening of new opportunities for the services sector x x x, (the reduction of) costs and uncertainty associated with exporting x x x, and (the attraction of) more investments into the country.Although the Chief Executive did not expressly mention it in his letter, the Philippines - - and this is of special interest to the legal profession - - will benefit from the WTO system of dispute settlement by judicial adjudication through the independent WTO settlement bodies called (1) Dispute Settlement Panels and (2) Appellate Tribunal.Heretofore, trade disputes were settled mainly through negotiations where solutions were arrived at frequently on the basis of relative bargaining strengths, and where naturally, weak and underdeveloped countries were at a disadvantage.The Petition in BriefArguing mainly (1) that the WTOrequires the Philippines to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products and (2) that the WTO intrudes, limits and/or impairs the constitutional powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court, the instant petition before this Court assails the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos x x x (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.Simply stated, does the Philippine Constitution prohibit Philippine participation in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization?Does it prescribe Philippine integration into a global economy that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized?These are the main questions raised in this petition forcertiorari, prohibition andmandamusunder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court praying (1) for the nullification, on constitutional grounds, of the concurrence of the Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement, for brevity) and (2) for the prohibition of its implementation and enforcement through the release and utilization of public funds, the assignment of public officials and employees, as well as the use of government properties and resources by respondent-heads of various executive offices concerned therewith.This concurrence is embodied in Senate Resolution No. 97, dated December 14, 1994.The FactsOn April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of theDepartmentofTradeandIndustry (Secretary Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act, for brevity).By signing the Final Act,[2]Secretary Navarro on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, agreed:(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent authorities, with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and(b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.On August 12, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received a letter dated August 11, 1994 from the President of the Philippines,[3]stating among others that the Uruguay Round Final Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution.On August 13, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received another letter from the President of the Philippines[4]likewise dated August 11, 1994, which stated among others that the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services are hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution.On December 9, 1994, the President of the Philippines certified the necessity of the immediate adoption of P.S. 1083, a resolution entitled Concurring in the Ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.[5]On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 which Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, that the Senate concur, asit hereby concurs, in the ratification by the President of the Philippines ofthe Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.[6]The text of the WTO Agreement is written on pages 137et seq.of Volume I of the 36-volumeUruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiationsand includes various agreements and associated legal instruments (identified in the said Agreement as Annexes 1, 2 and 3 thereto and collectively referred to as Multilateral Trade Agreements, for brevity) as follows:ANNEX 1Annex 1A:Multilateral Agreement on Trade in GoodsGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994Agreement on AgricultureAgreement on the Application of Sanitary andPhytosanitary MeasuresAgreement on Textiles and ClothingAgreement on Technical Barriers to TradeAgreement on Trade-Related Investment MeasuresAgreement on Implementation of Article VI of theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General on Tariffs and Trade 1994Agreement on Pre-Shipment InspectionAgreement on Rules of OriginAgreement on Imports Licensing ProceduresAgreement on Subsidies and Coordinating MeasuresAgreement on SafeguardsAnnex 1B:General Agreement on Trade in Services and AnnexesAnnex 1C:Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property RightsANNEX2Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of DisputesANNEX3Trade Policy Review MechanismOn December 16, 1994, the President of the Philippines signed[7]the Instrument of Ratification, declaring:NOW THEREFORE, be it known that I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, after having seen and considered the aforementioned Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts thereof, signed at Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 April 1994, do hereby ratify and confirm the same and every Article and Clause thereof.To emphasize, the WTO Agreement ratified by the President of the Philippines is composed of the Agreement Proper and the associated legal instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts thereof.On the other hand, the Final Act signed by Secretary Navarro embodies not only the WTO Agreement (and its integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions and (2) the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.In his Memorandum dated May 13, 1996,[8]the Solicitor General describes these two latter documents as follows:The Ministerial Decisions and Declarations are twenty-five declarations and decisions on a wide range of matters, such as measures in favor of least developed countries, notification procedures, relationship of WTO with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and agreements on technical barriers to trade and on dispute settlement.The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services dwell on, among other things, standstill or limitations and qualifications of commitments to existing non-conforming measures, market access, national treatment, and definitions of non-resident supplier of financial services, commercial presence and new financial service.On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed.After careful deliberation on respondents comment and petitioners reply thereto, the Court resolved on December 12, 1995, to give due course to the petition, and the parties thereafter filed their respective memoranda.The Court also requested the Honorable Lilia R. Bautista, the Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations stationed in Geneva, Switzerland, to submit a paper, hereafter referred to as Bautista Paper,[9]for brevity, (1) providing a historical background of and (2) summarizing the said agreements.During the Oral Argument held on August 27, 1996, the Court directed:(a) the petitioners to submit the (1) Senate Committee Report on the matter in controversy and (2) the transcript of proceedings/hearings in the Senate; and(b) the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, to file (1) a list of Philippine treaties signed prior to the Philippine adherence to the WTO Agreement, which derogate from Philippine sovereignty and (2) copies of the multi-volume WTO Agreement and other documents mentioned in the Final Act, as soon as possible.After receipt of the foregoing documents, the Court said it would consider the case submitted for resolution.In a Compliance dated September 16, 1996, the Solicitor General submitted a printed copy of the 36-volumeUruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, and in another Compliance dated October 24, 1996, he listed the various bilateral or multilateral treaties or international instruments involving derogation of Philippine sovereignty.Petitioners, on the other hand, submitted their Compliance dated January 28, 1997, on January 30, 1997.The IssuesIn their Memorandum dated March 11, 1996, petitioners summarized the issues as follows:A.Whether the petition presents a political question or is otherwise not justiciable.B.Whether the petitioner members of the Senate who participated in the deliberations and voting leading to the concurrence are estopped from impugning the validity of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization or of the validity of the concurrence.C.Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contravene the provisions of Sec. 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, all of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.D.Whether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine sovereignty specifically the legislative power which, under Sec. 2, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution is vested in the Congress of the Philippines;E.Whether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization interfere with the exercise of judicial power.F.Whether the respondent members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they voted for concurrence in the ratification of the constitutionally-infirm Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.G.Whether the respondent members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they concurred only in the ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and not with the Presidential submission which included the Final Act, Ministerial Declaration and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.On the other hand, the Solicitor General as counsel for respondents synthesized the several issues raised by petitioners into the following:[10]1.Whether or not the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that agreement cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.2.Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress.3.Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.4.Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization implied rejection of the treaty embodied in the Final Act.By raising and arguing only four issues against the seven presented by petitioners, the Solicitor General has effectively ignored three, namely: (1) whether the petition presents a political question or is otherwise not justiciable; (2) whether petitioner-members of the Senate (Wigberto E. Taada and Anna Dominique Coseteng) are estopped from joining this suit; and (3) whether the respondent-members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion when they voted for concurrence in the ratification of the WTO Agreement.The foregoing notwithstanding, this Court resolved to deal with these three issues thus:(1)The political question issue -- being very fundamental and vital, and being a matter that probes into the very jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide this case -- was deliberated upon by the Court and will thus be ruled upon as the first issue;(2)The matter of estoppel will not be taken up because this defense is waivable and the respondents have effectively waived it by not pursuing it in any of their pleadings; in any event, this issue, even if ruled in respondents favor, will not cause the petitions dismissal as there are petitioners other than the two senators, who are not vulnerable to the defense of estoppel; and(3)The issue of alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent senators will be taken up as an integral part of the disposition of the four issues raised by the Solicitor General.During its deliberations on the case, the Court noted that the respondents did not question thelocus standiof petitioners.Hence, they are also deemed to have waived the benefit of such issue.They probably realized that grave constitutional issues, expenditures of public funds and serious international commitments of the nation are involved here, and that transcendental public interest requires that the substantive issues be met head on and decided on the merits, rather than skirted or deflected by procedural matters.[11]To recapitulate, the issues that will be ruled upon shortly are:(1) DOES THE PETITION PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY?OTHERWISE STATED, DOES THE PETITION INVOLVE A POLITICAL QUESTION OVER WHICH THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION?(2) DO THE PROVISIONS OF THE WTO AGREEMENT AND ITS THREE ANNEXES CONTRAVENE SEC. 19, ARTICLE II, AND SECS. 10 AND 12, ARTICLE XII, OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?(3)DO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT AND ITS ANNEXES LIMIT, RESTRICT, OR IMPAIR THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY CONGRESS?(4) DO SAID PROVISIONS UNDULY IMPAIR OR INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER BY THIS COURT IN PROMULGATING RULES ON EVIDENCE?Third Issue:The WTO Agreement and Legislative PowerThe WTO Agreement provides that (e)ach Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements.[39]Petitioners maintain that this undertaking unduly limits, restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignty, specifically the legislative power which under Sec. 2, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is vested in the Congress of the Philippines.It is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because this means that Congress could not pass legislation that will be good for our national interest and general welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO Agreement, which not only relates to the trade in goods x x x but also to the flow of investments and money x x x as well as to a whole slew of agreements on socio-cultural matters x x x.[40]More specifically, petitioners claim that said WTOprovisoderogates from the power to tax, which is lodged in the Congress.[41]And while the Constitution allows Congress to authorize the President to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts, such authority is subject to specified limits and x x x such limitations and restrictions as Congress may provide,[42]as in fact it did under Sec. 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code.Sovereignty Limited by International Law and TreatiesThis Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which petitioners stressed their arguments on this issue.However, while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world.In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations."[43]By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws.[44]One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law ispacta sunt servanda-- international agreements must be performed in good faith.A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties x x x.A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.[45]By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty.By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.Thus, treaties have been used to record agreements between States concerning such widely diverse matters as, for example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of territory, the termination of war, the regulation of conduct of hostilities, the formation of alliances,the regulation of commercial relations, the settling of claims, the laying down of rules governing conduct in peace and the establishment of international organizations.[46]The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered absolute.Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, Today, no nation can build its destiny alone.The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over.The age of interdependence is here.[47]UN Charter and Other Treaties Limit SovereigntyThus, when the Philippines joined the United Nations as one of its 51 charter members, it consented to restrict its sovereign rights under the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation.47-AUnder Article 2 of the UN Charter, (a)ll members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.Such assistance includes payment of its corresponding share not merely in administrative expenses but also in expenditures for the peace-keeping operations of the organization.In its advisory opinion of July 20, 1961, the International Court of Justice held that money used by the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East and in the Congo were expenses of the United Nations under Article 17, paragraph 2, of the UN Charter.Hence, all its members must bear their corresponding share in such expenses.In this sense, the Philippine Congress is restricted in its power to appropriate.It is compelled to appropriate funds whether it agrees with such peace-keeping expenses or not.So too, under Article 105 of the said Charter, the UN and its representatives enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities, thereby limiting again the exercise of sovereignty of members within their own territory.Another example: although sovereign equality and domestic jurisdiction of all members are set forth as underlying principles in the UN Charter, suchprovisosare however subject to enforcement measures decided by the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security under Chapter VII of the Charter.A final example: under Article 103, (i)n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligation under the present charter shall prevail, thus unquestionably denying the Philippines -- as a member -- the sovereign power to make a choice as to which of conflicting obligations, if any, to honor.Apart from the UN Treaty, the Philippines has entered into