Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh No. L-5, 75 SCRA 113. November 16, 1945

Where there appears to be a conflict between international law and municipal law, efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both. For this purpose, it should be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted rules of international law. MacArthur Proclamation of October 23, 1944 invalidation "all laws, regulations, and processes" of the Occupation government, do not apply to judicial decisions.

Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh

No. L-5, 75 SCRA 113. November 16, 1945

Topic Under:  Government: De Jure and De facto Government. Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution

Facts:

A petition for mandamus was filed by the petitioners to continue proceedings in civil case No. 3012 which were initiated under the regime of the so-called Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation. The respondent judge refused to take cognizance of and continue the proceedings in said case on the ground that the proclamation issued by General McArthur has the effect of invalidating and nullifying all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts in the Philippines under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established during the Japanese military occupation and that the lower court have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the PH in the absence of an enabling law granting such authority. Also, the court contends that the government established in the PH during the Japanese occupation were not de facto government.

When the Imperial Japanese Forces occupied the City of Manila they proclaimed, among other things, that “all laws now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as executive and judicial institutions, shall continue to be effective for the time being as in the past.” Thereafter, a central administrative organization under the name of Philippine Executive Commission was organized and the Chairman thereof issued orders in which the SC, CA, CFI, justices of the peace and municipal courts under the Commonwealth were to continue with the same jurisdiction. Sometime in 1943, the Republic of the Philippines was inaugurated but no substantial change effected in the organization and jurisdiction of the different courts of justice. When General McArthur returned in Leyte, he proclaimed that “the laws existing in the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines are in full force and effect and legally binding” and that “all laws. Regulations and processes of any other government on the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect.”

 

Issue:

1)    Is the government organized by the Japanese a de facto government?

2)    Whether or not judicial rulings (resolved cases) “were good and valid and remained so even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces.”

3)    Is the McArthur Proclamation invalidating “all laws, regulations and processes” of the Occupation government applicable also to judicial decisions?

4)    Whether or not present courts have the legal jurisdiction to continue hearing cases which were pending to them before the restoration of the Commonwealth.

Held:

 

Is the government organized by the Japanese a de facto government?

1)    YES. It is evident that the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil government established by the military forces or occupation and therefore a de facto government of the second kind: “that while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over all districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military.” As Halleck says, “The government established over an enemy’s territory during the military occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws of war to the conqueror over the conquered and is subject to all restrictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether such government be called a military or civil government. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. In either case it is a government imposed of such territory or the rest of the world, those laws alone determine the legality or illegality of its acts.” The fact that the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil and not a military government and was run by Filipinos and not by Japanese nationals, is of no consequence.

 

Whether or not judicial rulings (resolved cases) “were good and valid and remained so even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces.”

2)    YES. It is a legal truism in political and international law that all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government are good and valid. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the PH during the Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, which are not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well known principle of postliminy in international law, remained good and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces. Thus, judicial acts done under his control, when they are not of a political complexion, administrative acts so done, to the extent that they take effect during the same time by private persons under the sanction of municipal law, remain good.

 

  

Is the McArthur Proclamation invalidating “all laws, regulations and processes” of the Occupation government applicable also to judicial decisions?

3)    NO. According to the well-known principles of international law all judgements and judicial proceedings , which are not of a political complexion, of the de facto governments during the Japanese military occupation were good and valid before and remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereignty, it should be presumed that it was not, and could not have been, the intention of General McArthur, in using the phrase, “processes of any other government” in said proclamation, to refer to judicial process, in violation of said principles of international law.

 

Whether or not present courts have the legal jurisdiction to continue hearing cases which were pending to them before the restoration of the Commonwealth.

4)    YES. Enabling laws or acts providing that proceedings pending in one court be continued by or transferred to another court, are not required by mere change of government sovereignty. They are necessary only in case the former courts are abolished or their jurisdiction so changed that they can no longer continue taking cognizance of the cases and proceedings commenced therein, in order that the new courts or the courts having jurisdiction over said cases may continue the proceedings.

It is therefore, obvious that the present courts have jurisdiction to continue, to final judgement, the proceedings in cases, not political complexion, pending therein at the time of the restoration of the Commonwealth Government.