Scribd
Upload
149 views2 pages

Go Tian Sek Santos vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-319 Mar. 28, 1946

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen, was detained by Commonwealth authorities as a political prisoner after being turned over by U.S. forces. He argues his detention is illegal as he has not been charged or convicted in court and does not owe allegiance to the Commonwealth or U.S. The Solicitor General admits the detention but argues the petitioner could be charged with espionage, where allegiance is irrelevant. The court deems the petitioner a Chinese subject but rules he is not automatically excluded from a law allowing detention of political prisoners for up to 6 months pending prosecution. However, one justice concurs on some points but dissents, arguing the petitioner is being deprived of liberty without due legal process.

Uploaded by

Mars Tubalinal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
149 views2 pages

Go Tian Sek Santos vs. Misa, G.R. No. L-319 Mar. 28, 1946

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen, was detained by Commonwealth authorities as a political prisoner after being turned over by U.S. forces. He argues his detention is illegal as he has not been charged or convicted in court and does not owe allegiance to the Commonwealth or U.S. The Solicitor General admits the detention but argues the petitioner could be charged with espionage, where allegiance is irrelevant. The court deems the petitioner a Chinese subject but rules he is not automatically excluded from a law allowing detention of political prisoners for up to 6 months pending prosecution. However, one justice concurs on some points but dissents, arguing the petitioner is being deprived of liberty without due legal process.

Uploaded by

Mars Tubalinal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GO TIAN SEK SANTOS, petitioner, vs.

ERIBERTO MISA, Director of Prisons,


respondent.

1946-03-28 | G.R. No. L-319

DECISION

BENGZON, J:

The petitioner avers he is a Chinese citizen apprehended in February, 1945, by the Counter Intelligence
Corps of the United States Army, turned over last September, to the Commonwealth Government, and
since then detained by the respondent as a political prisoner. Such detention, he claims, is illegal,
because he has not been charged before, not convicted by, the judge of a competent court, and because
he may not be confined under Act. No. 682, as he owes allegiance neither to the United States nor to the
Commonwealth of the Philippines.

The Solicitor General, for the respondent, admits the detention, for active collaboration with the
Japanese, doubts the allegation of citizenship, and maintains that, conceding arguendo petitioner's
alienage, he may be charged for espionage, a crime against national security wherein allegiance is
immaterial, and may, therefore, be held in custody under Commonwealth Act No. 682.

As the record stands, the petitioner must be deemed a Chinese subject. The commitment order No. 291
issued by the United States Army authorities describes him as such. But it does not follow that he is
entitled to liberty now. But it does not follow that he is entitled to liberty now. He is included among those
contemplated by Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682, which reads partly:

"Upon delivery by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines of
the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to Commonwealth Government, the Office of Special
Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents, exhibits and such other things as the Government of
the United States may have turned over in connection with and/or affecting said political prisoners,
examine the aforesaid records, documents, exhibits, etc., and take, as speedily as possible, such action
as may be proper: Provided, however, . . . And, provided, further, That, in the interest of public security,
the provisions of article one hundred twenty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as mended, shall be
deemed, as they are hereby, suspended, insofar as the aforesaid political prisoners are concerned , until
the filing of the corresponding information with the People's Court, but the period of suspension shall not
be more than six (6) months from the formal delivery of said political prisoners by the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines to the Commonwealth
Government.

His foreign status does not exclude him ipso facto from the scope of the provisions. As stated by the
Solicitor General, he might be prosecuted for espionage, (Commonwealth Act. No. 616) a crime not
conditioned by citizenship of the offender, and considered as an offense against national security.

The contentions advanced during the oral argument, challenging the validity of said section 19,
Commonwealth Act. No. 682, upon constitutional grounds must be overruled, in view of our decision in
Laurel vs. Director of Prisons (p. 372, ante), copy of which will be furnished to petitioner by the clerk of
this court. The petition is denied, with costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Hilado, and Briones, J.J., concur.

Paras, J., concurs in the result.


| Page 1 of 2
Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., concurring and dissenting:

We concur with the majority's pronouncement to the effect that petitioner is not excluded from the group
of persons contemplated by section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682, notwithstanding his foreign status
as a Chinese subject. We also agree that, if there are facts and evidence to justify it, he might be
prosecuted for espionage, or any other crime not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender. But we
disagree as to the denial of the petition, it appearing that the petitioner is being deprived of his personal
liberty without any due and legal process of law, and as to this question, we refer to the stand we have
taken in our dissenting opinion in case G.R. No. L-200. Laurel vs. Director of Prisons (p. 372, ante), the
contentions therein we reiterate here.

| Page 2 of 2

You might also like