CASE DIGEST ON ESPIONAGE-G.R. No. L-44

G.R. No. L-44            September 13, 1945

LILY RAQUIZA, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
LT. COL. L.J. BRADFORD, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS:  Petioners file for a writ of Habeas Corpus as they were held by Us military for acts of espionage claiming that they were "confined, restrained and deprived" of their liberty in the Correctional Institution for Women, petitioners, Lily Raquiza, Haydee Tee Han Kee and Emma Link Infante.

Both respondents made returns of service attaching  commitment emanating from the Headquarters and Counter Intelligence Corps Detachment, and the second from that of the United States Army Forces in the Far East,  Counter Intelligence Corps Detachment. The returns, as well as from the arguments of counsel, was due to proclamation issued by General of the Army MacArthur regarding the arrest of petitioner Lily Raquiza who was arrested by the Counter Intelligence Corps Detachment  U.S. Sixth Army, and detained under Security Commitment Order No. being charged as follows:

Commitment Order. — The person named and described above is deemed a risk to the security of the U.S. Forces for the reasons set forth above. The commanding officer of any military stockade, jail, or comparable installation in which this person may be confined is authorized and directed to detain him in custody until released by competent military authority.

In said Schedule A the specific complaint or charge against complaint or charge against petitioner Lily Raquiza is "Espionage activity for Japanese."

As to petitioner Haydee Tee Han Kee, was arrested by the same for "Active collaboration with the enemy."With regard to petitioner Emma Link Infante, "Active collaboration with the Japanese." Her previous association with the enemy constituted a present security risk to the United States Armed Forces.

Specifically, the proclamation read:

GENERAL HEADQUARTERS

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA

PROCLAMATION

PROVIDING FOR MILITARY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN UPON THE APPREHENSION OF CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES WHO VOLUNTARILY HAVE GIVEN AID, COMFORT AND SUSTENANCE TO THE ENEMY.

WHEREAS evidence is before me that certain citizens of the Philippines voluntarily have given aid, comfort and sustenance to the enemy in violation of allegiance due the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and

WHEREAS military necessity requires that such persons be enemy in violation of allegiance due the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army, United States Army, as Commander-in-Chief Southwest Pacific Area, hereby do publish and declare it to be my purpose to remove such persons, when apprehended, from any position of political and economic influence in the Philippines and to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war; whereafter I shall release them to the Philippine Government for its judgment upon their respective cases.

Done at General Headquarters, Southwest Pacific Area, in the field, this twenty-ninth day of December, 1944.

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR General of the Army United States Army Commander-in-Chief

ISSUE: Whether or not holding of the petitioners by reason of US Army, and its Intelligence Department investigation that petitioners are involved in espionage during occupation is valid notwithstanding that some of the petitioners are Filipino Citizens.

HELD: SC Held , there is no question that the power of the  power of the Commander in Chief of the United States Army to issue the foregoing proclamation cannot be seriously questioned effects. Reason of the restraint of petitioners were upon two grave reasons, to wit, (1) that evidence was before him "that certain citizens of the Philippines voluntarily have given aid, comfort and sustenance to the enemy in violation of allegiance due the Government of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines;" and (2) that "military necessity requires that such persons be removed from any opportunity to threaten the security of our military forces or the success of our military operations." The exigencies of the military operations for the destruction or defeat the enemy did not permit of any other procedure. To deny such power or competency to determine the strength and sufficiency of such evidence would have been destructive of that military efficiency with which, in the interest of all the citizens of the Philippines themselves, not excluding the herein petitioners, the operations for their liberation had to be conducted. Has the war terminated within the meaning of that part of his proclamation wherein the Commander in Chief declared his purpose to hold such persons in restraint "for the duration of the war"? The Sc decided, it did not as there was no Presidential proclamation to that effect. The Court said in United States vs. Tubig (3 Phil., 244, 254), this Court said:

From that day the fighting continued, and the insurrection did not end officially until the President proclaimed it an end, July 4, 1902. It is necessary to refer to a public act of the Executive Department to fix the date of the closing of the war. (Freeborn vs. The Protector, 79 U.S., 700.)

The Sc dismissed the petition.