Practice question
During the Japanese occupation, a Filipino allegedly gave aid and comfort to the enemy. After liberation, he argues that prosecution is impossible because the legitimate government’s displacement suspended sovereignty and his allegiance. He adds that the later change from Commonwealth to Republic created a different sovereign people. Based solely on these sovereignty arguments and Laurel v. Misa, which answer is best?
- Both arguments fail: occupation did not suspend allegiance, and the change of governmental form did not create a different sovereign people.
- Both arguments succeed because any displacement of officials ends allegiance.
- Only the first succeeds because sovereignty follows the occupying army.
- Only the second succeeds because a republic always has a new population.
- The arguments succeed if the accused remained in the occupied territory.
Legal references
- Laurel v. Misa, G.R. No. L-409, January 30, 1947, majority resolution, sovereignty and allegiance during occupation: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1947/jan1947/gr_l-409_1947.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.