NATURE: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Habeas corpus.
FACTS: Miquiabas is a Filipino citizen and civilian employee of the US army in the Philippines who had been charged of disposing in the Port of Manila Area of things belonging to the US army in violation of the 94th article of War of the US. He was arrested and a General Court-Martial was appointed. He was found guilty. As a rule, the Philippines being a sovereign nation has jurisdiction over all offenses committed within its territory but it may, by treaty or by agreement, consent that the US shall exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses committed within said portions of territory.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the offense has been committed within a US base thus giving the US jurisdiction over the case.
No. The Port of Manila Area where the offense was committed is not within a US base for it is not names in Annex A or B of Article XXVI of the Military Base Agreement (MBA) and is merely part of the temporary quarters located within presented limits of the city of Manila. Moreover,
extended installations and temporary quarters are not considered to have the same jurisdictional capacity as permanent bases and are governed by Article XIII paragraphs 2 and 4. The offence at bar, therefore is in the beyond the jurisdiction of military courts.
2. WON the offender is a member of the US armed forces
No. Under the MBA, a civilian employee is not considered as a member of the US armed forces. Even under the articles of war, the mere fact that a civilian employee is in the service of the US Army does not make him a member of the armed forces.
No comments:
Post a Comment