Raquiza vs. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 (1948)

FACTS: By virtue of the proclamation issued by General of the Army MacArthur, petitioners were arrested by the 306 CIC and detained under security commitment order No 385. The
petitioners Raquiza, Tee Han Kee, and Infante were charged with Espionage activity with the Japanese, active collaboration with the enemy respectively. Power for Commander of the US
Army to proclaim by virtue of military necessity is not questioned. He based proclamation on the reasons that the apprehended have violated due allegiance to the US and it is a military necessity. Petitioners move for writ of Habeas Corpus.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the war terminated within the meaning of that part in the proclamation? [Note: The power of commander in chief of the US Army to issue a proclamation providing for military measures to be taken upon the apprehension of Filipino citizens who voluntarily have given aid, comfort and sustenance to the enemy, cannot be seriously questioned.]

No. “The war, in the legal sense, continues until, and terminated at the same time of, some formal proclamation of peace by an authority competent to proclaim it. It is the province of the political department, and not the judicial department, to determine if war has ended. The fact that delivery of certain persons under custody of the US Army has already begun does not mean that the war has, in the legal sense, already terminated, which clearly it has not. Delivery within the power of military authorities to make even before was terminates.

2. Whether or not this court has jurisdiction or legal power to afford relief to the petitioners in the sad and sorry plight to which they have been and are being subjected?

No. Civil Courts should not interfere. A foreign army permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, is exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place. Grant of free passage implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over troops during passage (let them exercise their own discipline). Any attempt by our civil Courts to exercise jurisdiction over US troops would be a violation of our country’s faith. On the other hand, petitioners may have recourse to proper military authorities.