SCHO SCHOON ONER ER EXCH EXCHA ANGE NGE V. MC MCFA FADDO DDON, N, 11 U.S. 116 (1812) Brief Fac S!""ar#. Two Americans (P) laid claims of ownership and entitlements to the schooner Exchange. National al ships ships of war are viewe viewed d as been been S#$%& S#$%&'i' 'i' %f R!e R!e %f a*. a*. Nation exempted by consent of the power of the friendly jrisdiction whose port the ship enters.
Fac'. Two Americans (P) claimed they owned and were entitled to the schooner schooner Exchange Exchange they sei!ed sei!ed on the high seas. The claim which which the "nited #tates Attorney ($) pt forward for the prevention of the ship leaving was that% the ship which was owned by the Emperor of &rance had been forced to enter the port of Philadelphia de to bad weather conditions. At this point in time% t he ".# and &rance were on friendly terms. The "nited #tates' #tates' ($) reest reest for the dismissal dismissal of ownership ownership and release of the ship was granted by the district cort. owever% this jdgment was reversed by the circit circit cort cort and this did not preven preventt the "nited "nited #tates #tates ($) from from appealing to the ".#. #preme *ort. +''!e. Are National ships of war viewed as been exempted by the consent of the power of the f riendly jrisdiction whose port the ship enters+ (,arshall all%% *.-.) *.-.) es. es. Nation National al ships ships of war are viewed viewed as been been He. (,arsh exempted by consent of the power of the friendly jrisdiction whose port the ship enters. A nation's jrisdiction within its sovereign territory is exclsive and absolte. The Exchange been a pblic armed ship% crrently nder the control and spervision of a foreign power% who at the time of the ship's entry into the "nited #tates territory% was at peace with the "nited #tates% mst be viewed as having entered the states territory nder an implied promise that while in sch environment% wold be exempt from the jrisdiction of the contry. /eversed. absolte te form form of sovere sovereign ign immni immnity ty from from jdici jdicial al Di'c!''i%$. The absol jrisdiction was implicated in this case. Three principles were broght forward by the cort in this case0 the immnity that all civili!ed nations allow to foreign ministers0 the exemption of the person of the sovereign from arrest arrest or imprisonment imprisonment within a foreign foreign contry0 and when a sovereign sovereign permit permits s troops troops of a foreig foreign n prince prince to pass pass throg throgh h his territ territory ory%% sch sch sovereign is nderstood to mean he has ceded a portion of his territorial jrisdiction.
A$%-er S%!rce (1314) is a "nited The Schooner Schooner Exchange Exchange v. M'Faddon% 11 ".#. 112 (1314) #ta tes #tate s#preme *ort case *ort case concerning the &ederal corts5 jrisdiction over a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting an American port. The cort% cort% interpretin interpreting g cstomary international law% law% determined that there was no jrisdiction. &acts6 The schooner Exchange% owned by -ohn ,5&addon and 7illiam 8reetham% sailed from 9altimore% ,aryland% ,aryland% on :ctober 4;% 13<=% for #an for #an #ebasti>n% #pain.. :n $ece #pain $ecemb mber er ?<% ?<% 131< 131<%% the the Exchange was was sei! sei!ed ed by orde order r of Napoleon 9onaparte. 9onaparte. The Exchange was then armed and commissioned as a &rench warship nder the name of Balaou. 7hen the vessel later doc@ed in Philadelphia de to storm damage% ,5&addon and 8reetham filed an action in the district cort to sei!e the vessel% claiming that it had been ta@en illegally. The district cort fond that it did not have jrisdiction over the dispte. :n appeal% the circit cort reversed the decision of the district cort% and ordered the district cort to proceed to the merits of the case. 1B The #preme *ort reversed the circit cort5s decision% and affirmed the district cort5s dismissal of the action. eld6 *hief -stice ,arshall delivered the opinion of the cort. e noted that by the definition of sovereignty% a state has absolte and exclsive jrisdiction within its own territory% bt that it cold also by implied or express consent waive jrisdiction.4B ,oreover% ,arshall also noted that nder international cstom jrisdiction was presmed to be waived in a nmber of sitations. &or instance% a foreign sovereign and his diplomatic representatives were genera generally lly free free from from the jrisd jrisdict iction ion of domest domestic ic corts corts when when visitin visiting. g. ?B #imilarly% if a state granted permission for a foreign army free passage
across its territory% it generally implied a waiver of jrisdiction over that army. CB This This cst cstom om was was firm firmly ly eno enogh gh esta establ blis ishe hed d and and nece necess ssar ary y for international relations that it wold be wrongfl for a contry to violate it withot prior notice. notice.DB ,arshall frther noted that while the right of free passage by an army need sall sally y be explic explicitl itly y grante granted d (li@el (li@ely y becas becase e sch sch passag passage e inevit inevitably ably involves physical damage of some sort)% by maritime cstom a nation5s ports were presmptively open to all friendly ships. 7hile a nation cold close its ports to the warships of another contry% it wold have to isse some form of declaration to do so. 7ithot sch a declaration% a friendly foreig foreign n warshi warship p cold cold enter enter a nation nation5s 5s port port with with its implie implied d consen consent. t. 2B ,arshall ,arshall frther frther distingish distingished ed the difference difference between private private merchant merchant ships and citi!ens (who are sbject to a nation5s jrisdiction when they enter its ports with the nation5s nation5s implied implied consent)% consent)% and military military ships. ships. Namely% Namely% private ships do not carry with them the sovereign stats of military ships% with the privileges that accompany it. it.;B &rom this% ,arshall arrived at the conclsio conclsion n that% by cstomary cstomary international international law% law% a friendly friendly warship warship that enters a nation5s open port are exempted from that nation5s jrisdiction. jrisdiction.3B Applying this analysis to the facts at hand% ,arshall fond that the corts did not have jrisdiction over the case. #ignificance6 The decision is regarded as the first definitive statement of the doctrine of 1
/HE
0EO0E
OF
/HE
0H++00+NES
vs.
SEGUNDO M. AC+ER/O /UASON, J. This is an appeal from two separate decisions% one in a case for falsification of a private docment and another in six cases for estafa. The charges for estafa are similar in all respects except as to the dates of the commission of the crimes and the amonts alleged to have been swindled. Fn the cases of estafa% the accsed pleaded gilty and was sentenced to for months and one day of arresto mayor in in each% to indemnify the "nited #tates Army in the amont of P?
to be confined at hard labor for sixty months. Fmmediately after the sentence was promlgated% he was committed to the general prisoners branch by which% it is alleged% he was sbjected to hard labor li@e all other military prisoners. :n -ne 13% 1=C3% however% the *ommanding 8eneral as reviewing athority disapproved the above verdict and sentence in an order of the following tenor6 In the foregoing case of Segundo M. Acierto, a person accompanying and serving with the Army of the United States without the territorial urisdiction of the United States, the sentence is disapproved upon the sole ground that this accused was not su!ect to military l aw and without preudice to his trial !efore a proper tri!unal. "onse#uently, on $une %&, he was conducted !y a United States Military office to the "ity Attorney of 'ue(on "ity for prosecution under the penal laws of the )hilippines, and the said "ity Attorney, after conducting a preliminary investigation, filed the information which initiated the several cases now on appeal. *he appellant states in his !rief that in all the a!ove seven cases he set up the plea of dou!le eopardy, a statement which is !elied !y the fact that in all the six cases for estafa he pleaded guilty. +owever, the plea of dou!le eopardy is interwoven with the plea of want of urisdiction, in that the former is directly predicated on the proposition, now sustained !y the defendant, that the court martial had urisdiction of the offenses and his person. Because of this interrelationship !etween the two pleas, we may disregard, for the present, the fact that in the six cases for estafa dou!le eopardy, which is a matter of defense, was not invoed.
The 9ases Agreement between the /epblic of the Philippines and the "nited #tates over American ,ilitary bases signed on ,arch 1C% 1=C;% and effective pon its acceptance by the two governments% in part provides6 A/TF*IE KFFF -"/F#$F*TF:N 1. The Philippines consents that the "nited #tates shall have the right to exercise jrisdiction over the following offenses6 (a) Any offense committed by any person within any base except where the offender and offended parties are both Philippine citi!ens (not members of the armed forces of the "nited #tates on active dty) or the offense is against the secrity of the Philippines0 (!) Any offense committed otside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the "nited #tates in which the offended party is also a member of the armed forces of the "nited #tates0 and (c) Any offense committed otside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the "nited #tates against the secrity of the "nited #tates. 4. The Philippines shall have the right to exercise jrisdiction over all other offenses committed otside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the "nited #tates. ?. 7henever for special reasons the "nited #tates may desire not to exercise the jrisdiction reserve to it in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article% the officer holding the offender in cstody shall so notify the fiscal (prosecting attorney) of the city or province in which the offense has been committed within ten days after his arrest% and in sch a case the Philippines shall exercise jrisdiction. *amp /i!al where the crimes in estion were committed was% it is conceded% a military base or installation in 1=C3. #ince paragraphs ( !) and (c ) of section 1 refer to offenses committed otside the bases by members of the armed forces% and since the accsed was not% it is also conceded% a member of the armed forces% these paragraphs may be eliminated from or iniry into the jrisdiction of the cort martial. Paragraph (a) is the provision in virte in which the appellants disptes the athority of the civil cort to ta@e jrisdiction of his offenses. He c%$e$'
-a -e *a' a$ e"&%#ee %f -e Ar"# %f -e U$ie Sae', a$ *a' &r%&er# a$ ea# rie # a !# c%$'i!e # a "iiar# c%!r. /-i' i' -e e3ac re4er'e %f -e &%'ii%$ efe$a$ %%5 a -e "iiar# ria. As stated% he there attac@ed the cort martial5s jrisdiction with the same vigor that he now says the cort martial did have jrisdiction0 and than@s to his objections% so we incline to believe% the *ommanding 8eneral% pon consltation with% and the recommendation of% the -dge Advocate 8eneral in 7ashington% disapproved the cort martial proceedings. The estion that meets s at the threshold is6 7as the defendant an employee of the "nited #tates Army within the m eaning of the "nited #tates ,ilitary law+ $efense consel at the cort martial% a "nited #tates ,ilitary
officer% and It. *olonel #eymor 7. 7rfel% #taff -dge Advocate 8eneral of the Philippines /y@s *ommand who appeared as amicus curiae in the *ort of &irst Fnstance and sbmitted a memorandm for the prosection% were one in holding that he was not. 9oth consel ths described the natre of the defendant5s wor@ and his relation with the "nited #tates Army. $efendant wor@ed as he pleased and was not amenable to daily control and disciplines of the Army. "pon the change of his stats he ceased to be an integral parts of the Army with the corresponding loss of the rights and privileges he previosly enjoyed and which accre to reglar "nited #tates Army employees. 7hile the Army cold reest him to record cort martial proceedings% in which event he was paid nder Army reglations for so mch wor@ accomplished% he cold not in his stats as piece wor@er be compelled to do so. e cold act as reporter bt was not nder any obligation to the "nited #tates Army to do so. e was not reired to present himself for wor@ nor cold he be mar@ed absent for failre to appear reglarly in his office. e was remnerated for so mch of his wor@ of reporting and transcribing as he volnteered to ma@e. e was privileged to remain in his home except for the prpose of bringing his finished report to the office. Then he was at liberty to depart once more. After his discharge as reglar employee he was in fact paid for records of trial prepared by him from a fnd entirely different from that set aside to pay reglar employees5 salaries. is position was comparable to that of any vendor who sells commodity to the Army as distingished from employees who draw reglar pay from the organi!ation. The last time he reported cort martial proceedings was on $ecember 1?% 1=C;. #ince that date he had not in any way performed any wor@ for t he Army% nor had he been called pon to act in any case or to report in any section of the eadarters of the Philippine /y@s *ommand for any prpose. "pon the circmstances set forth% he cold not be considered as serving with the Army. *olonel 7rfel cited 7inthrop5s ,ilitary Iaw and Precedents% 4nd ed.% Lols. 1 and 4% page 1<<% which says6 The article to be strictly constred. This article% in creating an exceptional jrisdiction over civilians% is to be strictly constred and confined to the classes specified. A civil offender who is not certainly within its terms cannot be sbjected nder it to a military trial in time of war with any more legality then he cold be sbjected to sch a trial in time of peace. As held by the -dge Advocate 8eneral% the mere fact of employment by the 8overnment within the theatre of war does not bring the person within the application of the article. Fn several cases of pblic employees broght to trial by cort martial dring the late war the convictions were disapproved on the grond that it did not appear that at the time of their offenses they were serving with the army in the sense of this article. (/eferring to Article of 7ar 4% paragraph 4d.B) *onstrction of the "nited #tates ,ilitary Iaw by the -dge Advocate 8eneral of the "nited #tates Army is entitled to great respect% to say the very least. 7hen sch constrction is a disclaimed of jrisdiction nder the 9ases Agreement% the Philippine 8overnment certainly is not the party to dispte it0 the fewer the rights asserted by the "nited #tates the more is enhanced the dignity of the Philippines and its interest promoted. Frrespective of the correctness of the views of the ,ilitary athorities% the defendant was estopped from demrring to the Philippine cort5s jrisdiction and pleading doble jeopardy on the strength of his t rial by the cort martial.
A &ar# *i $% e a%*e % "a5e a "%c5er# %f !'ice # "a5i$ i$c%$'i'e$ &%'ii%$ *-ic- if a%*e *%! re'! i$ ra7e$ ece&i%$. + i' rifi$ *i- -e c%!r', c%$rar# % -e ee"e$ar# &ri$ci&e' %f ri- eai$ a$ %% fai-, f%r a$ acc!'e % e %$e c%!r -a i ac5' a!-%ri# % r# -i" a$, afer -e -a' '!cceee i$ -i' eff%r, % e -e c%!r % *-ic- -e -a' ee$ !r$e %4er -a -e fir' -a' c%""ie err%r i$ #iei$ % -i' &ea. &rom another angle% it seems immaterial whether or not the cort martial had jrisdiction of the accsed and his crime nder the terms of the 9ases Agreement. 8ranting that it had% the *ort of &irst Fnstance of Je!on *ity nevertheless properly and legally too@ cogni!ance of the cases and denied the defendant5s motion to ash.
B# -e aree"e$, i '-%! e $%e, -e 0-ii&&i$e G%4er$"e$ "ere# c%$'e$' -a -e U$ie Sae' e3erci'e !ri'ici%$ i$ cerai$ ca'e'. /-e c%$'e$ *a' i4e$ &!re# a' a "aer %f c%"i#, c%!re'#, %r e3&eie$c#. /-e 0-ii&&i$e G%4er$"e$ -a' $% aicae i' '%4erei$# %4er -e a'e' a' &ar %f -e 0-ii&&i$e erri%r# %r i4e'e i'ef c%"&ee# %f !ri'ici%$ %4er %ffe$'e' c%""ie -erei$. U$er -e er"' %f -e rea#, -e U$ie Sae' G%4er$"e$ -a' &ri%r %r &refere$ia ! $% e3c!'i4e !ri'ici%$ %f '!c%ffe$'e'. /-e 0-ii&&i$e G%4er$"e$ reai$' $% %$# !ri'ici%$a ri-' $% ra$e, ! a'% a '!c- cee ri-' a' -e U$ie Sae' Miiar# a!-%riie' f%r rea'%$' %f -eir %*$ eci$e % "a5e !'e %f. /-e fir' &r%&%'ii%$ i' i"&ie fr%" -e fac %f 0-ii&&i$e '%4erei$#
%4er -e a'e' -e 'ec%$ fr%" -e e3&re'' &r%4i'i%$' %f -e rea#. /-e rea# e3&re''# 'i&!ae' -a %ffe$'e' i$c!e -erei$ "a# e rie # -e &r%&er 0-ii&&i$e c%!r' if f%r a$# '&ecia rea'%$ -e U$ie Sae' *ai4e' i' !ri'ici%$ %4er -e". /-e$ carr#i$ %! %f -e &r%4i'i%$' %f -e a'e' Aree"e$ i' -e c%$cer$ %f -e c%$raci$ &arie' a%$e. 9-e-er, -eref%re, a i4e$ ca'e *-ic- # -e rea# c%"e' *i-i$ -e U$ie Sae' !ri'ici%$ '-%! e ra$'ferre % -e 0-ii&&i$e a!-%riie' i' % a "aer a%! *-ic- -e acc!'e -a' $%-i$ % % %r 'a#. Fn other words% the rights granted to the "nited #tates by the treaty insre solely that contry and can not be raised by the offender. (&n@ vs. #tate% 4<3 #. 7.% D<=.) B# -e
'a"e %5e$, $%$:c%"&ia$ce *i- a$# %f -e c%$ii%$' i"&%'e %$ -e U$ie Sae' ca$$% e$efi -e %ffe$er. This brings p the last grond for the contention that the *ort of &irst Fnstance of Je!on *ity was withot jrisdiction of the cases at bar. The 9ases Agreement provides in Article KFFF% paragraph ?% that in case the "nited #tates renonce the jrisdiction reserved to it in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article% the officer holding the offender in cstody shall so notify the fiscal of the city or province in which the offense has been committed within 1< days after his arrest. The #olicitor 8eneral invites attention to the fact that appellant was arrested by the "nited #tates Army on ,arch 4<% 1=C3% and confined ntil -ne 13% 1=C3% pending final decision of this case% and% li@e the appellant% he believes that this delay of three months does not obviosly comply with the reirement of the foregoing section% which is explicit on its terms and provides for no exceptions. Fn their opinion this delay was fatal. The appellant and the #olicitor 8eneral labor% we believe% nder a misapprehension as to the prpose and meaning of the treaty provision jst cited. /-i' &r%4i'i%$ i' $%, a$ ca$$% %$ &ri$ci&e %r a!-%ri# e
c%$'r!e a' a i"iai%$ !&%$ -e ri-' %f -e 0-ii&&i$e G%4er$"e$. +f a$#-i$, i i' a$ e"&-aic rec%$ii%$ a$ reaffir"ai%$ %f 0-ii&&i$e '%4erei$# %4er -e a'e' a$ %f -e r!-a a !ri'ici%$ ri-' ra$e % -e U$ie Sae' a$ $% e3erci'e # -e aer are re'er4e # -e 0-ii&&i$e f%r i'ef. /-e e$:a# re;!ire"e$ i' %f irec%r# c-aracer reai$ % &r%ce!re, i$'ere "ere# f%r -e c%$4e$ie$ce %f -e 0-ii&&i$e G%4er$"e$. + ca$$% a$ %e' $% &ree$ % i"i$i'- %r i"&air -e f!$a"e$a ri-' %f !ri'ici%$ re'er4e # -e rea# f%r -i' G%4er$"e$. Ft is an obligation imposed on the "nited #tates precisely with a view to enabling the Philippine 8overnment the better % e3erci'e i' re'i!a a!-%ri#. /-e %ffe$er -a' $% i$ere' i$ -i' ca!'e %f -e rea# e#%$ -e ri- % e"a$ -a *-%e4er i' % r# -i" '-%! &r%cee *i- rea'%$ae i'&ac-. /% 'a# -a fai!re %$ -e &ar %f -e U$ie Sae' % !r$ -e %ffe$er %4er % -e 0-ii&&i$e a!-%riie' *i-i$ e$ a#' *%r5' a' a f%rfei!re %f -e 0-ii&&i$e G%4er$"e$<' !ri'ici%$ i' a &ara%3. 9y the appellant5s and the #olicitor 8eneral5s theory% this 8overnment wold be penali!ed by the falt of the other signatory to the treaty over whose action it has no control. Fn effect% the idea is not mch nli@e divesting a lender of the ownership to his property by reason of the borrower5s neglect to retrn it within the time promised. 7hat is more serios% offenses not prely military in character perpetrated in military or naval reservations wold be left npnished where the military or naval athorities in appropriate cases fail or refse to act.
0ar# f%r -e rea'%$' area# '-%*$, -e &ea %f %!e e%&ar# i' *i-%! a$# "eri. +f -e c%!r "aria -a $% !ri'ici%$, e%&ar# c%! $% -a4e aac-e. /-i' &r%&%'ii%$ i' %% *e:e'ai'-e a$ %% *e:5$%*$ % $ee ciai%$ %f a!-%riie'. Even if it be granted that the cort martial did have jrisdiction% the military trial in the instant cases has not placed the appellant in jeopardy sch as wold bar his prosection for violation of the Philippine penal laws or% for that matter% a second trial nder the Articles of 7ar. Althogh nder /ev. #tat. sec. 1?C4% art. 4% it has been held that a former trial may be pleaded when there has been a trial for the offense% whether or not there has been a sentence adjdged or the sentence has been disapproved ($ig. -A8 1=14B p. 12;)% the rle is and shold be otherwise when the disapproval was made in response to the defendant5s plea based on lac@ of jrisdiction. (Ex parte *astello% 3. &. 4nd.% 43?% 432.) Fn sch case the former trial may not be pleaded in bar in the second trial. :n the estion of the sfficiency of the evidence in the case for falsification of a private docment% (which was the only case tried% in the six cases for estafa the defendant having entered the plea of gilty)% the cort below fond that on ,arch 11% 1=C3% the defendant sbmitted a vocher in which he falsely made it appear that he was entitled to collect H1<<.C2 from the "nited #tates Army for services allegedly rendered% forging in said docment the signatre of *aptain Eaton -. 9owers% and that by these fradlent pretenses he scceeded in being paid the amont itemi!ed.
As the lower cort said% the defendant did not introdce any evidence to disprove the above findings% confining himself to raising estions of law. :ther legal theories are rged in the appellant5s brief bt they were not raised in the cort below and% moreover% are obviosly nmeritorios. Ft sffices to say that on the facts charged and fond by the cort in case No. 1;<1 and established by the proof% the defendant was properly prosected for falsification of a private docment% even assming% withot deciding% that they also constitte violation of other laws. The jdgment appealed from will be affirmed with the modification that the maximm dration of the appellant5s imprisonment shall not be more than threefold the length of the time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties% and that from the sentence as ths redced there shall be dedcted oneGhalf of the preventive imprisonment ndergone by the accsed. The appellant will pay the costs of both instances. )aras, ".$., -eria, )a!lo, Beng(on, )adilla, Montemayor, eyes, $ugo, Bautista Angelo and /a!rador, $$., concr
GODOFREDO D+=ON vs.
/HE COMMAND+NG GENERA OF /HE 0H++00+NE R>U?US COMMAND, UN+/ED S/A/ES ARM> )orfirio 0. 0illaroman, Marcelo Mallari and achel Enri#ue(1-idelino for petitioner. $. A. 2olfson for respondent. -irst Solicitor 3eneral o!erto A. 3ian(on and Solicitor -rancisco "arreon for the Solicitor 3eneral.
0ARAS, J. :n ,arch 1C% 1=C;% an Agreement was conclded between the Philippines and the "nited #tates of America whereby the latter is athori!ed to occpy and se certain portions of the Philippine territory as military bases and to exercise jrisdiction over certain offenses committed within and otside said bases. &or an offense allegedly committed at the main storage area% Philrycom Engineer $epot% "nited #tates Army% AP: =<<% located at Je!on *ity% Philippines% the petitioner was prosected in and convicted by a 8eneral *ort ,artial appointed by the *ommanding 8eneral of the PhilippineG/y@s *ommand of the "nited #tates Army and accordingly sentenced% on ,arch C% 1=C3% to confinement at hard labor for five years. Fn his petition for ha!eas corpus filed with this *ort on ,arch 4C% 1=C3% lastly amended by motion dated April =% 1=C3% the petitioners contends that the 8eneral *ort ,artial had no jrisdiction over the alleged offense which was committed in a place not a base of the "nited #tates Army within the meaning of the Agreement concerning military bases of ,arch 1C% 1=C;% and that even assming that the offense was committed in a base% said Agreement is nconstittional becase it deprives the Philippine corts of the jrisdiction over all offenses exclsively vested in them by Article LFFF% section 1% of the *onstittion% and violates section 1 of Article FFF of the *onstittion garanteeing to every person in the Philippines de process and eal protection of the law. There is no dispte that the main storage area in which the offense in estion is alleged to have been committed is located within a site in Je!on *ity which has been sed as headarters by the PhilippineG /y@s *ommand of the "nited #tates Army since before ,arch 1C% 1=C;% when the Agreement between the Philippines and "nited #tates regarding military bases was conclded. The bases granted to the "nited #tates nder the Agreement are specified and enmerated in Annex A and annex 9 of said Agreement which% however% in its Article KKF provides that the "nited #tates shall retain the right to occpy temporary arters and installations now existing otside the bases mentioned in Annex A and Annex 9 (paragraph 1) and that the terms of this Agreement pertaining to bases shall be applicable to temporary arters and installations referred to in paragraph 1 of this article while they are so occpied by the armed forces of the "nited #tates0 provided% that offenses committed within the temporary arters and installations located within the present limits of the *ity of ,anila shall not be considered as offenses within the bases (paragraph ?). Ft is not pretended on the part of the respondent that the site in estion is inclded within any of the bases specific in Annex A and Annex 9. ence the same ndobtedly falls nder the classification of temporary installations provided for in Article KKF of the Agreement. Even so% as said temporary installation is not located within the limits of the *ity of ,anila% the terms of
the Agreement pertaining to bases are applicable thereto by virte of the provision of paragraph ? of Article KKF already above oted. Accordingly% the offense in estion falls nder the jrisdiction of the "nited #tates as a conseence of Article KFFF of the Agreement which stiplates that the Philippines consents that the "nited #tates shall have the right to exercise jrisdiction over . . . an y offense committed by any person within any base except where the offender and offended parties are both Philippine citi!ens (not members of the armed forces of the "nited #tates on active dty) or the offense is against the secrity of the Philippines . . . (paragraph 1). Ft is not insisted by the petitioner that his case comes nder any of the exception mentioned in this provision. This brings s to the constittional point raised by the petitioner. Fn at least two recent cases (/ai!a vs. 9radford%1 C1 :ff. 8a!.% 242% decided on #eptember 1?% 1=CD% and Tbb vs. 8riess% 4 CC :ff. 8a!.% 4;14% decided on April ;% 1=C;)% we applied the wellGsettled principles of Fnternational Iaw that a foreign army allowed to march throgh a friendly contry or to be stationed in it% by permission of its government or sovereign% is exempt from the civil and criminal jrisdiction of the place. *onsel for the petitioner% admitting the correctness of or prononcement% does not contend that sch exemption is an nconstittional dimintion or deprivation of the jrisdiction of the Philippine corts% becase # 4ir!e %f
'eci%$ @ %f Arice ++ %f -e C%$'i!i%$, -e e$era# acce&e &ri$ci&e' %f i$er$ai%$a a* -a4e ee$ a%&e a' &ar %f -e a* %f -e Nai%$. Fn li@e manner% there wold be not be an nconstittional derogation of the jrisdiction of the local corts if we are recogni!ed the immnities of foreign sovereigns and ministers. Althogh already sperflos% we do not hesitate to hold that even in the absence of an express declaration in the *onstittion that the generally accepted principles of international law are made a part of the law of the Nation% we are bond to phold the immnities above referred to. A$ -i'
'-%! e r!e a' %$ a' -e ci4ii7e *%r %r "a%ri# %f -e i$e&e$e$ c%!$rie' c%"&%'i$ i 'i aie # -e r!e' %f -e i$er$ai%$a a*, a$ a' %$ a' -e 0-ii&&i$e' c%$i$!e', a' i "!' c%$i$!e, % -a4e a$ i$erc%!r'e *i- '!c- c%!$rie'. 7e wold be the last to sppose that the farmers of the *onstittion wold ever intend to impgn or disregard any international practice. A nation wold jstify be considered as violating its faith% althogh that faith might not be expressly plighted% which shold sddenly and withot previos notice% exercise its territorial powers in a manner not consonant to the sages and received obligations of the civili!ed world. (The #chooner Exchange vs. ,c&addon and :thers% ? Iaw. ed.% 43;.) "nder the Agreement of ,arch 1C% 1=C;% the "nited #tates was given express permission to establish military bases on certain portions of the Philippine territory and to exercise jrisdiction over certain offenses. The rights ths granted are no less than those conceded by the rle of international law to a foreign army allowed to march throgh a friendly contry or to be stationed in it% by permission of its government or sovereign. &or this reason% if for no other% the constittional point raised by the petitioner becomes ntenable. The jrisdiction granted to the "nited #tates nder the Agreement may be wider than what is recogni!ed by international law% bt the facts remains that the lesser right is fndamentally as mch a dimintion of the jrisdiction of the Philippine corts as the greater right. Ff the latter right were to be invo@ed in the absence of the Agreement% there is every reason to state that6 The jrisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclsive and absolte. Ft is ssceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. A$#
re'rici%$ !&%$ i, eri4i$ 4aii# fr%" a$ e3er$a '%!rce, *%! i"&# a i"i$!i%$ %f i' '%4erei$# % -e e3e$ %f -e re'rici%$, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extend in that power which cold impose sch restriction. (The #chooner Exchange vs. ,c&addon and :thers% ? Iaw. ed.% 43;% 4=?.) Ths in the most recent case of Mi#uia!as vs. "ommanding 3eneral, )hilippine1yuus "ommand, United States Army %? 8./. No. IG1=33% decided on &ebrary 4C% 1=C3 (CD :ff. 8a!.% ?341)% this *ort ennciated the principle that a' a r!e -e 0-ii&&i$e', ei$ a '%4erei$ $ai%$,
-a' !ri'ici%$ %4er a %ffe$'e' c%""ie *i-i$ i' erri%r#, ! i "a#, # rea# %r # aree"e$, c%$'e$ -a -e U$ie Sae' %r a$# %-er f%rei$ $ai%$, '-a e3erci'e !ri'ici%$ %4er cerai$ %ffe$'e' c%""ie *i-i$ cerai$ &%ri%$' %f 'ai erri%r#. Fn frther spport of the Agreement in estion% the argment may be advanced that the Philippine Fndependence Act% approved by the "nited #tates *ongress on ,arch 4C% 1=?C% reserves to the "nited #tates the right to have and acire naval reservations and feling stations in the Philippines. (#ee section 1<% in connection with section D.) Fn the -oint /esoltion approved by the "nited #tates *ongress on -ne 4=% 1=CC% it was provided (section 4) that after negotiation with the President of *ommonwealth of the Philippines% or the President of the Philippine
/epblic% the President of the "nited #tates is hereby athori!ed by sch means as he finds appropriate to withhold or to acire and to retain sch bases% necessary apprtenances to sch bases% and the rights incident thereto% in addition to any provided for by the Act of ,arch 4C% 1=?C% as he may deem necessary for the mtal protection of the Philippine Fslands and of the "nited #tates nder the Philippine Fndependence Act was enlarged by the -oint /esoltion of -ne 4=% 1=CC% so as to inclde not only naval reservations and feling stations bt other military bases in the Philippines. Fndeed% in the Proclamation of Philippine Fndependence% it was recited that 7hereas the Act of *ongress approved ,arch 4C% 1=?C% @nown as the Philippine Fndependence Act% directed that on the Cth day of -ly immediately following a tenGyear transitional period leading to the independence of the Philippines the President of the "nited #tates of America shold by proclamation withdraw and srrender all rights of possession% spervision% jrisdiction% control or sovereignty of the "nited #tates of America in and over the territory and people of the Philippines except certain reservations therein and thereafter authori(ed to !e made and on behalf of the "nited #tates of America shold recogni!e the independence of the Philippines% now therefore% F% arry #. Trman% President of the "nited #tates of America% acting nder and by virte of the athority vested in me by the aforesaid Act of *ongress% do proclaim that% in accord with and su!ect to the reservations provided for in the pertinent provisions of the existing acts of "ongress % the "nited #tates of America hereby withdraws and srrenders all rights of possession% spervision% jrisdiction% control or sovereignty now existing and exercised by the "nited #tates of America in and over the territory and people of the Philippines and on behalf of the "nited #tates of America F do hereby recogni!e the independence of the Philippines as a separate and selfGgoverning nation and ac@nowledge the athority and control over the same of the 8overnment institted by the people thereof nder the constittion now in force. . . (Emphasis spplied.) The emphasi!ed portions of this declaration in the Proclamation of the Philippine Fndependence plainly lead to the conclsion that -e *i-ra*a %f -e '%4erei$# %f -e U$ie Sae'
%4er -e erri%r# a$ &e%&e %f -e 0-ii&&i$e' i' '!ec % -e ri- %f -e U$ie Sae' % *i--% a$ ac;!ire '!c- "iiar# a'e' a' are a!-%ri7e, $% %$# # -e 0-ii&&i$e +$e&e$e$ce Ac %f Marc- 2, 1@, ! a'% # -e %i$ Re'%!i%$ %f !$e 2, 1. ence the
acisition of bases by the "nited #tates nder the Agreement of ,arch 1C% 1=CC% cannot be constittionally objectionable. 9t the point we want to bring ot is that% if bases may be validly granted to the "nited #tates nder the *onstittion% there is no plasible reason while the lesser attribte of the jrisdiction cannot be waived. &rom another point of view% *ai4er %f !ri'ici%$ may well be considered as inclded within the terms necessary apprtenances to sch bases% and the rights incident thereto% appearing in the -oint /esoltion of -ne 4=% 1=CC% hereinGabove already oted. -risdiction being validly waived in favor of the "nited #tates nder the Agreement in estion% it follows that petitioner5s contention regarding alleged denial of de process and eal protection of the law becomes nfonded. The petition is therefore hereby denied% with costs against the petitioner. #o ordered. -eria, )a!lo, Beng(on, Briones, )adilla and *uason, $$., concr.
Ba#a$ 4. =a"%ra, G.R. N%. 1@8, Oc%er 1, 2 DEC+S+ON (E$ Ba$c) BUENA, J. +.
/HE FAC/S
The /epblic of the Philippines and the "nited #tates of America entered into an agreement called the Lisiting &orces Agreement (L&A). The agreement was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government and was ratified by thenGPresident -oseph Estrada with the concrrence of 4M? of the total membership of the Philippine #enate. The L&A defines the treatment of ".#. troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. Ft provides for the gidelines to govern sch visits% and frther defines the rights of the ".#. and the Philippine governments in the matter of criminal jrisdiction% movement of vessel and aircraft% importation and exportation of eipment% materials and spplies. Petitioners arged% inter alia% that the L&A violates 4D% Article KLFFF of the 1=3; *onstittion% which provides that Oforeign military !ases, troops, or
facilities shall not !e allowed in the )hilippines except under a treaty duly concurred in !y the Senate . . . and recogni(ed as a treaty !y the other contracting State.4
and sei(ure !y customs officials on the high seas, the contention !eing raised that importation had not yet !egun and that the sei(ure was effected outside our territorial waters.
++.
7hy sch a plea cold not be given the least credence withot doing violence to common sense and placing the law in disrepte wold be apparent from a statement of the case and the findings of facts as set forth in the decision now nder review% of the *ort of Tax Appeals% dated November 1=% 1=2C% the opinion being penned by the late Associate -dge Agsto ,. Iciano.
/HE +SSUE
7as the L&A nconstittional+
+++. /HE RU+NG 5*he "ourt DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did not commit grave a!use of discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of the 0-A.6 NO, the VFA is not unconstitutiona.
#ection 4D% Article KLFFF disallows foreign military bases% troops% or facilities in the contry% nless the following conditions are sfficiently met% vi(7 (a) it mst be nder a rea#0 (b) the treaty mst be !# c%$c!rre i$ # -e Se$ae and% when so reired by congress% ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendm0 and (c) rec%$i7e a' a rea# by the other contracting state. There is no dispte as to the presence of the first two reisites in the case of the L&A. The concrrence handed by the #enate throgh /esoltion No. 13 is in accordance with the provisions of the *onstittion . . . the provision in in 4D% Article KLFFFB reiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendm being nnecessary since *ongress has not reired it. xxx
xxx
xxx
This *ort is of the firm view that the phrase !recogni"ed as a tha t the o ther cont racting p arty acce%ts treat#$ means or ac&noedges the agreement as a treaty. To reire the other contracting state% the "nited #tates of America in this case% to sbmit the L&A to the "nited #tates #enate for concrrence prsant to its *onstittion% is to accord strict meaning to t he phrase. 2ell1entrenched is the principle that the words used in the "onstitution are to !e given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. Fts
is opinion starts ths6 This is an appeal from the decision of the Acting *ommissioner of *stoms in *stoms *ase No. 11?% dated #eptember 42% 1=21% (-olo #ei!re Fdentification *ases Nos. ?3% ?=% C<% C1 C4) decreeing the forfeitre of five (D) sailing vessels (@mpits) named 5FrocGFroc%5 5IahatG lahat%5 5Iiberal 7ing FFF%5 5#l Area *ommand%5 and 59siness%5 with their respective cargoes of ble seal cigarettes and rattan chairs for violation of #ection 1?2?(a) of the /evised Administrative *ode and #ection 4< of /epblic Act No. C42 in relation with #ection 1?2?(f) of the /evised Administrative *ode. The facts according to the above opinion are not controverted. Ths6 Ft appears that on #eptember 1<% 1=D<% at abot noon time% a cstoms patrol team on board Patrol 9oat #TG4? intercepted the five (D) sailing vessels in estion on the high seas% between 9ritish North 9orneo and #l while they were heading towards TawiGtawi% #l. After ordering the vessels to stop% the cstoms officers boarded and fond on board% 131 cases of 5erald5 cigarettes% = cases of 5*amel5 cigarettes% and some pieces of rattan chairs. The sailing vessels are all of Philippine registry% owned and manned by &ilipino residents of #l% and of less than thirty (?<) tons brden. They came from #anda@an% 9ritish North 9orneo% bt did not possess any permit from the *ommissioner of *stoms to engage in the importation of merchandise into any port of the #l sea% as reired by #ection 1?2?(a) of the /evised Administrative *ode. Their cargoes were not covered by the reired import license nder /epblic Act No. C42% otherwise @nown as the Fmport *ontrol Iaw.4 /espondent *ommissioner of *stoms% as noted at the otset% affirmed the decision rendered by the *ollector of *stoms of -olo% who fond case for forfeitre nder the law of the vessels and the cargo contained therein. e was% as also already made @nown% sstained by the *ort of Tax Appeals. ence this petition for review.
langage shold be nderstood in the sense they have in common se. ,oreover% it is inconseential whether the "nited #tates treats the L&A only as an exective agreement becase% nder international law% an exective agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be sre% as long as the L&A possesses the elements of an agreement nder international law% the said agreement is to be ta@en eally as a treaty. xxx
xxx
xxx
The records reveal that the "nited #tates 8overnment% throgh Ambassador Thomas *. bbard% has stated that the "nited #tates government has flly committed to living p to the terms of the L&A. &or as long as the "nited #tates of America accepts or ac@nowledges the L&A as a treaty% and binds itself frther to comply with its obligations nder the treaty% there is indeed mar@ed compliance with the mandate of the *onstittion.
G.R. NO. :21 DECEMBER 16, 168 +UH ASAA+, E/. A VS. /HE COMM+SS+ONER OF CUS/OMS The policy relentlessly adhered to and nhesitatingly prsed to minimi!e% if not to do away entirely% with the evil and corrption that smggling brings in its wa@e wold be frstrated and set at naght if the action ta@en by respondent *ommissioner of *stoms in this case% as affirmed by the *ort of Tax Appeals% were to be set aside and this appeal from the decision of the latter were to scceed. &ortnately% the controlling principles of law do not call for a contrary conclsion. Ft cannot be otherwise if the legitimate athority vested in the government were not to be redced to ftility and impotence in the face of an admittedly serios malady% that at times has assmed epidemic proportions. *he principal #uestion raised !y petitioners, owners of five sailing vessels and the cargo loaded therein declared forfeited !y respondent "ommissioner of "ustoms for smuggling, is the validity of their interception
The first two errors assigned by petitioners wold impgn the jrisdiction of the 9rea of *stoms to institte sei(ure proceedings and thereafter to declare the forfeiture of the vessels in estion and their cargo. They wold jstify their stand ths6 8In the light of the fact that the vessels involved with the articles laden therein were apprehended and sei(ed on the high seas, !eyond the territorial waters of the )hilippines, the said vessels could not have touched any place or port in the )hilippines, whether a port or place of entry or not, conse#uently, the said vessels could not have !een engaged in the importation of the articles laden therein into any )hilippine port or place, whether a port or place of entry or not, to have incurred the lia!ility of forfeiture under Section %9:9;a< of the evised Administrative "ode. ?
#ch a contention was advanced by petitioners before the *ort of Tax Appeals. Ft met the repdiation that it deserved. Ths6 7e perfectly see the point of the petitioners bt considering the circmstances srronding the apprehension of the vessels in estion% we believe that #ection 1?2?(a) of the /evised Administrative *ode shold be applied to the case at bar. Ft has been established that the five vessels came from #anda@an% 9ritish North 9orneo% a foreign port% and when intercepted% a %f -e" *ere -eai$ %*ar' /a*i:a*i, a %"e'ic &%r *i-i$ -e S!! 'ea. Iaden with foreign manfactred cigarettes% they did not possess the import license reired by /epblic Act No. C42% nor did they carry a permit from the *ommissioner of *stoms to engage in importation into any port in the #l sea. /-eir c%!r'e a$$%!$ce %!# -eir i$e$i%$ $% "ere# % '5ir
a%$ -e erri%ria %!$ar# %f -e 0-ii&&i$e' ! % c%"e *i-i$ %!r i"i' a$ a$ '%"e*-ere i$ /a*i:a*i %*ar' *-ic- -eir &r%*' *ere &%i$e. As a matter of fact% they were abot to cross or aatic bondary bt for the intervention of a cstoms patrol which% from all appearances% was more than eager to accomplish its mission. The sense of realism and the vigoros langage employed by the late -dge Iciano in rejecting sch a plea deserve to be oted. Ths6 To entertain even for a moment the thoght that these vessels were probably not bond for a Philippine port wold be too mch a concession even for a simpleton or a perennial optimist. + i' ;!ie irrai%$a f%r Fii&i$% 'ai%r'
"a$$i$ fi4e 0-ii&&i$e 4e''e' % '$ea5 %! %f -e 0-ii&&i$e' a$ % % Brii'- N%r- B%r$e%, a$ c%"e a %$ *a# ac5 ae$ *i- -i-# a3ae %%' %$# % !r$ a%! !&%$ reac-i$ -e ri$5 %f %!r erri%ria *aer' a$ -ea f%r a$%-er f%rei$ &%r.D
1. 7e find no plasible reason not to accept in its entirety sch a conclsion reached by the *ort of Tax Appeals. Nor% even if the persasive element in the above view were not so overwhelming% cold we alter the decisive facts as fond by it. &or it is now beyond estion that its finding% if spported by sbstantial evidence% binds s% only estions of law being for s to resolve. 7here the isse raised belongs to the former category% we lac@ the power of review. ,oreover% for nderstandable reasons% we feel extreme relctance to sbstitte or own discretion for that of the *ort of Tax Appeals in its appreciation of the relevant facts and its appraisal of their significance. As we had occasion to state in a relatively recent decision6 Nor as a matter of principle is it advisable for this *ort to set aside the conclsion reached by an agency sch as the *ort of Tax Appeals which is% by the very natre of its fnction% dedicated exclsively to the stdy and consideration of tax problems and has necessarily developed an expertise on the sbject% ...% there has been an abse or improvident exercise of its athority. 4. 7e ths cold rest or decision affirming that of the *ort of Tax Appeals on the above consideration. Ft might not be amiss however to devote some degree of attention to the legal points raised in the above two assignment of errors% discssed jointly by petitionersGappellants% alleging the absence of jrisdiction% the deprivation of property withot de process of law and the abatement of liability conseent pon the repeal of /epblic Act No. C42. Not one of the principles of law relied pon sffices to call for reversal of the action ta@en by the respondent *ommissioner of *stoms% even if the facts presented a sitation less conclsive against the pretension of petitionersGappellants. &rom the apprehension and sei!re of the vessels in estion on the high seas beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines% the absence of jrisdiction of *ommissioner of *stoms is predicated. #ch contention of petitionersGappellants is withot merit.
+ i' !$;!e'i%$e -a a 4e''e' 'ei7e are %f 0-ii&&i$e rei'r#. /-e Re4i'e 0e$a C%e ea4e' $% %! a' % i' a&&icaii# a$ e$f%rceaii# $% %$# *i-i$ -e 0-ii&&i$e', i' i$eri%r *aer' a$ "arii"e 7%$e, ! a'% %!'ie %f i' !ri'ici%$ aai$' -%'e c%""ii$ %ffe$'e *-ie %$ a 0-ii&&i$e '-i& ... /-e &ri$ci&e %f a* -a '!'ai$' -e 4aii# %f '!c- a &r%4i'i%$ e;!a# '!&&ie' a fir" f%!$ai%$ f%r -e 'ei7!re %f -e fi4e 'aii$ 4e''e' f%!$ -ereafer % -a4e 4i%ae -e a&&icae &r%4i'i%$' %f -e Re4i'e A"i$i'rai4e C%e. ,oreover% it is a well settled doctrine of Fnternational Iaw that goes bac@ to *hief -stice ,arshall5s opinion in *hrch v. bbart% an 13
a 'ae -a' -e ri- % &r%ec i'ef a$ i' re4e$!e', a ri- $% i"ie % i' %*$ erri%r# ! e3e$i$ % -e -i- 'ea'. Fn the langage of *hief -stice ,arshall6 The athority of a nation within its own territory is absolte and exclsive. The sei!re of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory% and is a hostile act which it is its dty to repel. 9t its power to secre itself from injry may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its t erritory. The estion as@ed in the brief of petitionersGappellants as to whether the sei!re of the vessels in estion and the cargoes on the high seas and ths beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines was legal mst be answered in the affirmative. C. The next estion raised is the alleged denial of de process arising from sch forfeitre and sei!re. The argment on the alleged lac@ of validity of the action ta@en by the *ommissioner of *stoms is made to rest on the fact that the alleged offense impted to petitionersGappellants is a violation of #ection 1?2?(a) and not #ection 1?2?(f). The title of #ection 1?2? is clear% Property sbject to forfeitre nder cstoms laws. The first sbsection thereof% (a) cover any vessel inclding cargo nlawflly engaged in the importation of merchandise except a port of entry. #bsection (f) spea@s of any merchandise of any prohibited importation% the importation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law and all other merchandise which in the opinion of the *ollector of *stoms have been sed are or were intended to be sed as instrment in the importation or exportation of the former. &rom the above recital of the legal provisions relied pon% it wold appear most clearly that the de process estion raised is insbstantial. *ertainly% the facts on which the sei!re was based were not n@nown to petitionersG appellants. :n those facts the liability of the vessels and merchandise nder the above terms of the statte wold appear to be ndeniable. The action ta@en then by the *ommissioner of *stoms was in a ccordance with law. ow cold there be a denial of de process+ There was nothing arbitrary abot the manner in which sch sei!re and forfeitre were effected. The
right to a hearing of petitionersGappellants was respected. They cold not have been naware of what they were doing. Ft wold be an affront to reason if nder the above circmstances they cold be allowed to raise in all seriosness a de process estion. #ch a constittional garanty% basic and fndamental% certainly shold not be allowed to lend itself as an instrment for escaping a liability arising from one5s own nefarios acts. D. PetitionersGappellants wold frther assail the validity of the action ta@en by the respondent *ommissioner of *stoms by the plea that the repeal of /epblic Act No. C42 abated whatever liability cold have been incrred therender. This argment raised before the *ort of Tax Appeals was correctly held devoid of any persasive force. The decision nder review cited or opinion in 8olayG9chel *ie v. *ommissioner of *stoms11 to the effect that the expiration of the Fmport *ontrol Iaw did not prodce the effect of declaring legal the importation of goods which were illegally imported and the sei!re and forfeitre thereof as ordered by the *ollector of *stoms illegal or nll and void. 14
annonced that principle earlier. Ths6 erein% we are concerned with the effect of the expiration of a law% not with the abrogation of a law% and we hold the view that once the *ommissioner of *stoms has acired jrisdiction over the case% the mere expiration of /epblic Act No. 2D< will not divest him of his jrisdiction thereon dly acired while said law was still in force. Fn other words% we believe that despite the expiration of /epblic Act No. 2D< the *ommissioner of *stoms retained his jrisdiction over the case and cold contine to ta@e cogni!ance thereof ntil its final determination% for the main estion broght in by the appeal from the decision of the *ollector of *stoms was the legality or illegality of the decision of the *ollector of *stoms% and that estion cold not have been abated by the mere expiration of /epblic Act No. 2D<. 7e firmly believe that the expiration of /epblic Act No. 2D< cold not have prodced the effect (1) of declaring legal the importation of the cotton conterpanes which were illegally imported% and (4) of declaring the sei!re and forfeitre ordered by the *ollector of *stoms illegal or nll and void0 in other words it cold not have the effect of annlling or setting aside the decision of the *ollector of *stoms which was rendered while the law was in force and which shold stand ntil it is revo@ed by the a ppellate tribnal. oxas v. Sayoc
As late as 1=2D% in 9ombay $ept. #tore v. *ommissioner of *stoms%1? we had occasion to reaffirm the doctrine in the above two decisions% the present *hief -stice% spea@ing for the *ort% stating that sch expiration of the period of effectivity of /epblic Act No. 2D< did not have the effect of depriving the *ommissioner of *stoms of the jrisdiction% acired by him prior thereto% to act on cases of forfeitre pending before him% which are in the natre of proceeding in rem.... Ft is ths most evident that the *ort of Tax Appeals had not in any wise refsed to adhere faithflly to controlling legal principles when it sstained the action ta@en by respondent *ommissioner of *stoms. Ft wold be a reproach and a reflection on the law if on the facts as they had been shown to exist% the sei!re and forfeitre of the vessels and cargo in estion were to be characteri!ed as otside the legal competence of or government and violative of the constittional rights of petitionersGappellants. &ortnately% as had been made clear above% that wold be an ndeserved reflection and an nwarranted reproach. The vigor of the war against smggling mst not be hampered by a misreading of international law concepts and a misplaced reliance on a constittional garanty that has not in any wise been infringed. 7E/E&:/E% the decision of respondent *ort of Tax Appeals of November 1=% 1=2C% is affirmed. 7ith costs against petitionersGappellants. "oncepcion, ".$., eyes, $.B./., =i(on, Maalintal, >aldivar, Sanche(, "astro and "apistrano, $$., concr.
AUR+/=EN V. ARSEN @ U.S. 1 (1@) &A*T# G$anish seaman broght sit nder -ones Act to recover for injries on the $anish ship% the /anda% while doc@ed in *ba. GIarsen based assertion of federal jrisdiction on board reading of -ones Act% that encompassed all sailors and on Iarit!en company's significant N bsiness contracts. #tatte stated6 Any seaman who shall sffer personal injry in the corse of his employment may% at his election% maintain an action for damages at law% with the right of trial by jry% and in sch action all stattes of the "nited #tates modifying or extending the commonGlaw right or remedy in cases of personal injry to railway employees shall apply. F##"E #hold the $anish law apply or shold "# law apply+
:I$FN8 $anish Iaw shold apply. /"IE# Iaw of the &lagG Each state nder international law may determine for itself the conditions on which it will grant its nationality to a merchant ship% thereby accepting responsibility for it and aciring athority over it. GNationality is evidenced to the world by the ship's papers and its flag. Ga* %f -e fa '!&er'ee' -e erri%ria &ri$ci&e (even for criminal jrisdiction of personnel of a merchant ship)% becase it is deemed to be a part of the territory of that sovereignty (whose flag it flies)% and $% % %'e
-a c-aracer *-e$ i$ $a4iae *aer' *i-i$ -e erri%ria i"i' %f a$%-er '%4erei$#. GA "aer' %f i'ci&i$e a$ a -i$' %$e %$ %ar *-ic- affece %$# -e 4e''e %r -%'e e%$i$ % i, a$ % $% i$4%4e -e &eace %r i$i# %f -e c%!$r# %r -e &%r' ra$;!ii#, '-%! e ef # -e %ca %4er$"e$ % e ea *i- # -e a!-%riie' %f -e $ai%$ % *-ic- -e 4e''e e%$' a' -e a*' %f -a $ai%$ %r -e i$ere'' %f i' c%""erce re;!ire'.
BEN= 4. COM0AN+A NAV+ERA H+DAGO, (1) Ar!e Marc- 6, 1
Decie A&ri 8, 1
The Iabor ,anagement /elations Act of 1=C; does not apply to a controversy involving damages reslting from the pic@eting of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen nder foreign articles while the vessel is temporarily in an American port% thogh American nions to which the foreign seamen did not belong participated in the pic@eting0 and the Act therefore does not preclde a remedy nder state law for sch damages. Pp. 1?3G1C;. (a) *ongress cold have made the Iabor ,anagement /elations Act applicable to wage disptes arising on foreign vessels between nationals of other contries when the vessel comes within territorial waters of the "nited #tates0 bt *ongress did not do so. Pp. 1C4G1C;. (b) The cases of #ailors5 "nion of the Pacific% =4 N. I. /. 9. DC;% and Norris 8rain *o. v. #eafarers5 Fnternational "nion% 4?4 ,inn. =1% C2 N. 7. 4d =C% are inapposite to the estion for decision here. P. 1C?% n. D. (c) An intent on the part of *ongress to change the contractal agreement made by the foreign shipowner and the foreign seamen in this case cannot be read into the Iabor ,anagement /elations Act. Pp. 1C2G1C;. 4?? &.4d 24% affirmed. Qneland *. Tanner arged the case for petitioners. 7ith him on the brief was /ichard /. *arney. -ohn $. ,osser arged the case for respondent. 7ith him on the brief was Iofton I. Tatm. ,/. -"#TF*E *IA/Q delivered the opinion of the *ort. 7hile the petitioners in this diversity case present several estions% the sole one decided is whether the Iabor ,anagement /elations Act of 1=C; 1 applies to a ?D? ".#. 1?3% 1?=B controversy involving damages reslting from the pic@eting of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen nder foreign articles while the vessel is temporarily in an American port. 7e decide that it does not% and therefore do not reach other estions raised by the parties. The #. #. /iviera on #eptember ?% 1=D4% sailed into harbor at Portland% :regon% for repairs% to load a cargo of wheat% and to complete an insrance srvey. Ft was owned by respondent% a Panamanian corporation% and sailed nder a Iiberian flag. The crew was made p entirely of nationals of contries other than the "nited #tates% principally 8erman and 9ritish. They had agreed to serve on a voyage originating at 9remen% 8ermany% for a period of two years% or ntil the vessel retrned to a Eropean port. A 9ritish form of articles of agreement was opened at 9remen. The conditions prescribed by the 9ritish ,aritime 9oard were incorporated into the agreement% inclding wages and hors of employment% all of which were specifically set ot. The crew frther agreed to obey all lawfl commands of the ,aster of the /iviera in regard to the ship% the stores% and the cargo% whether on board% in boats% or on shore. :n or abot #eptember =% 1=D4% the members of the crew went on stri@e on board the vessel and refsed to obey the orders of the ,aster. They demanded that their term of service be redced% their wages be increased% and more favorable conditions of employment be granted. 4 ?D? ".#. 1?3% 1C
#eptember 42% when they left the ship. :n #eptember 1D% 1=D4% they had designated the #ailors5 "nion of the Pacific as their collective bargaining representative. The stri@ing crew or others acting for them contined the pic@eting from #eptember 42% 1=D4% ntil they withdrew the pic@et line on :ctober 1?% 1=D4. The #ailors5 "nion of the Pacific began pic@eting the /iviera on :ctober 1C and contined to do so ntil restrained by an injnction issed in an action for injnctive relief and damages filed against it and its principal representatives by the respondent. Two days later Iocal =< of the National :rgani!ation of ,asters% ,ates and Pilots of America set p a pic@et line at the /iviera which was maintained ntil $ecember 3% 1=D4. This pic@eting was stopped by a writ issed against that nion and its representatives in the second action for injnction and damages filed by respondent and consolidated here. :n $ecember 1<% 1=D4% another pic@et line was established at the vessel. Ft was maintained this time by the Atlantic and 8lf *oast $istrict% #. F. ".% ? ntil it too was enjoined on $ecember 14 in a third action filed by the respondent in which the prayer li@ewise was for an injnction ?D? ".#. 1?3% 1C1B and damages. These three cases have been consolidated for consideration here. All of the pic@eting was peacefl. The ship sailed in $ecember 1=D4. Fn -ne 1=D?% the injnction orders were vacated on appeal to the *ort of Appeals and were ordered dismissed as moot. The cases were retrned to the $istrict *ort for trial on the damage claims. 4
re'&%$e$ -a $% re"e# !$er -e a%r Ma$ae"e$ Reai%$' Ac eca!'e -a Ac i' c%$cer$e '%e# *i- -e a%r reai%$' %f A"erica$ *%r5er' e*ee$ A"erica$ c%$cer$' a$ -eir e"&%#ee' i$ -e U$ie Sae', a$ i i' $% i$e$e %, $%r %e' i c%4er a i'&!e e*ee$ a f%rei$ '-i& a$ i' f%rei$ cre*. The *ort of Appeals thoght that "nited *onstrction 7or@ers v. Iabrnm *onstrction *orp.% ?C; ".#. 2D2 (1=DC)% governed% bt that :regon law did not permit recovery against the nions since they were nincorporated ?D? ".#. 1?3% 1C4B associations. 4?? &.4d 24. C This% in effect% left the jdgments standing against the individal representatives of the nions% the petitioners here. 7e granted certiorari in order to settle the important estion of jrisdiction posed. ?D4 ".#. 33= . Ft shold be noted at the otset that the dispte from which these actions sprang arose on a foreign vessel. Ft was between a foreign employer and a foreign crew operating nder an agreement made abroad nder the laws of another nation. /-e %$# A"erica$ c%$$eci%$ *a' -a -e c%$r%4er'#
er!&e *-ie -e '-i& *a' ra$'ie$# i$ a U$ie Sae' &%r a$ A"erica$ a%r !$i%$' &arici&ae i$ i' &ic5ei$.
Ft is beyond estion that a ship volntarily entering the territorial limits of another contry sbjects itself to the laws and jrisdiction of that contry. 7ildenhs5s *ase% 14< ".#. 1 (133;). The exercise of that jrisdiction is not mandatory bt discretionary. :ften% becase of pblic policy or for other reasons% the local sovereign may exert only limited jrisdiction and sometimes none at all. *nard #. #. *o. v. ,ellon% 424 ".#. 1<< (1=4?). Ft follows that if *ongress had so chosen% it cold have made the Act applicable to wage disptes arising on foreign vessels between nationals of other contries when the vessel comes within or territorial waters. The estion here therefore narrows to one of intent of the *ongress as to the coverage of the Act. The parties point to nothing in the Act itself or its legislative history that indicates in any way that the *ongress intended to bring sch disptes within the coverage of the Act. Fndeed the $istrict *ort fond to the contrary% specifically stating that the Act does not ?D? ".#. 1?3% 1C?B cover a dispte between a foreign ship and its foreign crew. The *ort of Appeals% thogh not passing on the estion% noted that Ft may well be that American laws shold not be constred to apply% withot some more explicit *ongressional indication than we are able to find in the National Iabor /elations Act% as amended% to sitations with as many points of foreign contact as the sitation a t bar. 4?? &.4d% at 2D. :r stdy of the Act leaves s convinced that *ongress did not fashion it to resolve labor disptes between nationals of other contries operating ships nder foreign laws. D /-e *-%e ac5r%!$ %f -e Ac i' c%$cer$e
*i- I@@ U.S. 1@8, 1J i$!'ria 'rife e*ee$ A"erica$ e"&%#er'
a$ e"&%#ee'. Fn fact% no discssion in either ose of *ongress has been called to or attention from the thosands of pages of legislative history that indicates in the least that *ongress intended the coverage of the Act to extend to circmstances sch as those posed here. Ft appears not to have even occrred to those sponsoring the bill. The /eport made to the ose by its *ommittee on Edcation and Iabor and presented by the coathor of the bill% *hairman artley% stated that the bill herewith reported has been formlated as a bill of rights both for American wor@ingmen and for their employers. The report declares frther that becase of the inadeacies of legislation the American wor@ingman has been deprived of his dignity as an individal% and that it is the prpose of the bill to correct these inadeacies. (Emphasis added.) . /. /ep. No. 4CD% 3
|
McCUOCH 4. SOC+EDAD NAC+ONA, (16@) N%. 1 ,/. -"#TF*E *IA/Q delivered the opinion of the *ort.
These companion cases% involving the same facts% estion the coverage of the National Iabor /elations Act% as amended% 21 #tat. 1?2% ;? #tat. DC1% 4= ".#.*. 1D1 et se. A corporation organi!ed and doing bsiness in the "nited #tates beneficially owns seagoing vessels which ma@e reglar sailings between "nited #tates% Iatin American and other ports transporting the corporation5s prodcts and other spplies0 each of the vessels is legally owned by a foreign sbsidiary of the American corporation% flies the flag of a foreign nation% carries a foreign crew and has other contacts with the nation of its flag. The estion arising is whether the Act extends to the crews engaged in sch a maritime operation. The National Iabor /elations 9oard in a representation proceeding on the application of the National ,aritime "nion held that it does and ordered an election. 1?C N. I. /. 9. 43;. The vessels5 foreign owner soght to enjoin the 9oard5s /egional $irector from holding the election% bt the $istrict *ort for the #othern $istrict of New or@ denied the reested relief. 4<< &. #pp. C3C. The *ort of Appeals for the #econd *ircit reversed% holding that the Act did not apply to the maritime operations here and ths the 9oard had no power to direct the election. ?<< &.4d 444. The N. ,. ". had intervened in the proceeding% and it petitioned for a writ of certiorari (No. =?)% as did the /egional $irector (No. =1). ,eanwhile% the "nited #tates $istrict *ort for the $istrict of *olmbia% on application of the foreign bargaining agent of the vessels5 crewmen% enjoined the 9oard members in No. 1<;. 4<1 &. #pp. 34. 7e granted each of the three petitions for certiorari% ?;< ".#. =1D % and consolidated the cases for argment. 1 ?;4 ".#. 1<% 1?B 7e have conclded that the jrisdictional provisions of the Act do not extend to maritime operations of foreignGflag ships employing alien seamen.
+. The National ,aritime "nion of America% A&IG*F:% filed a petition in 1=D= with the National Iabor /elations 9oard see@ing certification nder = (c) of the Act% 4= ".#.*. 1D= (c)% as the representative of the nlicensed seamen employed pon certain ondranGflag vessels owned by Empresa ondrena de Lapores% #. A.% a ondran corporation. The petition was filed against "nited &rit *ompany% a New -ersey corporation which was alleged to be the owner of the majority of Empresa5s stoc@. Empresa intervened and on hearing it was shown that "nited &rit owns all of its stoc@ and elects its directors% thogh no officer or director of Empresa is an officer or director of "nited &rit and all are residents of ondras. Fn trn the proof was that "nited &rit is owned by citi!ens of the "nited #tates and maintains its principal office at 9oston. Fts bsiness was shown to be the cltivation% gathering% transporting and sale of bananas% sgar% cacao and other tropical prodce raised in *entral and #oth American contries and sold in the "nited #tates. "nited &rit maintains a fleet of cargo vessels which it tili!es in this trade. A portion of the fleet consists of 1? ondranGregistered vessels operated by Empresa and time chartered to "nited &rit% which vessels were inclded in National ,aritime "nion5s representation proceeding. The crews on these vessels are recrited by Empresa in ondras. They are ondran citi!ens (save one -amaican) and claim that contry as their ?;4 ".#. 1<% 1CB residence and home port. The crew are reired to sign ondran shipping articles% and their wages% terms and condition of employment% discipline% etc.% are controlled by a bargaining agreement between Empresa and a ondran nion% #ociedad Nacional de ,arineros de ondras. "nder the ondran Iabor *ode only a nion whose jridic personality is recogni!ed by ondras and which is composed of at least =
++. The 9oard conclded from these facts that "nited &rit operated a single% integrated maritime operation within which were the Empresa vessels% reasoning that "nited &rit was a joint employer with Empresa of the seamen covered by N. ,. ".5s petition. *iting its own 7est Fndia &rit #teamship *o. opinion% 1?< N. I. /. 9. ?C? (1=21)% it conclded that the maritime ?;4 ".#. 1<% 1DB operations involved sbstantial "nited #tates contacts% otweighing the nmeros foreign contacts present. The 9oard held that Empresa was engaged in commerce within the meaning of 4 (2) of the Act and that the maritime operations affected commerce within 4
(;)% meeting the jrisdictional reirement of = (c) (1). Ft therefore ordered an election to be held among the seamen signed on Empresa5s vessels to determine whether they wished N. ,. ".% #indicato ,aritimo Nacional de ondras% or no nion to represent them. As we have indicated% both Empresa and #ociedad broght sits in &ederal $istrict *orts to prevent the election% Empresa proceeding in New or@ against the /egional $irector G Nos. =1 and =? G and #ociedad in the?;4 ".#. 1<% 12B $istrict of *olmbia against the members of the 9oard G No. 1<;. Fn Nos. =1 and =? the jrisdiction of the $istrict *ort was challenged on two gronds6 first% that review of representation proceedings is limited by = (d) of the Act% 4= ".#.*. 1D= (d)% to indirect review as part of a petition for enforcement or review of an order entered nder 1< (c)% 4= ".#.*. 12< (c)0 and% second% that the 9oard members were indispensable parties to the action. The challenge based pon = (d) was not raised or adjdicated in #ociedad5s action against the 9oard members G No. 1<; G and the indispensableGparties challenge is of corse not an isse. #ociedad is not a party in Nos. =1 and =?% althogh the impact of the 9oard order G the same order challenged in No. 1<; G is felt by it. That order has the effect of canceling #ociedad5s bargaining agreement with Empresa5s seamen% since #ociedad is not on the ballot called for by the 9oard. No. 1<;% therefore% presents the estion in better perspective% and we have chosen it as the vehicle for or adjdication on the merits. This obviates or passing on the jrisdictional estions raised in Nos. =1 and =?% since the disposition of those cases is controlled by or decision in No. 1<;. 7e are not of corse preclded from reexamining the jrisdiction of the $istrict *ort in #ociedad5s action% merely becase no challenge was made by the parties. ,itchell v. ,arer% 4=? ".#. 4?;% 4CC (1=?C). aving examined the estion whether the $istrict *ort had jrisdiction at the instance of #ociedad to enjoin the 9oard5s order% we hold that the action falls within the limited exception fashioned in Ieedom v. Qyne% ?D3 ".#. 13C (1=D3). Fn that case jdicial intervention was permitted since the 9oard5s order was in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act. Fd.% at 133. 7hile here the 9oard has violated no specific prohibition in the Act% the overriding consideration is that the 9oard5s assertion of power to determine ?;4 ".#. 1<% 1;B the representation of foreign seamen aboard vessels nder foreign flags has arosed vigoros protests from foreign governments and created international problems for or 8overnment. Fmportant interests of the immediate parties are of corse at sta@e. 9t the presence of pblic estions particlarly high in the scale of or national interest becase of their international complexion is a niely compelling jstification for prompt jdicial resoltion of the controversy over the 9oard5s power. No estion of remotely comparable rgency was involved in Qyne% which was a prely domestic adversary sitation. The exception recogni!ed today is therefore not to be ta@en as an enlargement of the exception in Qyne.
+++. #ince the parties all agree that -e C%$re'' -a' c%$'i!i%$a &%*er %
a&&# -e Nai%$a a%r Reai%$' Ac % -e cre*' *%r5i$ f%rei$: fa '-i&', a ea' *-ie -e# are i$ A"erica$ *aer' % The Exchange% ; *ranch 112% 1C? (1314)0 7ildenhs5s *ase% 14< ".#. 1% 11 (133;)0 9en! v. *ompania Naviera idalgo% ?D? ".#. 1?3% 1C4 (1=D;)% we go directly to the estion whether *ongress exercised that power. :r decision on this point being dispositive of the case% we do not reach the other estions raised by the parties and the amici criae. The estion of application of the laws of the "nited #tates to foreignGflag ships and their crews has arisen often and in varios contexts. As to the application of the National Iabor /elations Act and its amendments% the 9oard has evolved a test relying on the relative weight of a ship5s foreign as compared with its American contacts. That test led the 9oard to conclde here% as in 7est Fndia &rit #teamship *o.% spra% that the foreignGflag ships5 activities affected commerce and broght ?;4 ".#. 1<% 13B them within the coverage of the Act. 7here the balancing of the vessel5s contacts has reslted in a contrary finding% the 9oard has conclded that the Act does not apply. #ix years ago this *ort considered the estion of the application of the TaftGartley amendments to the Act in a sit for damages reslting from the pic@eting of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen nder foreign articles while the vessel wasB temporarily in an American port. 9en! v. *ompania Naviera idalgo% spra% at 1?=. 7e held that the Act did not apply% searching the langage and the legislative history and conclding that the latter inescapably describes the bondaries of the Act as inclding only the wor@ingmen of or own contry and its possessions. Fd.% at 1CC. #bseently% in ,arine *oo@s #tewards v. Panama #. #. *o.% ?24 ".#. ?2D (1=2<)% we held that the NorrisGIa8ardia Act% 4= ".#.*. 1<1% deprived a &ederal $istrict *ort of jrisdiction to enjoin pic@eting of a foreignGflag ship% specifically limiting the holding to the jrisdiction of the cort to isse the injnction it did nder the circmstances shown. Fd.% at ?;4. That case cannot be regarded as limiting the earlier 9en! holding% however% since no
estion as to whether the pic@eting . . . was tortios nder state or federal law was either presented or decided. Fbid. Fndeed% the *ort specifically noted that the application of the NorrisGIa8ardia Act to crtail and reglate the jrisdiction of corts differs from the application of the TaftG artley Act to reglate the condct of people engaged in labor disptes. Fbid.0 see *omment% 2= ale I. -. C=3% D4?GD4D (1=2<). Ft is contended that this case is nonetheless distingishable from 9en! in two respects. &irst% here there is a fleet of vessels not temporarily in "nited #tates waters bt operating in a reglar corse of trade between foreign ports and those of the "nited #tates0 and% second% the foreign owner of the ships is in trn owned by an American corporation. 7e note that both of these points rely on additional American contacts and therefore necessarily presme the validity of the balancing of contacts theory of the 9oard. 9t to follow sch a sggested procedre to the ltimate might reire that the 9oard inire into the internal discipline and order of all foreign vessels calling at American ports. #ch activity wold raise considerable distrbance not only in the field of maritime law bt in or international relations as well. Fn addition% enforcement of 9oard orders wold project the corts into application of the sanctions of the Act to foreignGflag ships on a prely ad hoc weighing of contacts basis. This wold inevitably lead to embarrassment in foreign affairs and be entirely infeasible in actal practice. The estion% therefore% appears to s more basic0 namely% *-e-er -e
Ac a' *rie$ *a' i$e$e % -a4e a$# a&&icai%$ % f%rei$ rei'ere 4e''e' e"&%#i$ aie$ 'ea"e$.
0eii%$er' 'a# -a -e a$!ae %f -e Ac "a# e rea iera# a' i$c!i$ f%rei$:fa 4e''e' *i-i$ i' c%4erae. B!, a' i$ Be$7, -e# -a4e ee$ !$ae % &%i$ % a$# '&ecific a$!ae i$ -e Ac i'ef %r i$ i' e3e$'i4e ei'ai4e -i'%r# -a refec' '!c- a c%$re''i%$a i$e$. +$ee, -e %&&%'ie i' r!e a' *e f%!$ i$ Be$7, *-ere I@2 U.S. 1, 2J *e &%i$e % -e a$!ae %f C-air"a$ Hare# c-araceri7i$ -e Ac a' a i %f ri-' %- f%r A"erica$ *%r5i$"e$ a$ f%r -eir e"&%#er'. ?D? ".#.% at 1CC. 7e contine to believe that if the sponsors of the original Act or of its amendments conceived of the application now soght by the 9oard they failed to translate sch thoghts into describing the bondaries of the Act as inclding foreignGflag vessels manned by alien crews. Therefore% we find no basis for a constrction which wold exert "nited #tates jrisdiction over and apply its laws to the internal management and affairs of the vessels here flying the ondran flag% contrary to the recognition long afforded them not only by or #tate $epartment ?;4 ".#. 1<% 41B bt also by the *ongress. Fn addition% %!r ae$i%$ i' cae % -e *e:e'ai'-e r!e
%f i$er$ai%$a a* -a -e a* %f -e fa 'ae %ri$ari# %4er$' -e i$er$a affair' %f a '-i&. #ee 7ildenhs5s *ase% spra% at 140 *olombos%
The Fnternational Iaw of the #ea (?d rev. ed. 1=DC)% 444G44?. The possibility of international discord cannot therefore be gainsaid. Especially is this tre on accont of the concrrent application of the Act and the ondran Iabor *ode that wold reslt with or approval of jrisdiction. #ociedad% crrently the exclsive bargaining agent of Empresa nder ondran law% wold have a headGon collision with N. ,. ". shold it become the exclsive bargaining agent nder the Act. This wold be aggravated by the fact that nder ondran law N. ,. ". is prohibited from representing the seamen on ondranGflag ships even in the absence of a recogni!ed bargaining agent. Ths even thogh #ociedad withdrew from sch an intramral labor fight G a highly nli@ely circmstance G estions of sch international import wold remain as to invite retaliatory action from other nations as well as ondras. The presence of sch highly charged international circmstances brings to mind the admonition of ,r. *hief -stice ,arshall in The *harming 9etsy% 4 *ranch 2C% 113 (13
US 4. F%re', 28 U.S. 1@ (1@@) 1. The clase of the *onstittion% Art. F% 3% specifically granting to *ongress the power to define and pnish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas% and offenses against the law of nations% and the general provision of Art. FFF% 4% extending the jdicial power to all cases of admiralty and maritime jrisdiction% are the reslts of separate steps% independently ta@en in the *onvention% by which the jrisdiction in admiralty% previosly divided between the *onfederation and the #tates% was transferred to the National 8overnment. 4. Fn view of the history of the two clases and the manner of their adoption% the grant of power to define and pnish piracies and felonies on the high seas cannot be deemed to be a limitation on the powers% either legislative or jdicial% conferred on the National 8overnment by Art. FFF% 4. ?. To constre the one clase as limiting% rather than spplementing% the other wold be to ignore their history% and% withot effecting any discernible prpose of their enactment% to deny to both the states and the national government powers which were common attribtes of sovereignty before the adoption of the *onstittion% inclding the power to define and pnish crimes% of less gravity than felonies% committed on vessels of the "nited #tates while on the high seas% and crimes of every grade committed on them while in foreign territorial waters. P. 43= ". #. 1C= C. /-e !ri'ici%$ %4er a"ira# a$ "arii"e ca'e' e3e$' %
cri"e' c%""ie %$ 4e''e' %f -e U$ie Sae' *-ie i$ $a4iae *aer' *i-i$ -e erri%ria !ri'ici%$ %f f%rei$ '%4erei$'. D. The jrisdiction is not affected by the fact that the vessel is on a river at a place remote from the sea where the water is not salt or tidal. P. 43= ". #. 1D? 2. #ection 4;4 of the *riminal *ode% ma@ing mrder and other offenses pnishable when committed within the admiralty and maritime jrisdiction of the "nited #tates and ot of the jrisdiction of any particlar state% on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the "nited #tates or any of its citi!ens% etc.% is broad enogh to inclde crimes in the territorial waters of foreign sovereignties. Pp. 43= ". #. 1CD% 43= ". #. 1DD ;. *ongress% by incorporating in the statte the very langage of the constittional grant of power% has made its exercise of the power coextensive with the grant. 3. /-e e$era r!e -a cri"i$a 'a!e' %f -e U$ie Sae' are $% %
e i4e$ e3raerri%ria effec i' i$a&&icae % %!r "erc-a$ 4e''e'. =. A merchant ship% for prposes of the jrisdiction of the corts of the sovereignty whose flag it flies to pnish crimes committed pon it% is deemed to be a part of the territory of that sovereignty% and not to lose that character when in navigable waters within the territorial limits of another sovereignty. P. 43= ". #. 1DD 1<. &or some prposes% the jrisdiction to pnish crimes committed on a foreign vessel in territorial waters is concrrent in the territorial sovereign and the sovereign of the vessel5s flag. P. 43= ". #. 1D;. 11. Fn the absence of any controlling treaty provision% and of any assertion of jrisdiction by the territorial sovereign% it is the dty of the corts of the "nited #tates to apply to offenses committed by its citi!ens on vessels flying its flag% its own stattes% interpreted in the light of recogni!ed principles of international law. P. 43= ". #. 1D=. Appeal from a jdgment sstaining a demrrer to an indictment% which charged the appellee% an American citi!en% with having mrdered another American citi!en aboard an American ship in foreign territorial waters. ,/. -"#TF*E #T:NE delivered the opinion of the *ort. 9y indictment fond in the $istrict *ort for Eastern Pennsylvania% it was charged that appellee% a citi!en of the "nited #tates% mrdered another citi!en of the "nited #tates pon the #teamship )adnsay, an American vessel% while at anchor in the Port of ,atadi% in the 9elgian *ongo% a place sbject to the sovereignty of the Qingdom of 9elgim% and that appellee% after the commission of the crime% was first broght into the Port of Philadelphia% a place within the territorial jrisdiction of the $istrict *ort. 9y stiplation% it was conceded% as thogh stated in a bill of particlars% that the )adnsay, at the time of the offense charged% was nloading% being attached to the shore by cables at a point 4D< miles inland from the moth of the *ongo river.
The $istrict *ort% following its earlier decision in United States ex rel. Maro v. Mathues, 41 &.4d D??% aff?d, 4; &.4d D13% sstained a demrrer to the indictment and discharged the prisoner on the grond that the cort was withot jrisdiction to try the offense charged. ? &.#pp. 1?C. The case comes here by direct appeal nder the Act of ,arch 4% 1=<;% c. 4D2C% ?C #tat. 142C% 13 ".#.*. 234% and 4?3 of the -dicial *ode% as amended by Act of &ebrary 1?% 1=4D% 43 ".#.*. ?CD% the cort below certifying that its decision was fonded pon its constrction of 4;4 of the *riminal *ode% 13 ".#.*. CD1. #ections 4;? and 4;D of the *riminal *ode% 13 ".#.*. CD4% CDC% define mrder and fix its pnishment. #ection 4;4% pon the constrction of which the cort below rested its decision% ma@es pnishable offenses defined by other sections of the *riminal *ode% among other cases% when committed within the admiralty and maritime jrisdiction of the "nited #tates and ot of the jrisdiction of any particlar state on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the "nited #tates or any of its nationals. And% b y C1 of the -dicial *ode% 43 ".#.*. 1<4% vene to try offenses committed pon the high seas% or elsewhere ot of the jrisdiction of any particlar state or district is in the district where the offender is fond% or into which he is first broght. As the offense charged here was committed on board a vessel lying otside the territorial jrisdiction of a state% see 2ynne v. United States, 41; ". #. 4?C0 United States v. odgers, 1D< ". #. 4C=% 1D< ". #. 42D% and within that of a foreign sovereignty% the cort below was withot jrisdiction to try and pnish the offense nless it was within the admiralty and maritime jrisdiction of the "nited #tates. Two estions are presented on this appeal6 first% whether the extension of the jdicial power of the federal government to all cases of admiralty and maritime -risdiction% by Art. FFF% 4% of the *onstittion confers on *ongress power to define and pnish offenses perpetrated by a citi!en of the "nited #tates on board one of its merchant vessels lying in navigable waters within the territorial limits of another sovereignty0 and% second% whether *ongress has exercised that power by the enactment of 4;4 of the *riminal *ode% nder which the indictment was fond.
/-e c%!r e%* -%!-, a' a&&eee ar!e', -a a' K 8 %f Ar. + %f -e C%$'i!i%$ '&ecifica# ra$e % C%$re'' -e &%*er % efi$e a$ &!$i'- 0iracie' a$ Fe%$ie' c%""ie %$ -e -i- Sea', a$ Offe$ce' aai$' -e a* %f Nai%$', a$ % "a5e r!e' c%$cer$i$ ca&!re' %$ a$ a$ *aer, -a &r%4i'i%$ "!' e reare a' a i"iai%$ %$ -e e$era &r%4i'i%$ %f K 2 %f Ar. +++, -a -e !icia &%*er '-a e3e$ % a ca'e' %f a"ira# a$ "arii"e !ri'ici%$ that% as the specific grant of power to pnish offenses otside the territorial limits of the "nited #tates was ths restricted to offenses occrring on the high seas% the more general grant cold not be resorted to as extending either the legislative or jdicial power over offenses committed on vessels otside the territorial limits of the "nited #tates and not on the high seas. 9efore the adoption of the *onstittion% jrisdiction in admiralty and maritime cases was distribted between the *onfederation and the individal states. Article FK of t he Articles of *onfederation provided that the "nited #tates in *ongress assembled% shall have the sole and exclsive right and power . . . of establishing rles for deciding in all cases% what captres on land or water shall be legal% . . . appointing corts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing corts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captres. . . . #o mch of the general admiralty and maritime jrisdiction as was not inclded in this grant of power remained with the states. The powers ths granted were in sbstance the same as those later conferred on the national government by Article F% 3% of the &ederal *onstittion. This section was adopted to carry ot a resoltion of the *onvention that the national legislatre oght to possess the legislative rights vested in *ongress by the *onfederation. Fts primary prpose and effect was to transfer to the newly organi!ed government the powers in a admiralty matters previosly vested in the *onfederation. A proposal independently made and considered in the *onvention that the admiralty jrisdiction oght to be given wholly to the national government reslted in the adoption of Article FFF% 4% by which the jdicial power of the "nited #tates was extended to all cases of admiralty and maritime jrisdiction. This section has been consistently interpreted as adopting for the "nited #tates the system of admiralty and maritime law as it had been developed in the admiralty corts of England and the *olonies% and% by implication% conferring on *ongress the power% sbject to well recogni!ed limitations not here material% to alter% alify% or spplement it as experience or changing conditions may reire. )anama . "o. v. $ohnson, 42C ". #. ?;D% 42C ".
#. ?32G?330 "rowell v. Benson, 43D ". #. 44% 43D ". #. ?=0 see *he @conee, 43< &. =4;0 United States v. Bevan, ? 7heat. ??2% 12 ". #. ?3=.
+$ 4ie* %f -e -i'%r# %f -e *% ca!'e' a$ -e "a$$er %f -eir a%&i%$, -e ra$ %f &%*er % efi$e a$ &!$i'- &iracie' a$ fe%$ie' %$ -e -i- 'ea' ca$$% e ee"e % e a i"iai%$ %$ -e &%*er', ei-er ei'ai4e %r !icia, c%$ferre %$ -e $ai%$a %4er$"e$ # Arice +++, K 2. /-e *% ca!'e' are -e re'! %f 'e&arae 'e&' i$e&e$e$# a5e$ i$ -e C%$4e$i%$, # *-ic- -e !ri'ici%$ i$ a"ira#, &re4i%!'# i4ie e*ee$ -e C%$feerai%$ a$ -e 'ae', *a' ra$'ferre % -e $ai%$a %4er$"e$. Ft wold be a srprising reslt% and one plainly not anticipated by the framers or jstified by principles which oght to govern the interpretation of a *onstittion devoted to the redistribtion of governmental powers% if part of them were lost in the process of transfer. /% c%$'r!e -e %$e ca!'e a' i"ii$,
ra-er -a$ '!&&e"e$i$, -e %-er *%! e % i$%re -eir -i'%r#, a$ *i-%! effeci$ a$# i'cer$ie &!r&%'e %f -eir e$ac"e$, % e$# % %- -e 'ae' a$ -e $ai%$a %4er$"e$ &%*er' *-ic*ere c%""%$ ari!e' %f '%4erei$# ef%re -e a%&i%$ %f -e C%$'i!i%$. /-e re'! *%! e % e$# % %- -e &%*er % efi$e a$ &!$i'- cri"e' %f e'' ra4i# -a$ fe%$ie' c%""ie %$ 4e''e' %f -e U$ie Sae' *-ie %$ -e -i- 'ea' a$ cri"e' %f e4er# rae c%""ie %$ -e" *-ie i$ f%rei$ erri%ria *aer'. As we cannot say that the specific grant of power to define and pnish felonies on the high seas operated to crtail the legislative or jdicial power conferred by Article FFF% 4% we come to the estion principally arged% whether the jrisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases which it gave extends to the pnishment of crimes committed on vessels of the "nited #tates while in foreign waters. As was pointed ot by ,r. -stice #tory in the corse of an elaborate review of the history of admiralty jrisdiction in =e /ovio v. Boit, ; &ed.*as. C13% C?3% No. ?%;;2% admiralty from the highest antiity% has exercised a very extensive criminal jrisdiction% and pnished offences by fine and imprisonment. The English corts have consistently held that !ri'ici%$ i' $% re'rice % 4e''e' *i-i$ -e $a4iae
*aer' %f -e rea", ! f%%*' i' '-i&' !&%$ -e -i- 'ea' a$ i$% &%r' a$ ri4er' *i-i$ -e erri%ria !ri'ici%$ %f f%rei$ '%4erei$'. 'ueen v. "arr 2ilson, 1< J.9.$. ;20 'ueen v. Anderson, I./.% 1 *rown cases /eserved 1210 ex v. Allen, 1 ,oody *.*. C=C0 see ex v. $emot, 1 /ssell on *rimes% Cth ed. 1D?.
/-e cri"i$a !ri'ici%$ %f -e U$ie Sae' i' *-%# 'a!%r#, ! i -a' $e4er ee$ %!e -a -e ra$ %f a"ira# a$ "arii"e !ri'ici%$ % -e feera %4er$"e$ i$c!e' -e ei'ai4e &%*er % efi$e a$ &!$i'- cri"e' c%""ie !&%$ 4e''e' #i$ i$ $a4iae *aer' %f -e U$ie Sae'. &rom the very organi!ation of the government% and withot intermission% *ongress has also asserted the power% analogos to that exercised by English corts of admiralty% to pnish crimes committed on vessels of the "nited #tates while on the high seas or on navigable waters not within the territorial jrisdiction of a state. The Act of April ?<% 1;=<% c. =% 3% 1 #tat. 114% 11?% provided for the pnishment of mrder committed pon the high seas% or in any river% haven% basin or bay% ot of the jrisdiction of any particlar state% and provided for the trial of the offender in the district where he might be apprehended or into which he may first be broght. #ection 14 of this Act dealt with manslaghter% bt only when committed pon the high seas. Ft is tre that% in United States v. Bevans, ? 7heat. ??2% the prisoner% charged with mrder on a warship in 9oston arbor% was discharged% as was one charged with manslaghter committed on a vessel on a *hinese /iver in United States v. 2ilt!erger, D 7heat. ;2. 9t the jdgments were based not pon a want of power in *ongress to define and pnish the crimes charged% bt pon the grond that the statte did not apply% in the one case% for the reason that the place of the offense was not ot of the jrisdiction of a state% and in the other becase the offense% manslaghter% was not committed on the high seas. The Act of ,arch ?% 134D% c. 2D% C% C #tat. 11D% provided for the pnishment of any person committing mrder pon the high seas% or in any arm of the sea% or in any river% haven% cree@% basin or bay% within the admiralty and maritime jrisdiction of the "nited #tates and ot of the jrisdiction of any particlar state% and 44 p rovided for the pnishment of assalt with a dangeros weapon committed nder similar circmstances. The provisions of the latter section% carried into D?C2 of the /evised #tattes% were pheld in United States v. odgers, supra, as a constittional exercise of the power of *ongress to define and pnish offenses occrring in American vessels while within territorial waters of another sovereignty. /odgers had been convicted of assalt with a dangeros weapon% committed on a vessel of the "nited #tates lying in the $etroit /iver within the territorial jrisdiction of *anada% and his conviction was sstained by this *ort. Ft was assmed that the statte was applicable only with respect to offenses committed on the high seas and waters tribtary to them% and the decision trned on whether the 8reat Ia@es were to be deemed high seas within the meaning of the statte. Ft was held that they were% and the power
of *ongress to pnish offenses committed on an American vessel within the territorial waters of *anada% tribtary to the Ia@es% was expressly affirmed. As the offense charged here appears to have been committed on an American vessel while discharging cargo in port% the jrisdiction is not affected by the fact that she was then at a point on the *ongo remote from the sea% where it does not affirmatively appear that the water is salt or tidal. :n this point also% United States v. odgers, supra, is controlling% for there the offense committed within a foreign territorial jrisdiction was pon nontidal fresh water. The appellee insists that% even thogh *ongress has power to define and pnish crimes on American vessels in foreign waters% it has not done so by the present statte% since the criminal jrisdiction of the "nited #tates is based pon the territorial principle% and the statte cannot rightly be interpreted to be a departre from that principle. 9t -e a$!ae %f -e
'a!e "a5i$ i a&&icae % %ffe$'e' c%""ie %$ a$ A"erica$ 4e''e %!'ie -e !ri'ici%$ %f a 'ae *i-i$ -e a"ira# a$ "arii"e !ri'ici%$ %f -e U$ie Sae' i' r%a e$%!- % i$c!e cri"e' i$ -e erri%ria *aer' %f a f%rei$ '%4erei$#. &or *ongress% by incorporating in the statte the very langage of the constittional grant of power% has made its exercise of the power coextensive with the grant. "ompare % U. S. *revor, C 7all. DDD.
+ i' r!e -a -e cri"i$a !ri'ici%$ %f -e U$ie Sae' i' i$ e$era a'e %$ -e erri%ria &ri$ci&e, a$ cri"i$a 'a!e' %f -e U$ie Sae' are $% # i"&icai%$ i4e$ a$ e3raerri%ria effec. B! -a &ri$ci&e -a' $e4er ee$ -%!- % e a&&icae % a "erc-a$ 4e''e *-ic-, f%r &!r&%'e' %f -e !ri'ici%$ %f -e c%!r' %f -e '%4erei$# *-%'e fa i fie' % &!$i'- cri"e' c%""ie !&%$ i, i' ee"e % e a &ar %f -e erri%r# %f -a '%4erei$#, a$ $% % %'e -a c-aracer *-e$ i$ $a4iae *aer' *i-i$ -e erri%ria i"i' %f a$%-er '%4erei$#. United States v. odgers, supraC compare *homas v. /ane, 4 #mn. 10 'ueen v. Anderson, supraC 'ueen v. "arr 2ilson, supraC ex v. Allen, supraC ex v. $emot, supra. This alification of the territorial principle in the case of vessels of the flag was rged by ,r. 7ebster while #ecretary of state% in his letter to Iord Ashbrton of Agst 1% 13C4% oted with approval in United States v. odgers, supra, 1D< ". #. 42CG42D. #bject to the right of the territorial sovereignty to assert jrisdiction over offenses distrbing the peace of the port% it has been spported by writers on international law% and has been recogni!ed by &rance% 9elgim% and other continental contries% as well as by England and the "nited #tates. Fn view of the wide recognition of this principle of extraterritorial jrisdiction over crimes committed on merchant vessels and its explicit adoption in United States v. odgers, supra, we cannot say that the langage of the present statte pnishing offenses on "nited #tates vessels ot of the jrisdiction of a state% when committed within the admiralty and maritime jrisdiction of the "nited #tates% was not intended to give effect to it. Ff the meaning of the statte were dobtfl% the dobt wold be resolved by the report on these sections by the #pecial -oint *ommittee on the /evision of the Iaws% 2 |
/-ere i' $% e$ire aree"e$ a"%$ $ai%$' %r -e *rier' %$ i$er$ai%$a a* a' % *-ic- '%4erei$# '-%! #ie % -e %-er *-e$ -e !ri'ici%$ i' a''ere # %-. See -essp% the Iaw of Territorial 7aters% 1CCG1=?. The position of the "nited #tates exemplified in 2ildenhus? "ase, 14< ". #. 1% has been that% a ea' i$ -e ca'e %f
"a%r cri"e' affeci$ -e &eace a$ ra$;!ii# %f -e &%r, -e !ri'ici%$ a''ere # -e '%4erei$# %f -e &%r "!' &re4ai %4er -a %f -e 4e''e . Fn that case% the 9elgian *onsl soght release on habeas corps of 7ildenhs% a seaman% who was held in a New -ersey jail on a charge of homicide committed on a 9elgian vessel lying in New -ersey waters% %$ -e r%!$ -a Arice X+ %f -e C%$4e$i%$ e*ee$
Bei!" a$ -e U$ie Sae' %f Marc- , 188, 21 Sa. 81, a4e c%$'!ar %fficer' %f -e '%4erei$# %f -e 4e''e '%e c%$i7a$ce %f %ffe$'e' %$ %ar '-i&, e3ce& -%'e %f a $a!re % i'!r -e ra$;!ii# a$ &!ic %rer %$ '-%re a$ -%'e i$4%4i$ a &er'%$ $% e%$i$ % -e cre*. The cort constred the *onvention as inapplicable to the crime of mrder% and pheld the jrisdiction of the local cort as conforming to the principles of international law. Ft said% p.14< ". #. 146
A$ '%, # c%"i#, i ca"e % e e$era# !$er'%% a"%$ ci4ii7e $ai%$' -a a "aer' %f i'ci&i$e a$ a -i$' %$e %$ %ar *-ic- affece %$# -e 4e''e %r -%'e e%$i$ % -er, a$
i $% i$4%4e -e &eace %r i$i# %f -e c%!$r# %r -e ra$;!ii# %f -e &%r, '-%! e ef # -e %ca %4er$"e$ % e ea *i- # -e a!-%riie' %f -e $ai%$ % *-ic- -e 4e''e e%$e a' -e a*' %f -a $ai%$ %r -e i$ere'' %f i' c%""erce '-%! re;!ire. B!, if cri"e' are c%""ie %$ %ar %f a c-aracer % i'!r -e &eace a$ ra$;!ii# %f -e c%!$r# % *-ic- -e 4e''e -a' ee$ r%!-, -e %ffe$er' -a4e $e4er, # c%"i# %r !'ae, ee$ e$ie % a$# e3e"&i%$ fr%" -e %&erai%$ %f -e %ca a*' f%r -eir &!$i'-"e$ if -e %ca ri!$a' 'ee fi % a''er -eir a!-%ri#. This doctrine does not impinge on that laid down in United States v. odgers, supra, that the "nited #tates may define and pnish offenses committed by its own citi!ens on its own vessels while within foreign waters where the local sovereign has not asserted its jrisdiction. +$ -e a'e$ce
%f a$# c%$r%i$ rea# &r%4i'i%$, a$ a$# a''eri%$ %f !ri'ici%$ # -e erri%ria '%4erei$, i i' -e !# %f -e c%!r' %f -e U$ie Sae' % a&&# % %ffe$'e' c%""ie # i' cii7e$' %$ 4e''e' f#i$ i' fa, i' %*$ 'a!e', i$er&ree i$ -e i- %f rec%$i7e &ri$ci&e' %f i$er$ai%$a a*. #o applied% the indictment here sfficiently charges an offense within the admiralty and maritime jrisdiction of the "nited #tates% and the jdgment below mst be
US V. OO? CHO9 G.R. NO. :88 DECEMBER 16, 11 Iesson6 *rimes N:T involving a breach of pblic order committed on board a pblic vessel is N:T triable by or corts Iaws Applicable6 Art. 4 /P*% :pim Iaw &A*T#6 S "pon arrival of steamship Erroll of English nationality% that it came from ong@ong% and that it was bond for ,exico% via the call ports of ,anila and *eb% 4 sac@s of opim where fond dring the inspection and search of the cargo. o #maller sac@ of opim on the cabin near the saloon o larger sac@ in the hold o Iater on% there was also C cans of opim fond on the part of the ship where the firemen habitally sleep the firemen and crew of foreign vessels% prsant to the instrctions he had from the ,anila cstomGhose% were permitted to retain certain amonts of opim% always provided it shold not be ta@en shore so it was retrned S 4 charges were filed against Ioo@ *haw at the *ort of &irst Fnstance of *eb6 o nlawfl possession of opim o nlawfl sale of opim S Ioo@ *haw admitted that he had boght these sac@s of opim% in ong@ong with the intention of selling them as contraband in ,exico or Lera *r!% and that% as his hold had already been searched several times for opim% he ordered two other *hinamen to @eep the sac@. S The cort rled that it did not lac@ jrisdiction% inasmch as the crime had been committed within its district% on the wharf of *eb. The cort sentenced him to D years imprisonment% to pay a fine of P1<%<<<% with additional sbsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvencyxxx Ft frther ordered the confiscation% in favor of the F nslar 8overnment. F##"E6 7MN the Philippine cort has jrisdiction. EI$6 E#. ,odified by redcing the imprisonment and the fine imposed to six months and P1%<<< 8/6 mere possession of a thing of prohibited se in these Fslands% aboard a foreign vessel in transit% in any of their ports% does N:T constitte a crime triable by the corts of this contry% on accont of sch vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality EK6 when the article% whose se is prohibited within the Philippine Fslands% in the present case a can of opim% is landed from the vessel pon Philippine soil% ths committing an open violation of the laws of the land with respect to which% as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime% only the cort established in that said place itself had competent jrisdiction% in the absence of an agreement nder an international treaty.
G.R. N%. :182, Oc%er 1, 122 /HE 0EO0E OF /HE 0H++00+NE +SANDS 4'. 9ONG CHENG ROMUADE=, J.( Fn this appeal the AttorneyG8eneral rges the revocation of the order of the *ort of &irst Fnstance of ,anila% sstaining the demrrer presented by the defendant to the information that initiated this case and in which the appellee is accused of having illegally smoed opium, a!oard the merchant vessel "hangsa of English nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city.
The demrrer alleged lac@ of jrisdiction on the part of the lower cort% which so held and dismissed the case. The estion that presents itself for or consideration is whether sch rling is erroneos or not0 and it will or will not be erroneos according as said cort has or has no jrisdiction over said offense. *he point at issue is whether the courts of the )hilippines have urisdiction over crime, lie the one herein involved, committed a!oard merchant vessels anchored in our urisdiction waters.
There are two fndamental rles on this particlar matter in connection with Fnternational Iaw0 to wit% the &rench rle% according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels shold not be prosected in the corts of the contry within whose territorial jrisdiction they were committed% nless their commission affects the peace and secrity of the territory0 and the English rle% based on the territorial principle and followed in the "nited #tates% according to which% crimes perpetrated nder sch circmstances are in general triable in the corts of the contry within territory they were committed. :f this two rles% it is the last one that obtains in this jrisdiction% becase at present the theories and jrisprdence prevailing in the "nited #tates on this matter are athority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the "nited #tates. Fn the cases of *he Schooner Exchange vs. M?-addon and @thers (; *ranch ". #.B% 112)% *hief -stice ,arshall said6 . . . 7hen merchant vessels enter for the prposes of trade% it wold be obviosly inconvenient and dangeros to society% and wold sbject the laws to continal infraction% and the government to degradation% if sch individals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance% and were not amenable to the jrisdiction of the contry. . . . Fn "nited #tates vs. 9ll (1D Phil.% ;)% this cort held6 . . . No cort of the Philippine Fslands had jrisdiction over an offense or crime committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of any other contry% bt when she came within three miles of a line drawn from the headlands% which embrace the entrance to ,anila 9ay% she was within territorial waters% and a new set of principles became applicable. (7heaton% Fnternational Iaw $ana ed.B% p. 4DD% note 1
A-%!- -e "ere &%''e''i%$ %f a$ arice %f &r%-iie !'e i$ -e 0-ii&&i$e +'a$', a%ar a f%rei$ 4e''e i$ ra$'i i$ a$# %ca &%r,
%e' $%, a' a e$era r!e, c%$'i!e a cri"e riae # -e c%!r' %f -e +'a$', '!c- 4e''e' ei$ c%$'iere a' a$ e3e$'i%$ %f i' %*$ $ai%$ai#, -e 'a"e r!e %e' $% a&&# *-e$ -e arice, -e !'e %f *-ic- i' &r%-iie i$ -e +'a$', i' a$e fr%" -e 4e''e' !&%$ 0-ii&&i$e '%i in sch a case an open violation of the laws of the land is committed with respect to which% as i i' a 4i%ai%$ %f -e &e$a a* i$ f%rce a -e &ace %f -e c%""i''i%$ %f -e cri"e, $% c%!r %-er -a$ -a e'ai'-e i$ -e 'ai &ace -a' !ri'ici%$ %f -e %ffe$'e, i$ -e a'e$ce %f a$ aree"e$ !$er a$ i$er$ai%$a rea#. As to whether the "nited #tates has ever consented by t reaty or otherwise to renoncing sch jrisdiction or a part thereof% we find nothing to this effect so far as England is concerned% to which nation the ship where the crime in estion was committed belongs. 9esides% in his wor@ Treaties% *onventions% etc.% volme 1% page 24D% ,alloy says the following6 There shall be between the territories of the "nited #tates of America% and all the territories of is 9ritanic ,ajesty in Erope% a reciprocal liberty of commerce. The inhabitants of the two contries% respectively% shall have liberty freely and secrely to come with their ships and cargoes to all sch places% ports and rivers% in the territories aforesaid% to which other foreigners are permitted to come% to enter into the same% and to remain and reside in any parts of the said territories% respectively0 also to hire and occpy hoses and warehoses for the prposes of their commerce0 and% generally% the merchants and traders of each nation respectively shall enjoy the most complete protection and secrity for their commerce% bt sbject always to the laws and stattes of the two contries% respectively. (Art. 1% *ommerce and Navigation *onvention.) 7e have seen that the mere possession of opim aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this cort not triable by or corts% becase it being the primary object of or :pim Iaw to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastros effects entailed by the se of this drg% its mere possession in sch a ship% withot being sed in or territory% does not being abot in the said territory those effects that or statte contemplates avoiding. He$ce '!c- a "ere &%''e''i%$ i' $% c%$'iere a
i'!ra$ce %f -e &!ic %rer. B! % '"%5e %&i!" *i-i$ %!r erri%ria i"i', e4e$ -%!- a%ar a f%rei$ "erc-a$ '-i&, i' cerai$# a reac- %f -e &!ic %rer -ere e'ai'-e% becase it cases sch drg to prodce its pernicios effects within or territory. Ft seriosly contravenes the prpose that or Iegislatre has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statte. ,oreover% as the AttorneyG8eneral aptly observes6 . . . The idea of a person smo@ing opim secrely on board a foreign vessel at anchor in the port of ,anila in open defiance of the local a uthorities% who are impotent to lay hands on him% is simply sbversive of pblic order. Ft reires no nsal stretch of the imagination to conceive that a foreign ship may come into the port of ,anila and allow or solicit *hinese residents to smo@e opim on board. The order appealed from is revo@ed and the case ordered remanded to the cort of origin for frther proceedings in accordance with law% withot special findings as to costs. #o ordered. Araullo, ".$., Street, Malcolm, Avancea, 0illamor, @strand and $ohns, $$., concur.
9+DENHUS CASE, 12 U.S. 1 (188) +. C+/A/+ON Lolme 14< of the U.S. Supreme "ourt eports % 133; ++. /HE FAC/S A. Maeria 7hile a 9elgian vessel was doc@ed in the port of -ersey *ity% New -ersey in 1332B% a 9elgian crew member foght andB @illed another 9elgian crew member on board the vessel. The -ersey *ity police boarded the steamer and arrested 7ildenhs. They then committed him to jail in New -ersey% pending trial for mrder.B 9. ea The 9elgian consl soght a writ ofB habeas corps to obtain the release of the 9elgian national. The consl relied pon a ,arch =% 133< treaty between the "nited #tates and 9elgim. Article FK provided that conslar officials shall alone ta@e cogni!ance of all differences which may arise% either at sea or in port% between the captains% officers% and crews% withot exception .... The local athorities shall not interfere% except when the disorder that has arisen is of sch a natre as to distrb the tranility and pblic order on shore% or in the port% or when a person of the contry or not belonging to the crew% shall be concerned therein.
The ".#. *ircit *ort refsed to deliver the prisoners to the consl and remanded them to jail. This case is an appeal to the ".#. #preme *ort.
+++. EGA +SSUES A. S&ecific 1. Fn this case% which state has rightfl jrisdiction+ The "nited #tates or 9elgim+ 4. Fn this case% on what legal basis is jrisdiction to be determined+ ?. ow is the langage of the ".#.G9elgian Treaty to be interpreted+ 7hat is specifically meant by a disorder that distrbsB the tranility and pblic order on shore% or in port+ 9. Ge$era 1. Fn cases involving distrbances of the tranility of the port% how is jrisdiction to be determined+ 4. 7hat disorders so distrb the tranility and pblic order on shore% or in port as to give the local state jrisdiction+
+V. /HE HOD+NG The jdgment of the ".#.B *ircit *ort wasB affirmed. The #preme *ort rled that the 9elgian crew members wold remain in American cstody for trial. The consl5s petition for habeas corps was denied.
V. EGA RA/+ONAE :pinion of *hief -stice 7aiteB A. The "nited #tates has jrisdiction in this case. 9. ".#. jrisdiction is based on the tranility of the port principle. 1. This general principle of international law is based on comity. 4. The principle provides that all matters of discipline and all things done on board which affected only the vessel or those belonging to her% and did not involve the peace or dignity of the contry% or the tranility of the port% shold be left by the local government to be deal with by the athorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged. 9t if crimes are committed on board of a character to distrb the peace and tranility of the contry to which the vessel has been broght% the offenders have never by comity or sage been entitled to any exception from the operation of the local laws for their pnishment% if the local tribnals see fit to assert their athority. ?. Treaties have been entered into which codify the tranility of the port principle in order to prevent the inconvenience that might arise from attempts to exercise conflicting jrisdictions. U ".#.G&rance Treaty% November 1C% 1;33 U ".#.G9elgim Treaty% ,arch =% 133< *. Fn this case% the ".#.G9elgim Treaty is the law which now governs the condct of the "nited #tates and 9elgim towards each other in this particlar. $. The langage of the ".#.G9elgim Treaty may be interpreted as providing the basis for rightfl American jrisdiction. 1. The treaty provides that local athorities in this case% the "nited #tatesB may exercise their jrisdiction when the disorder that has arisen is of sch a natre as to distrb the tranility and pblic order on shore% or in the port. 4. Fn this case% the disorder was of sch a natre as to distrb the tranility and pblic order on shore% or in the port. $etermining when an act distrbs the tranility and pblic order on shore may not be easy at all times. ,ch will depend on the attending circmstances of the particlar case. Fn this case a determination may be made% ho wever. ABll mst concede that that felonios assalt is a sbject for local jrisdiction. Fn the 13D= $ally case% the highest &rench jdicial tribnal held that &rench corts had rightfl jrisdiction when an American merchantman @illed another American on board an American ship while in a &rench port. RUE6 It is not aone the %u)icit# o* the act, or the ca+or hich attends it, that a**ixes the nature o* the cri+e, )ut the act itse*. I* it is o* a character to aa&en %u)ic interest hen it )eco+es &non, it is a 'disorder' the nature o* hich is to a**ect the co++unit# at arge, and conseuent# to invo&e the %oer o* the oca govern+ent .
/HE CASE OF SS O/US (FRANCE V. /UR?E>) TE I:T"# *A#E (&rance v Tr@ey)6 &acts6 The &rench steamer Iots collided with the Tr@ish cargo ship 9osG Qort DG2 natical miles north of *ape #igri (arond the area between 8reece and Tr@ey). The 9o!GQort was ct in two% casing it to sin@% and leading to eight deaths. The Iots tried to spport the shipwrec@ed persons% leading to ten resces% bt ended p contining to *onstantinople. The officer on watch on board the Iots was ,onsier $emons% a &renchman% who was tried by the Tr@ish *ort for involntary manslaghter (the Tr@ish captain was also tried% bt this is irrelevant)% and sbseently convicted.
is lone defense was lac@ of jrisdiction% which the &rench government echoed on appeal% leading to the case in the F*-. &rance5s primary argment is that in a collision in the high seas% where no other contries are involved except the flags of the ships involved% jrisdiction lies in whose flag the errant vessel sails. The Tr@ish prosection was improper becase it was not in accord with principles of international law. The Tr@ish base their jrisdiction on Art. 2 of their Penal *ode% which allows extraterritorial jrisdiction in cases sch as these. The isse then is not so mch whether or not Art. 2 is in line with international law (which can5t really change their local law)% bt merely on who has jrisdiction over the offense. Applicable Iaw6 Art. 1D of the *onvention of Iasanne% of which both states are parties. Jestions of jrisdiction are to be decided in accordance with the principles of international law. &rance6 $ecide based on the evoltion of the *onvention. 7 hen the Tr@ish government adopted Art. 2 of their Penal *ode% it was rejected by the 9ritish% while the &rench entered into a reservation with respect to it. 9ased on this% ta@ing jrisdiction over $emons is contrary to the intention behind Iasanne. *ort6 No. + i' e$era i$er$ai%$a a* -a a&&ie'. /reaie' are
e$era# i$er&ree a'e %$ -e %ri$ar# "ea$i$ %f *%r', -e$ce *-e$ *e '&ea5 %f i$er$ai%$a a*, *e refer % -e e$era &ri$ci&e' -a a 'ae' a-ere %. ,oreover% there was no explanation as to the &rench reservationGG nless alleged% one cannot @now how the relations nder the treaty may be modified. 7eighing these two% FI in the Iasanne *onvention can only refer to 8PMFI. 9asis of Tr@ish -risdiction and the *oncept of Territoriality6
Fra$ce /-e /!r5i'- c%!r' "!' fi$ '%"e ie % !ri'ici%$ i$ i$er$ai%$a a* i$ fa4%!r %f i i$ %rer % a5e !ri'ici%$. /!r5e# Ar. 1 a%$e ca$ a&&# f%r a' %$ a' i %e' $% c%$fic *i- a &ri$ci&e %f i$er$ai%$a a*. GFt is established that a state may generally exercise jrisdiction only within its define territory. owever% -i' r!e i$ + %e' $% &rec!e -e
&%''iii# -a a Sae ca$ a5e !ri'ici%$ %4er %ffe$'e' c%""ie %!'ie i' erri%r#. /-e %$# i"iai%$ i' -a '!c- a*' &r%"!ae '-%! $% c%$fic *i- -e i"i' 'e # i$er$ai%$a a*.
GPresmption6 Re'rici%$' %$ -e i$e&e$e$ce %f Sae' are $%
&re'!"e. /-e# "!' e e'ai'-e.
GThe estion is whether or not there is spport for the &rench contention that Tr@ey5s actions conflict with sch limits. 7hether or not there is a sorce of law prohibiting Tr@ey from assming jrisdiction. N:. Fn fact% -e
'%!rce' %f a* '-%* -a -ere i' c%$c!rre$ !ri'ici%$ e*ee$ /!r5e# a$ Fra$ce. /!r5e# e3erci'e !ri'ici%$ F+RS/, arri$ Fra$ce.
As to the second argment6 Fn these sitations% it5s established that the ships are treated in the same position as national territory. ence% when they clash and collide% it can be treated as if there were a territorial dispteMoverlap between the two #tatesGG this is a corollary of the basic rle of freedom on the high seas. This implies that the state of the victim can ta@e cogni!anceGG no rle of FI prevents them. The &rench rely on pblicists% decisions% and conventions to prove that they shold have exclsive jrisdiction. To start% there is no shortage of pblicists that arge that in a case when offenses were committed on board a foreign ship on the high seas% it can still be treated as if the offense was committed within that foreign territory. Next% precedent is actally lac@ing with respect to cases in favor of &rance. &inally% most conventions do not refer to common law offenses% which oght to be treated differently from matters sch as slave trade% sbmarine sables% fisheries% etc. As to the third argment6 it appears that there may be state practice where the foreign #tate wold defer to the #tate of the offender% bt again% there is no belief that they had a dty to deferMabstain. /-i' "ea$' -a a 4ie*
&%i$i$ %*ar' !ri'ici%$ %$ -e -a$ %f -e %ffe$e Sae i' $% &r%-iie. *hough there are municipal cases that may !olster the -rench side, these are only part of a rich !ody of urisprudence that actually favors the *urish.
*onclsion6 They have concrrent jrisdiction0 it5s jst that Tr@ey exercised it first% to the exclsion of &rance.
A//ORNE>:GENERA OF /HE S/A/E OF +SRAE V. ADOF E+CHMANN &acts Adolf Eichmann (defendant) was a 8erman Na!i officer involved in the internment and extermination of -ewish people dring 7orld 7ar FF. Eichmann was tried for his crimes in Fsrael in the $istrict *ort of -ersalem and was convicted of varios violations of the Na!is and Na!i *ollaborators (Pnishment) Iaw D;1
&rance5s argments are threeGfold6 (1) FI does not allow a #tate to ta@e proceedings with regard to offenses committed by foreigners abroad merely becase the victims were their Nationals% (4) FI recogni!es the exclsive jrisdiction of the #tate whose flag is flown over all offenses on b oard ships on the high seas% and (?) any sch principles derived are applicable to collision cases.
Iater% he was captred by Fsraeli #ecrity &orces in Argentina% where he reached after traveling many Eropean contry then having a fa@e identity of /ed *ross as being /icardo Qlement. After that F#& handed over to the $istrict *ort of -ersalem to stand trial for war crimes% crimes against hmanity and crimes against the -ewish people.
As to the first argment6 No sch law exists. 9-a $ai%$' e$ % % i'
Fsse6 whether Fsrael had the athority to pt him in the trial or not+
-a %ffe$'e', -e a!-%r' %f *-ic- are i$ -e erri%r# %f a$%-er Sae, are reare a' -a4i$ ee$ c%""ie i$ -e $ai%$a erri%r# f%r a' %$ a' %$e %r "%re c%$'i!e$ ee"e$' OR effec' %cc!r -ere. B%C%!r' -a4e a&&ie -i' &ri$ci&e, a$ -ere -a4e ee$ $% rec%r' %f &r%e'' c-ae$i$ -i' &ri$ci&e. He$ce, *i- -e %ffe$'e c%""ie %$ a Fre$c- '-i& a$ -e effec' fe %$ a /!r5i'- '-i&, i 'ee"' /!r5i'- c%$i7a$ce *a' &r%&er. Even then% if Art. 2 were held incompatible of FI% it may still be possible to find some other general principle that wold allow the Tr@s to have jrisdiction. #ch an error with respect to applicable law is a mnicipal isse that does not extend to FI nless a treaty provision enters into accont% or when the possibility of a denial of jstice arises. As for the argment that manslaghter cannot be locali!ed at the point where mortal effect is felt6 ,anslaghter is pnished precisely de to the effect. No sorce of FI has established a contrary rle.
$ecision6 e was convicted of all 1D conts and sentenced to death. /easoning6 is crimes were crimes against hmanity% he violated the principal of js cogence so every contry has the right to try that type of crime.
F+LR/+GA V. 0EA:+RAA A sit against PenaGFrala ($) on th e premise t hat he had tortred to death the decedent of &ilartiga (P)% was filed by &ilartiga (P).
S#$%&'i' %f R!e %f a*. &or prpose of the Allen Tort #tatte% to rtre may be considered to violate law of nations.
Fac'. A sit claiming that PenaGFrala ($) had tortred &ilartiga's (P) decedent to death while he was a police Fnspector 8eneral% was broght by &ilartiga (P). All parties were Paragayan citi!ens. -risdiction was based on the Allen Tort #tatte% 43 ".#.*. # 1?D<% which provided jrisdiction for tort committed in violation of Othe law of nations.V The case was dismissed by the district cort for lac@ of jrisdiction to which &ilartiga (P) appealed.
+''!e. &or prpose of the Allen Tort #tatte% m ay tortre be considered as a violation of the law of nations+
He. (-dge not stated in caseboo@ excerpt). es. F%r &!r&%'e %f -e Ae$ /%r Sa!e, %r!re "a# e c%$'iere % 4i%ae a* %f $ai%$'. The prohibition against tortre has become part of cstomary international law. Larios "nited Nations declarations sch as the "niversal $eclaration of man /ights and the 1=;D $eclaration on the Protection of All Persons from Tortre frther portrays the fact that prohibition against tortre has become part of cstomary international law. Tortre has been officially renonced in the vast majority of nations and this is the reason why this cort conclded that tortre violates the law of nations.
Di'c!''i%$. Ft is not new for many members of the "nited Nations to ma@e prononcements and not be prononcements into action. Ft is no secret that tortre is still widely practiced if not by a majority of contries then in a significant manner. Actal practice% and not ".N. declarations have been arged by commentators as what constitte international law.