Ezra Hilary CenizaPhilo of Law 6:00-8:00 M7Case: PERALTA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONSFacts: Petitioner-defendant, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila charged with the supervision and control of the production, procurement and distribution of goods and other necessaries was guilty of the crime of robbery as penalized by section 2 (a) of Act No. 65 of the same Assembly. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, which he commenced to serve on August 21, 1944, by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, created during the so-called Republic of the Philippines. The procedures to be followed during the hearing of his case should be the one provided by the Executive Order No. 157 of the Chairman of the Executive Commission. Petitioner-defendant, petitioned for the writ of the habeas corpus for the reason that Court of Special and Executive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 "was a political instrumentality of the military forces of the Japanese Imperial Army, the aims and purposes of which are repugnant to those aims and political purposes of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as well as those of the United States of America, and therefore, null and void ab initio," that it violated his constitutional rights and that his punishments were created to serve the Japanese Imperial Army not the Philippines making the penalties more severe than those provided in the RPC for the same crimes. The Solicitor General in behalf of the Director of Prisons, agreed to such claim saying that proceedings taken and had before the said Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the herein petitioner, should now be denied force and efficacy, and therefore the petition forhabeas corpusshould be granted. He also added that the procedure prescribed in Ordinance No. 7 does not afford a fair trial, violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and impairs the Constitutional rights of accused persons under their legitimate Constitution. However, the city fiscal of Manila appeared to the court as amicus curiae and claimed that the petition for habeas corpus be denied for the following grounds: (1) The court of special and exclusive jurisdical crimes and acts is not a political complexion because the court was created and the specified crimes placed under it in response to the urgency of such court as stated in Ordinance 7. (2) The right to appeal a criminal case is not against the constitutional rights. Ordinance 7 does not violate Article III of the Commonwealth Act.

Issues: 1. Whether or not there is a validity of the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, and of the summary procedure adopted for that court2. Whether or not the validity of the sentence which imprisonment during the Japanese military occupation;3. if they were then valid, the effect on said punitive sentence of the reoccupation of the Philippines and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth GovernmentHeld:1. The creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction and the summary procedure is valid. The existence of such court is to serve as a government instrumentality of the belligerent occupant, which in this case are the Japanese Imperial Army. It functions solely to apply the law to any case that falls within their jurisdiction.

With regards to the summary of procedure adopted by the Special court, such procedure is also considered valid. An invader, the Japanese Army for this matter, can set up military courts and provide laws to ensure their safety and relations towards the inhabitants of the occupied territory to preserve public order.

2. The validity of the sentence that imposes life imprisonment depends on the competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate the penalties provided in Art. No. 65 of the National Assembly. In the present case, the sentence of life imprisonment is within the power and competence of the Japanese to promulgate such law. 3. All judgments of political complexion of the courts during Japanese regime ceased to be valid upon reoccupation of the Islands, as such, the sentence which convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid by the principle of Postliminy. The sentence of life imprisonment is lifted and the writ of habeas corpus is granted.