G.R. No. L-1325; April 7, 1947
GEORGE L. TUBB and WESLEY TEDROW, petitioners, vs. THOMAS E. GRIESS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners George L. Tubb and Wesley Tedrow are citizens of the United States residing in the Philippines under a written contract of employment with the United States Army. They were apprehended by U.S. Army authorities between January 13 and January 28, 1947, and have since been held in custody. On January 28, 1947, they were formally charged by the U.S. Army with violations of the Articles of War concerning the misappropriation of U.S. Government property destined for military use, which acts were committed within premises occupied by the U.S. Army under lease contracts. The petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging they are unlawfully deprived of their liberty and that Philippine courts have exclusive jurisdiction over their arrest, confinement, and imprisonment because (1) they are not persons subject to military laws, and (2) martial law is no longer enforced.

ISSUE

Whether the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the petitioners, who are American citizens employed under contract by the U.S. Army and charged with violations of U.S. military law, or whether the U.S. Army authorities have lawful custody over them.

RULING

The petition for habeas corpus is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners, by virtue of their voluntary contract of employment with the U.S. Army, submitted themselves to U.S. military law and the authority of the U.S. Army during the contract’s subsistence, placing them in a status analogous to military personnel. The Court upheld the principle of International Law, as established in The Schooner Exchange vs. McFadden and applied in Raquiza vs. Bradford, that a foreign army permitted by a friendly sovereign to be stationed in its territory is exempt from the local civil and criminal jurisdiction. This exemption is impliedly waived by the host country to prevent hampering the military purpose of the stationing and to allow the foreign commander to maintain discipline. The Court cited authoritative writers on International Law (Wheaton, Hall, Lawrence, Oppenheim, Hyde) who uniformly affirm that members of a foreign military force stationed with consent are under the exclusive jurisdiction of their own military authorities for offenses committed in the line of duty or within their stationed premises. Therefore, the U.S. Army authorities have lawful jurisdiction over the petitioners, and Philippine courts cannot exercise jurisdiction without violating the country’s international faith and agreements.