G.R. No. L-1352. April 30, 1947.
ALFONSO MONTEBON, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by Alfonso Montebon on behalf of prisoner Elpidio S. Cruz, confined at the Iwahig Penal Colony. A prior, similar petition filed by another party on behalf of the same prisoner was denied by the Court. The present petition contests the validity of Cruz’s recommitment ordered by the Commissioner of Justice of the Philippine Executive Commission on June 3, 1943. This recommitment was for the unexpired portion of Cruz’s maximum aggregate sentences from three cases, after he had been paroled by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence on June 26, 1941. The Commissioner of Justice acted under Administrative Order No. 21, dated June 21, 1942, approved by the Chairman of the Executive Commission, which abolished the Board of Indeterminate Sentence and the Board of Pardons and transferred their powers to the Commissioner of Justice.

ISSUE

Whether the recommitment order issued by the Commissioner of Justice of the Philippine Executive Commission during the Japanese occupation is valid and should be recognized by the restored Commonwealth (now Republic) government.

RULING

The Court DENIED the petition. The recommitment order is valid and must be recognized.
1. The Philippine Executive Commission was a de facto government during the occupation. The Commissioner of Justice validly assumed the powers of the abolished Board of Indeterminate Sentence under the existing military and administrative orders.
2. The Indeterminate Sentence Law remained in force during the occupation as a municipal (non-political) law, which is not abrogated by a change of sovereignty and which the belligerent occupant was obligated to maintain under international law (Hague Regulations) to ensure public order.
3. Under the doctrine of jus postliminii and following the precedent in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, all acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto government that are within its competence and not hostile to the legitimate sovereign remain valid and effective after the reoccupation. The enforcement of criminal law, including parole revocation, is such a valid act.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Perfecto dissented, arguing that Administrative Order No. 21 and the recommitment order were null and void. He maintained that governmental acts during the enemy occupation, performed under the authority of the Japanese Imperial Government and not under the authority of the Filipino people in whom sovereignty resides, should not be recognized as valid. He voted for the prisoner’s immediate release.