GR L 319; (March, 1946) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-319; March 28, 1946
Go Tian Sek Santos, petitioner, vs. Eriberto Misa, Director of Prisons, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, Go Tian Sek Santos, alleges he is a Chinese citizen. He was apprehended in February 1945 by the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army and turned over to the Commonwealth Government in September 1945. Since then, he has been detained by the respondent Director of Prisons as a political prisoner. The petitioner claims his detention is illegal because he has not been charged before or convicted by a competent court. He further argues he cannot be confined under Commonwealth Act No. 682, as he owes allegiance neither to the United States nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The Solicitor-General, representing the respondent, admits the detention is for active collaboration with the Japanese, questions the petitioner’s claim of citizenship, and maintains that even assuming the petitioner is an alien, he may be charged with espionage—a crime against national security where allegiance is immaterial—and therefore may be held under Commonwealth Act No. 682. The commitment order from the U.S. Army authorities describes the petitioner as a Chinese subject.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, deemed a Chinese subject, is entitled to release from detention as a political prisoner under Commonwealth Act No. 682.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Court held that the petitioner’s foreign status does not automatically exclude him from the provisions of Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682. This section, upon delivery of political prisoners by the U.S. Armed Forces to the Commonwealth Government, suspends the provisions on the period of detention under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code for up to six months to allow for the filing of corresponding informations. The petitioner could be prosecuted for crimes such as espionage under Commonwealth Act No. 616, which is an offense against national security and does not depend on the citizenship of the offender. Constitutional challenges to the validity of Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 were overruled in line with the Court’s prior decision in Laurel vs. Director of Prisons.