CO537-(1262-1649) — Page 248

000 33

33

1

N

Ref.:

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

opy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright

Please note that this copy is

restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives'

leaflet.

cms

N

Ref.:

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

N

"The Philippines

•

•

adopts the generally accepted principles of interantional law as a part

of the law of the Nation."

The Philippine Supreme Court, in the case of Co Kim Chan v.

Tan Keh", (41 0.G. 786), decided on September 17, 1945, has expressly

declared that the powers of a de facto government which comes into

temporary possession of a territory are governed by Section III of the

Hague Convention of 1907.

The immunity of private property during the war, on land as

well as in sea, was recognized by the legal adviser of our Government,

namely, the Secretary of Justice, in his opinion of November 26, 1945,

published in the Official Gazette (41 0.0. 11359, the pertinent part of

which reads as follows:

"x x x Fiore, in his treatise entitled "Inter- national Law Codified" has the following to say:

'Sec. 1611. The private property of enemy ci- tizens should be regarded as inviolate, in war on land, as well as in maritime war.

..

•

"What is more, article 46 of the Hague Conven- tion of 1907, provides that "private property (ofin- habitants of occupied territory) can not be confis- cated.'".

But even without the express declaration of the Government of

the Commonwealth of the Philippines, just mentioned, converning the

applicability to this country of the Hague Regulations, these neverthe-

less should be considered as applicable because the United States has

ratified them and the Philippines was, from the international standpoint,

an integral part of the territory of said country during the Japanese

occupation thereof.

Speaking of Section III of the Hague Regulations, Feilchenfeld

says the following:

"This body of law has survived all historical changes since 1914. It has been interpreted, developed, and supplemented by the practise of governments, decisions of tribunals, and the contributions of leading authorities on international law. There had been earlier discussions of an academic kind concerning the possible effects of an all participation clause; but the validity of Section III was not denied by any belli- gerent during the War of 1914-18, Between 1918 and 1935, the validity and applicability of Articles 42-56were confirmed in a great number of decisions of international and domestic tribunals, they were never contested by any