Political Science

Issue
The main issue in this case is whether the petitioners who were civilians and not in any way connected with the armed forces are subject to the jurisdiction of the military tribunals which tried and convicted them instead of the civil courts.

This issue was raised when the petitioners who were both civilians were arrested on separate occasions.  The first was arrested for assaulting two Marine sentries while the other was arrested for embezzling stock belonging to another civilian in violation of the Hawaii laws. Though at the time of their trial and conviction the civilian courts were already functioning they were subsequently tried and convicted by military tribunals pursuant to Section 67 of the Hawaiian Organic Act which authorizes the governor to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and to place the territory under martial law in case of rebellion or invasion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it.

Rule
The governing rule is that the military should always be kept subordinate to the laws of the United States.  The law shall always be the supreme authority to which the military should. When Congress enacted the Organic Act and authorized the governor to declare martial law it was not the intention of the lawmakers to exceed its limits and encroach upon the authority of the civilian courts.  In addition, the declaration of martial was not intended to replace the courts by the military tribunals when they are already functioning and order has been restored.

Analysis
The rule proclaiming the primacy of the laws over the military tribunals is applicable in this case.  First, an interpretation of Section 67 of the Organic Act will reveal that it was the intention of Congress to grant the governor the authority to invoke military aid under certain circumstances.  The Congress, however, did not specifically state the extent to which this army could be used and for how long. In fact, the Organic Act itself did not define what martial law means and whether the military tribunals could supplant the functioning of the civilian courts.

Moreover, a look at the legislative history will show that Congress did not intend to give the military extraordinary broad powers to try civilians who commit an offense cognizable by civilian courts before military tribunals.  Instead, the history of the United States will show that the military was supposed to be subordinate to the civilian authority and that the use of the military by the government was always for the purpose of aiding the civilian authorities and not to supplant them.

Lastly, the United States system of government which upholds the principles of democracy is inconsistent with military rule.  In a democracy, the people run the government through its set of representatives which are chosen by the people in an election.  In a democracy sovereignty resides in the people.  As such it is opposed to the idea that one man will hold the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws.  It is also opposed to the system of government where authority is exercised by only one man through barrel of a gun. That is why courts of different levels were established to protect the rights and liberties so cherished by the founding fathers. (Ex part Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 317 U.S. 19) 

An analysis of the Supreme Courts ruling will reveal that trial by military courts of civilians who commit offenses cognizable by civilian courts is consistent with the established principles of due process of law.  Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions wherein the accused stands to lose his life or his liberty, the accused is entitled to trial.  He is entitled to be heard and to present evidence on his behalf.  The trial that is envisioned by the constitution and existing laws is a trial by civilian courts not by the military tribunals.  It must be stressed that the military courts and tribunals do not form part of the United States judicial system. (Ex Parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1863)
 
As a rule, individuals who are accused of a crime and placed on trial for the commission of a crime are entitled as a matter of right to trial by judicial process.  Art III Section 1 of the United States Constitution is clear.  It states that The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Since the United States was not occupied by a hostile enemy or under military rule at the time of the commission of the crime, or even if martial law is in force at the time of the commission of the crime, the military tribunals could not have authority to try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed which are cognizable by civilian courts.  Especially so that civilian courts are already opened and functioning there is no reason for the military tribunals to try these cases.

Moreover, allowing civilians to be tried by military tribunals for offenses cognizable by civilian courts will violate the principle of constitutional separation of powers.  Under the principle of constitutional separation of powers, the powers of the government shall be divided between the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary.  The constitutional role of the Judiciary is to interpret the laws while the constitutional role of the Executive Department is to implement the law.  Since the military tribunals are under the authority of the president as the Commander-in-Chief of the country, the principle of separation of powers shall be violated if it shall be authorized to hear cases for offenses which are cognizable by civilian courts. The Executive Department through the military tribunals could not perform the function of interpretation of the law.  So long as the civilian courts are open and are functioning the military tribunals could not have the authority to try civilians for offenses they committed that are cognizable by civilian courts. 

Conclusion
The holding of the Supreme Court affirms its earlier pronouncement in the case of Dow v. Johnson, 100 US 158 which states that . . . the military should always be kept in subjection to the laws of the country to which it belongs, and that he is no friend to the Republic who advocates the contrary. The established principle of every free people is that the law shall alone govern, and to it the military must always yield. (Dow v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 158, (1879)  It is an affirmation of the principle that the exercise of the powers of the Executive Department shall always be limited to the implementation of the law while the powers of the Judiciary shall always be the interpretation of laws.