G.R. No. L-533 – 75 Phil. 875 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – Sovereignty – Suspension of Political Laws During Belligerent Occupation
In October 1944, while the Philippines was under Japanese control, Ramon Ruffy, Victoriano, Dinglasan, Jose Garcia, Prudente Francisco, Dominador Adeva, and Andres Fortus, murdered Lt. Col. Enrique Jurado. After the murder the six defected from military service. A court martial was constituted to try them. Ruffy and Dinglasan were acquitted while the other four were convicted. Garcia et al. went to the Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the proceeding as well as the application of the law which was the basis of their conviction. The law in question was the 93rd Article of War which provides “any person subject to military law who commits murder in time of was shall suffer death or imprisonment for life, as the court martial may direct.”
Garcia et al. argued that during the Japanese occupation, all political laws were suspended which included the National Defense Act and the Article of War.
ISSUE: Whether or not Garcia et al. are correct.
HELD: No. The rule that political laws are suspended when there is a belligerent occupation is only meant to apply to civilians and not to military officers like Garcia et al.
Garcia and Adeva were originally civilians who were only called upon to render military service, are they exempt from court martial?
No. The war did not prohibit the US and the Philippines from organizing an army comprise of able men and women. By their acceptance of appointments as officers, Garcia et al. became members of the Philippine Army amendable to the Articles of War. As military officers, Garcia et al. operated under the orders of duly established and duly appointed commanders of the United States Army.
