[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Mandatory Military Service Upheld

The appellant, Tranquilino Lagman, was charged with violating the National Defense Law for failing to register for military service as required. Lagman argued he did not register because he needed to support his family and did not want to kill or be killed. The court ruled the National Defense Law is constitutional as the duty to defend the state through the military is a prime duty of the government under the Philippine Constitution. Further, having dependents is not an excuse for failing to register, as the law allows for deferment or financial allowance to support dependents.

Uploaded by

Rizza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Mandatory Military Service Upheld

The appellant, Tranquilino Lagman, was charged with violating the National Defense Law for failing to register for military service as required. Lagman argued he did not register because he needed to support his family and did not want to kill or be killed. The court ruled the National Defense Law is constitutional as the duty to defend the state through the military is a prime duty of the government under the Philippine Constitution. Further, having dependents is not an excuse for failing to register, as the law allows for deferment or financial allowance to support dependents.

Uploaded by

Rizza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE NO.

0069

G.R. No. L-45892 July 13, 1938

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. TRANQUILINO LAGMAN

FACTS: Tranquilino Lagman is charged with a violation of section 60 of Commonwealth Act


No. 1, known as the National Defense Law. The appellant has already reached the age of
Twenty but refused to register in the military service between the 1st and 7th of April of
1936, notwithstanding the fact that he had been required to do so. The appellant was
notified to appear before the acceptance board to file his registration for military service
but failed to do so. Lagman argued that he did not registered in the military service because
he also has a father to support, has no military learnings, and does not wish to kill or be
killed. The appellant was sentenced by the court of first instance one month and one day of
imprisonment, with the cost.

ISSUE:  Whether or not the National Defense Law is constitutional

RULING: Yes , The National Defense Law, established compulsory service does not go
against the constitutional provisions. Since the duty of the government to defend the state
is through the army. Under Section 2, Article II of the Constitution of the Philippines
provides as follows: SEC. 2. The defense of the state is a prime duty of government, and in
the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal military
or civil service. The circumstance that the appellant has dependent families to support does
not excuse him from his duty to present himself before the Acceptance Board because, if
such circumstance exists, he can ask for determent in complying with his duty and, at all
events, he can obtain the proper pecuniary allowance to attend to these family
responsibilities (secs. 65 and 69 of Commonwealth Act No. 1).

MAIN POINT: Appellant having dependent families to support cannot be an excuse to


comply with the duties provided in Section 2, Article II of the Philippine Constitution.
Nevertheless, The National Defense Law entitles him to secure an allowance to
attend his families needs.

You might also like