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

People V Lagman & Zosa, 66 Phil 13 (1938)

1) The appellants were charged with violating the National Defense Law which required Filipino men aged 20 to register for military service, which they did not do. 2) They argued they should be excused because one had family to support and the other had no military training, but the court upheld their conviction. 3) The court ruled that the National Defense Law requiring compulsory military service is constitutional and in line with the duty of the government to defend the state, even if the appellants had families to support.

Uploaded by

Jegs Pers
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
154 views1 page

People V Lagman & Zosa, 66 Phil 13 (1938)

1) The appellants were charged with violating the National Defense Law which required Filipino men aged 20 to register for military service, which they did not do. 2) They argued they should be excused because one had family to support and the other had no military training, but the court upheld their conviction. 3) The court ruled that the National Defense Law requiring compulsory military service is constitutional and in line with the duty of the government to defend the state, even if the appellants had families to support.

Uploaded by

Jegs Pers
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

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 SUN | 1-5:00PM

ATTY. CLARICE JOY SAN JOSE

TOPIC: Fundamental Principles and State Policies


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LAGMAN AND DE SOSA 66 PHIL 13
G.R. No. L-45892 and G.R. No. L-45893
July 13, 1938
PONENTE: AVANCEÑA, J. DIGESTED BY:
FACTS:
- Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa are charged with a
violation of Sec. 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, known as the National
Defense Law.
- They are both Filipinos and have reached the age of 20 years in 1936.
Despite being required to register in the military service between the 1 st and
7th of April 1936, t is alleged that these two appellants willfully and unlawfully
refused to register.
- The appellants do not deny these facts, but they allege in defense that:
a) De Sosa is fatherless and has a mother and a brother eight years old to
support: and
b) Lagman also has a father to support, has no military learnings, and does
not wish to kill or be killed.
- Each of these appellants was sentenced by the CFI to one month and one
day of imprisonment, with the costs.
ISSUE/S:
- Whether or not the National Defense Law is constitutional.
RULING:
- Yes. The appealed judgment is upheld, and the appellants are responsible
for paying the costs.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1) Section 4 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution (or Section 2 in that time):
o The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory
military service, does not go against this constitutional provision but
is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith.
o The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be
performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an
army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the
Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who
volunteer to enlist therein.
o The circumstance that the appellants have dependent families to
support does not excuse them from their duty to present themselves
before the Acceptance Board because, if such circumstance exists,
they can ask for deferment in complying with their duty and, at all
events, they can obtain the proper pecuniary allowance to attend to
these family responsibilities.

You might also like