Ramon Ruffy v. The Chief of Staff

TOPICS: Status of Officers and Men of Philippines Army during the Military Occupation; Suspension of Political Laws during the Military Occupation is only for Civil Inhabitants; Persons subject to Military Law; Articles of War 

FACTS: 

The petitioners are members of the Philippine Constabulary and retreated to the mountains of Mindoro when the Japanese forces advanced in the province. While in the mountains, the petitioners led as officers in a guerilla outfit known as Bolo Combat Team or Bolo Area. However, they were alleged to have killed Lieutenant Colonel Jurado.

Lieutenant Colonel Jurado was dispatched by the 6th Military District from its headquarter in Panay to assume operational control and supervision over the Bolo Area. The 6th Military District was headed by Brigadier General Macario Peralta, Jr., whose district was recognized by the Headquarters of the Southwest Pacific Area as a military unit and part of its command.

When the petitioners were put to trial, they argued that the National Defense Act and all laws and regulations creating and governing the existence of the Philippine Army including the Articles of War, were suspended and in abeyance during the such belligerent occupation. 

ISSUE: 

I) WON the petitioners are part of the Philippine Army 

II) WON the petitioners, as members of the Philippine Army, can be legally held subject to the military jurisdiction and trial.

III) WON political laws in nature are abrogated during the Japanese Occupation

IV) WON the 93rd Article of War is unconstitutional

RULING

I.

Yes, the petitioners are part of the Philippine Army. 

Under the general application of the Articles of War, all other persons lawfully called, drafted, or ordered into, or to duty or for training in, the said service, from the dates they are required by the terms of the call, draft, or order to obey the same are members of the Philippine Army. 

In this case, the acceptance of the petitioners of appointments as officers in the Bolo Area from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military District, made them members of the Philippine Army and amenable to the Articles of War. The Bolo Area received supplies and funds for the salaries of its officers and men from the Southwest Pacific Command. 

Therefore, the petitioners are part of the Philippine Army and be subjected to the military jurisdiction and trial.

II.

Yes, the petitioners can be legally held subject to the military jurisdiction and trial.

By the occupation of the Philippines by Japanese forces, the officers and men of the Philippine Army did not cease to be fully in the service, though, in a measure, only in a measure, they were not subject to the military jurisdiction, if they were not in active duty. In the latter case, like officers and soldiers on leave of absence or held as prisoners of war, they could not be held guilty of a breach of the discipline of the command or of a neglect of duty, or disobedience of orders, or mutiny or subject to a military trial therefor; but for an act unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, or an act which constitutes an offense of the class specified in the 95th Article of War, they may in general be legally held subject to military jurisdiction and trial.

III.

No. The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded or in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory. It is not intended for and does not bind the enemies in arms.

IV.

No, the Articles of War is not unconstitutional. 

The 93d Article of War which fails to allow a review by the Supreme Court of judgments of courts martial imposing death or life imprisonment does not violate Article VIII, section 2, paragraph 4, of the Constitution which provides that "the National Assembly may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment." Courts martial are agencies of executive character, and one of the authorities "for the ordering of courts martial has been held to be attached to the constitutional functions of the President as Commander in Chief, independently of legislation." Unlike courts of law, they are not a portion of the judiciary.