People v. Lagman, People v. de Sosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa, both Filipinos of legal age in 1936, were charged with violating Section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1 (National Defense Law) for willfully and unlawfully refusing to register for military service between April 1-7, 1936, despite due notice. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance found both appellants guilty and sentenced each to one month and one day of imprisonment, with costs. The Petition: The appellants impugned the constitutionality of the National Defense Law. Their defense was based on Primitivo de Sosa's familial obligations (fatherless, supporting mother and brother) and Tranquilino Lagman's familial obligations (supporting father), lack of military aptitude, and aversion to killing or being killed.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Defense Law, particularly its provision on compulsory military service, is constitutional. Whether the personal circumstances of the appellants (familial obligations, aversion to military service) constitute valid defenses against the charge of refusing to register for military service.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is affirmed. The appellants are found guilty and sentenced to one month and one day of imprisonment, with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of the National Defense Law: The Court held that Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, which states that the defense of the State is a prime duty of the government and all citizens may be required by law to render personal military or civil service, is directly complied with by the National Defense Law. The Court reasoned that the government's duty to defend the State necessitates an army, and relying solely on voluntary enlistment would make this duty excusable if insufficient volunteers exist. The Court cited decisions from the United States, such as Jacobson vs. Massachusetts and United States vs. Olson, which upheld compulsory military service as a consequence of the government's duty to defend the State and reciprocal to its duty to defend the citizen. The Court clarified that the justification for compulsory military service is the defense of the State, whether actual or in preparation, and does not violate the Constitution. On the defenses raised by the appellants: The Court found that the appellants' personal circumstances, such as having dependent families to support, do not excuse them from their duty to register. The Court noted that if such circumstances exist, they can seek deferment in complying with their duty or obtain proper pecuniary allowances to attend to family responsibilities, as provided for in Sections 65 and 69 of Commonwealth Act No. 1. The appellants' aversion to military service or lack of military learnings were not considered valid legal defenses against the statutory requirement to register.
Main Doctrine
The National Defense Law, establishing compulsory military service, is constitutional as it is a faithful compliance with the State's duty to defend itself, and citizens may be required by law to render personal military or civil service.