10/6/22, 10:35 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066

[No. 45892. July 13, 1938]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and

appellee, vs. TRANQUILINO LAGMAN, defendant and
appellant.

[No. 45893. July 13, 1938]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and

appellee, vs. PRIMITIVO DE SOSA, defendant and
appellant.

1. NATIONAL DEFENSE; COMPULSORY MILITARY

SERVICE; VIOLATION OF SECTION 60 OF
COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 1, REGARDING FAILURE
TO REGISTER IN THE MILITARY SERVICE.—The
National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes
compulsory military service, does not go against section 2,
Article II of the Philippine Constitution but is, on the
contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. 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.

2. ID.; ID.; IN THE UNITED STATES.—In the United

States the courts have held in a series of decisions that the
compulsory military service adopted by reason of the civil
war and the world war does not violate the Constitution,
because the power to establish it is derived from that
granted to Congress to declare war and to organize and
maintain an army. This is so because the right of the
Government to require compulsory military service is a
consequence of its duty to defend the State and is
reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty, and
property of the citizen. In the case of Jacobson vs.
Massachusetts

14

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183adb9112f72a7703d000d00d40059004a/p/ASA530/?username=Guest 1/5
10/6/22, 10:35 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066

14 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Lagman

(197 U. S., 11; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep., 385), it was said that,
without violating the Constitution a person may be
compelled by force, if need be, against his will, against his
pecuniary interests and even against his religious or
political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the
army of his country, and risk the chance of being shot
down in its defense.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.—In the case of United States vs. Olson (253
Fed., 233), it was also said that this is not deprivation of
property without due process of law, because, in its just
sense, there is no right of property to an office or
employment. The circumstance that these decisions refer
to laws enacted by reason of the actual existence of war
does not make our case any different, inasmuch as, in the
last analysis, what justifies compulsory military service is
the defense of the State, whether actual or whether in
preparation to make it more effective, in case of need.

4. ID. ; ID.; PECUNIARY ALLOWANCE TO ATTEND TO

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES.—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 (sections 65 and 69 of Commonwealth Act
No. 1).

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Bataan. Araneta Diaz, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Severino P. Izon for appellants.
Solicitor-General Tuason for appellee.

AVANCEÑA, C. J.:

In these two cases (G. R. Nos. 45892 and 45893), the

appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa are
charged with a violation of section 60 of Commonwealth
Act No. 1, known as the National Defense Law. It is alleged
that these two appellants, being Filipinos and having
reached the age of twenty years in 1936, willfully and
unlawfully refused to register in the military service

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183adb9112f72a7703d000d00d40059004a/p/ASA530/?username=Guest 2/5
10/6/22, 10:35 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066

between the 1st and 7th of April of said year,

notwithstanding the fact that they had been required to do
so. The evidence shows that these two appellants were duly
notified by the corresponding authorities to appear before
the Acceptance Board in order to register for military
service in accordance

15

VOL. 66, JULY 13, 1938 15

People vs. Lagman

with law, and that the said appellants, in spite of these

notices, had not registered up to the date of the filing of the
information.
The appellants do not deny these facts, but they allege
in defense that they have not registered in the military
service because Primitivo de Sosa is fatherless and has a
mother and a brother eight years old to support, and
Tranquilino Lagman also has a father to support, has no
military leanings, and does not wish to kill or be killed.
Each of these appellants was sentenced by the Court of
First Instance to one month and one day of imprisonment,
with the costs.
In this instance, the validity of the National Defense
Law, under which the accused were sentenced, is impugned
on the ground that it is unconstitutional.
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 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. 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. In the United States the courts have held
in a series of decisions that the compulsory military service
adopted by reason of the civil war and the world war does
not violate the Constitution, because the power to establish
it is derived from that granted to Congress to declare war
and to organize and maintain an army. This is so because

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183adb9112f72a7703d000d00d40059004a/p/ASA530/?username=Guest 3/5
10/6/22, 10:35 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066

the right of the Government to require compulsory military

service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and
is reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty and
property of the citizen. In the case of Jacobson vs'

16

16 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Panay Autobus Co. vs. Beruño

Massachusetts (197 U. S., 11; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep., 385), it was

said that, without violating the Constitution, a person may
be compelled by force, if need be, against his will, against
his pecuniary interests, and even against his religious or
political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the
army of his country, and risk the chance of being shot down
in its defense. In the case of United States vs. Olson (253
Fed., 233), it was also said that this is not deprivation of
property without due process of law, because, in its just
sense, there is no right of property to an office or
employment. The circumstance that these decisions refer to
laws enacted by reason of the actual existence of war does
not make our case any different, inasmuch as, in the last
analysis, what justifies compulsory military service is the
defense of the State, whether actual or whether in
preparation to make it more effective, in case of need.
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 (secs. 65 and 69 of Commonwealth
Act No. 1).
The appealed judgment rendered in these two cases is
affirmed, with the costs to the appellants. So ordered.

Villa -Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion,

JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

____________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183adb9112f72a7703d000d00d40059004a/p/ASA530/?username=Guest 4/5
10/6/22, 10:35 PM PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 066

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183adb9112f72a7703d000d00d40059004a/p/ASA530/?username=Guest 5/5