G.R. No. 45892 ; July 13, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TRANQUILINO LAGMAN, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. 45893; July 13, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PRIMITIVO DE SOSA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and Primitivo de Sosa, both Filipinos who reached age 20 in 1936, were charged with violating Section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1 (the National Defense Law) for willfully refusing to register for military service between April 1-7, 1936, despite due notice. They admitted the failure to register but presented defenses: de Sosa claimed he was fatherless and had to support his mother and a young brother; Lagman claimed he had a father to support, no military leanings, and did not wish to kill or be killed. The trial court convicted each to one month and one day imprisonment.

ISSUE

Is Commonwealth Act No. 1 (National Defense Law), which establishes compulsory military service, unconstitutional?

RULING

No. The National Defense Law is constitutional. Section 2, Article II of the 1935 Constitution provides that the defense of the State is a prime duty of government, and all citizens may be required by law to render personal military service. The law is a faithful compliance with this constitutional mandate. The government’s duty to defend the State necessitates an army, which cannot be left to mere volunteerism. U.S. jurisprudence supports that compulsory military service, derived from the power to declare war and maintain an army, does not violate constitutional rights. The appellants’ family circumstances do not excuse compliance, as the law provides for deferment and allowances for dependents (Sections 65 and 69). The appealed judgment is affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.