Background

The case revolves around the military trial of former Philippine Constabulary and Army members who joined guerrilla forces during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. After allegedly killing a superior officer, the petitioners were brought to trial before a General Court Martial. They challenged the jurisdiction of the military court, arguing that they were not subject to military law at the time of the alleged offense due to the enemy occupation. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the petitioners were still subject to military jurisdiction despite the circumstances of war and occupation.

Facts

• 1. At the outbreak of war on December 8, 1941: (1) Ramon Ruffy was the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary in Mindoro; (2) Prudente M. Francisco was a junior officer; and (3) Andres Fortus was a corporal
• 2. On February 27, 1942, Japanese forces landed in Mindoro
• 3. Major Ruffy retreated to the mountains, disbanded his company, and organized a guerrilla outfit called Bolo Combat team of Bolo Area
• 4. Francisco, Fortus, and Garcia joined Ruffy's organization in late 1942
• 5. Adeva and Dinglasan joined in 1943
• 6. Brigadier General Macario Peralta, Jr. led operations of the 6th Military District in Panay
• 7. On February 13, 1943, the 6th Military District was recognized by the Headquarters of the Southwest Pacific Area as a military unit
• 8. Colonel Peralta extended the 6th Military District's operations to Mindoro and Marinduque
• 9. Major Ruffy was named Acting Commander for Mindoro and Marinduque
• 10. The petitioners received various assignments and promotions within the guerrilla organization
• 11. On October 19, 1944, Lieut. Col. Jurado was allegedly slain by the petitioners
• 12. After this incident, the petitioners allegedly seceded from the 6th Military District

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The petitioners were not subject to military law at the time the offense was committed
• 2. The enemy occupation of the Philippines suspended the National Defense Act and all laws governing the Philippine Army, including the Articles of War
• 3. The 93rd Article of War is unconstitutional because it does not provide for Supreme Court review of cases involving death or life imprisonment penalties

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The petitioners remained subject to military law despite the enemy occupation
• 2. The guerrilla forces were recognized as part of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Far East and thus subject to military jurisdiction
• 3. The Articles of War, including the jurisdiction of courts-martial, remained in effect during the occupation

Issues

• 1. Were the petitioners subject to military law and jurisdiction of courts-martial at the time of the alleged offense?
• 2. Did the enemy occupation suspend the application of military law to guerrilla forces?
• 3. Is the 93rd Article of War constitutional?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the court-martial over the petitioners
• 2. The Court ruled that the petitioners remained subject to military law despite the enemy occupation
• 3. The Court held that the guerrilla forces were part of the Philippine Army and thus subject to military jurisdiction
• 4. The Court rejected the argument that military law was suspended during occupation
• 5. The Court found no constitutional issue with the 93rd Article of War, interpreting it as not depriving the Supreme Court of its power of review

Doctrines

• 1. Continuity of military service: Officers and men of the Philippine Army did not cease to be in service due to enemy occupation
• 2. Limited suspension of military discipline: While some aspects of military discipline may be suspended during occupation, certain offenses remain subject to military jurisdiction
• 3. Executive nature of courts-martial: Courts-martial are considered agencies of executive character, not part of the judiciary
• 4. Constitutional interpretation favoring validity: Laws should be interpreted in a way that makes them constitutional when possible

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The fall of Bataan and Corregidor did not end the war. It did not, legally or otherwise, keep the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines from organizing a new army, regular or irregular, out of new men and men in the old service who had refused to surrender or who having surrendered, had decided to carry on the fight through other diverse means and methods."
• 2. "The heroic role which the guerrillas played in that preparation and in the subsequent liberation of the Philippines is now history."
• 3. "Unlike courts of law, they [courts-martial] are not a portion of the judiciary."

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article VIII, Section 2, Paragraph 4 of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines: Cited in relation to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over criminal cases with death or life imprisonment penalties