(http://facebook.

com/micvillamayor)
(http://twitter.com/micvillamayor
(http://ph.linkedin.com/pub/
(mailto:micvillamayor@g
(/)

HOME (/) THOUGHTS (/THOUGHTS.HTML) PORTFOLIO (/PORTFOLIO.HTML)

LAW SCHOOL (/LAW-SCHOOL.HTML)

Ruffy v. Chief of Staff (http://micvillamayor.weebly.com/case-digests/july-21st2014)

7/21/2014

0 Comments (http://micvillamayor.weebly.com/case-digests/july-21st-2014#comments)
Constitutional Law. Political Law. Effects of Cession.

RUFFY v. CHIEF OF STAFF

Since I have been reading

and digesting a lot of cases
(as

is

usual

of

any

law

student), this page will serve

as my personal repository of
case digests. The digests are

75 PHIL 875

especially constructed that

FACTS:

being discussed in class for

they

Ramon Ruffy was the provincial commander stationed in Mindoro at the outbreak of war on December 8, 1941. When the
Japanese forces landed in Mindoro on February 27, 1942, Mayor Ruffy retreated to the mountains and organized and led
a guerrilla outfit known as the Bolo Combat team of Bolo Area. The case at bar is a petition for prohibition praying that
respondents be commanded to desist from further proceedings in the trial of the petitioners on the ground that

highlight

the

topics

specific subjects. As such,

they do not cover all issues
which involve other subjects
of law. The digests only serve

petitioners were not subject to military law at the time of offense.

as guide, of course it is better

ISSUE:

more

1. Are the petitioners subject to military law at the time of war and Japanese occupation?

to read the full text to have a

comprehensive

understanding

of

the

2. Is 93d Article of War constitutional?

jurisprudence in the case.

HELD:

Archives

Petitioners were subject to military jurisdiction as provided for in Article of War (2d). The Bolo Area was a contingent of
the 6th military district which had been recognized by the United States army. The petitioners assailed the
constitutionality of 93d Article of War on the ground that it violates Article VIII Section 2 par. 4 of the Constitution which
provides that 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. The petitioners are in error for courts martial are agencies of
executive character and are not a portion of the judiciary. The petition thus has no merits and is dismissed with costs.

^_^

October 2014 (/casedigests/archives/10-2014)

September 2014 (/casedigests/archives/09-2014)
August 2014 (/casedigests/archives/08-2014)

Like

Tweet

0 Comments (http://micvillamayor.weebly.com/case-digests/july-21st-2014#comments)

July 2014 (/casedigests/archives/07-2014)

Categories
All (/case-digests/category/all)
Constitutional Law (/casedigests/category/constitution
al-law)

Leave a Reply.

Persons And Family Relations

(/casedigests/category/persons-

and-family-relations)

Name(required)

Statutory Construction
(/casedigests/category/statutory-

Email(notpublished)

construction)
RSS Feed (/5/feed)

Website

Comments

Notifymeofnewcommentstothispostbyemail

Submit

CREATE A FREE WEBSITE (HTTP://WWW.WEEBLY.COM/?UTM_SOURCE=INTERNAL&UTM_MEDIUM=FOOTER&UTM_CAMPAIGN=3)

POWERED BY (HTTP://WWW.W
UTM_SOURCE=