Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chief of Staff
7/21/2014
0 Comments
Constitutional Law. Political Law. Effects of Cession.
RUFFY v. CHIEF OF STAFF
75 PHIL 875
FACTS:
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 petitioners were not subject to military law at the time of offense.
ISSUE:
1. Are the petitioners subject to military law at the time of war and Japanese occupation?
2. Is 93d Article of War constitutional?
HELD:
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.
Source: http://micvillamayor.weebly.com/case-digests/july-21st-2014
Ruffy vs Chief of
Staff
G.R. No. L-533
75 Phil 875
August 20, 1956
HELD: The Court held that the petitioners were still subject
to military law since members of the Armed Forces were still