iii a9 us vs. pompeya.doc

7/24/2019 III a9 US vs. Pompeya.doc

1/6

G.R. No. L-10255 August 6, 1915

THE UNITED STATES,plaintif-appellant,vs.SILVESTRE POMPEA,deendant-appellee.

!OHNSON, J."

On the 1st day o June, 1914, the acting prosecuting attorney o the Province o Iloilopresented the ollowing coplaint in the !ourt o "irst Instance o said province# $%heundersigned &scal charges 'ilvestre Popeya with violation o the unicipal ordinance oIloilo, on the su()ect o patrol duty, *+ecutive Order o. 1, series o 1914, (ased on section4 (m)o the unicipal !ode, in the ollowing anner#

$%hat on or a(out arch / o the current year, 1914, in the )urisdiction o the unicipality oIloilo, Province o Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the said accused did willully, illegally, andcriinally and without )usti&a(le otive ail to render service on patrol duty0 an act

perored in violation o the law.

$%hat or this violation the said accused was sentenced (y the )ustice o the peace o Iloilo toa &ne o P/ and payent o the costs o the trial, ro which )udgent said accused appealedto the !ourt o "irst Instance.$.

pon said coplaint the deendant was duly arraigned .pon arraignent he presented theollowing deurrer# $%he deendant, through his undersigned attorneys, deurs to thecoplaint &led in this case on the ground that the acts charged therein do not constitute acrie.$.

In support o said deurrer, the deendant presented the ollowing arguent# $%he unicipal

ordinance alleged to (e violated is unconstitutional (ecause it is repugnant to the Organic 2cto the Philippines, which guarantees the li(erty o the citi3ens.$.

pon issues thus presented, the onora(le J. s .Powell, )udge, on he //nd day o 2ugust,1914, ater hearing the arguents o the respective parties, sustained said deurrer andordered the disissal o said coplaint and the cancellation o the (ond theretoore given,with costs de ofcio.

"ro the order sustaining the deurrer o the lower court, the prosecuting attorney appealedto this court.

It appears ro the deurrer that the deendant clais that the acts stated in the coplaintare not su5cient to constitute a cause o action. In his arguent in support o said deurrerit appears that the real (asis o said deurrer was the act that the ordinance upon whichsaid coplaint was (ased was unconstitutional, or the reason that it was contrary to theprovisions o the Philippine 6ill which guarantees li(erty to the citi3ens o the PhilippineIslands.

In this court the only 7uestion argued (y the 2ttorney-8eneral is whether or not the ordinanceupon which said coplaint was (ased paragraph "m"o section 4 o the unicipal !ode:which was adopted in accordance with the provisions o 2ct o. 1;9 is constitutional. 'ection4 o 2ct o. ers and suspicious characters, and to act as patrols or the protection o theunicipality, not e+ceeding one day in each wee>. %he ailure, reusal, or neglect o any sucha(le-(odied an to render proptly the service thus re7uired shall (e punisha(le (y a &nenot e+ceeding one hundred pesos or (y iprisonent or not ore than three onths, or (y(oth such &ne and iprisonent, in the discretion o the court# Provided, %hat nothing hereincontained shall authori3e the unicipal president to re7uire such service o o5cers or en othe 2ry o avy o the nited 'tates, civil eployees o the nited 'tates 8overnent,

o5cers and eployees o the Insular 8overnent, or the o5cers or servants o copanies orindividuals engaged in the (usiness o coon carriers on sea or land, or priests, inisters o


2/6

the gospel, physicians,practicantes, druggists orpracticantes de armacia, actually engagedin (usiness, or lawyers when actually engaged in court proceedings.$.

'aid 2ct o. 1;9 contains soe other provisions which are not iportant in theconsideration o the present case.

%he 7uestion which we have to consider is whether or not the acts stated in the coplaintare su5cient to show a: a cause o action under the said law0 and (: whether or not said lawis in violation o the provisions o the Philippine 6ill in depriving citi3ens o their rights thereinguaranteed.

=e dee it advisa(le to consider the second 7uestion &rst.

It (ecoes iportant to ascertain the real purpose o said 2ct o. 1;9: in order to >nowwhether it covers a su()ect upon which the nited 'tates Philippine !oission couldlegislate. 2 reading o said 2ct discloses 1: that it is an aendent o the general law 2cto. 0 (: %o re7uire each householder to report certain acts, enuerated in saidaendent.

%he speci&c purpose o said aendent is to re7uire each a(le-(odied ale resident o theunicipality, (etween the ages o 1< and ?? @?A, as well as each householder when so

re7uired (y the president, to assist in the aintenance o peace and good order in thecounity, (y apprehending ladrones, etc., as well as (y giving inoration o the e+istenceo such persons in the locality. %he aendent contains a punishent or those who ay (ecalled upon or such service, and who reuse to render the sae.

Is there anything in the law, organic or otherwise, in orce in the Philippine Islands, whichprohi(its the central 8overnent, or any governental entity connected therewith, roadopting or enacting rules and regulations or the aintenance o peace and goodgovernentB ay not the people (e called upon, when necessary, to assist, in any reasona(leway, to rid the state and each counity thereo, o distur(ing eleentsB Co not individualswhose rights are protected (y the 8overnent, owe soe duty to such, in protecting itagainst law(rea>ers, and the distur(ers o the 7uiet and peaceB 2re the sacred rights o the

individual violated when he is called upon to render assistance or the protection o hisprotector, the 8overnent, whether it (e the local or general governentB Coes theprotection o the individual, the hoe, and the aily, in civili3ed counities, underesta(lished governent, depend solely and alone upon the individualB Coes not the individualowe soething to his neigh(or, in return or the protection which the law aford hi againstencroachent upon his rights, (y those who ight (e inclined so to doB %o answer these7uestions in the negative would, we (elieve, adit that the individual, in organi3edgovernents, in civili3ed society, where en are governed (y law, does not en)oy theprotection aforded to the individual (y en in their priitive relations.

I tradition ay (e relied upon, the priitive an, living in his tri(al relations (eore the dayso constitutions and states, en)oyed the security and assurance o assistance ro his ellowswhen his 7uiet and peace were violated (y malhechores. *ven under the eudal syste, asyste o land holdings (y the %eutonic nations o *urope in the eleventh, twelth, andthirteenth centuries, the eudal lord e+ercised the right to call upon all his vassals o a certainage to assist in the protection o their individual and collective rights. 6oo> /, !ooleyDs6lac>stoneDs !oentaries, 440 ; EentDs !oentaries, 4


3/6

$hundredors,$ as against another $hundred,$ was o(liged to )oin the $hue and cry$ hutesiumet clamor: in the pursuit o the elon. %his purely custoary ancient o(ligation was later adeo(ligatory (y statute. 6oo> 4, !ooleyDs 6lac>stoneDs !oentaries, /940 ; *dward I., !hapter90 4 *dward I., !hapter /0 1; *dward I., !hapters 1 and 4.:.

Gater the statute provided and directed# $%hat ro thenceorth every county shall (e so well>ept, that, iediately upon ro((eries and eloniously coitted, resh suit shall (e adero town pue(lo: to town, and ro county to county0 and that $hue and cry$ shall (e raisedupon the elons, and they >eep the town pue(lo: shall ollow with $hue and cry,$ with all thetown pue(lo:, and the towns pue(los: near0 and so $hue and cry$ shall (e ade ro townpue(lo: to town, until they (e ta>en and delivered to the sherif.$.

'aid statue urther provided that in case the $hundred$ ailed to )oin the $hue and cry$ that itshould (e lia(le or the daages done (y the malhechores. Gater, (y statue /Fth *li3a(eth,chapter 1;: it was provided that no $hue and cry$ would (e su5cient unless it was ade with(oth horseen and ooten. %he $hue and cry$ ight (e raised (y a )ustice o the peace, or(y any peace o5cer, or (y any private person who >new o the coission o the crie.

%his ancient o(ligation o the individual to assist in the protection o the peace and good ordero his counity is still recogni3ed in all well-organi3ed governents in the $possecoitatus$ power o the county,poder del condado:. 6oo> 1 !ooleyDs 6lac>stoneDs!oentaries, ;4;0 6oo> 4, 1//.: nder this power, those persons in the state, county, ortown who were charged with the aintenance o peace and good order were (ound, e+ o&cio,to pursue and to ta>e all persons who had violated the law. "or that purpose they ightcoand all the ale inha(itants o a certain age to assist the. %his power is called $possecoitatus$ power o the county:. %his was a right well recogni3ed at coon law. 2ct o.1;9 is a statutory recognition o such coon-law right. 'aid 2ct attepts siply todesignate the cases and the ethod when and (y which the people o the town pue(lo: ay(e called upon to render assistance or the protection o the pu(lic and the preservation opeace and order. It is an e+ercise o the police power o the state. Is there anything in the

organic or statutory law prohi(iting the nited 'tates Philippine !oission ro adoptingthe provisions contained in said 2ct o. 1;9B

=hile the stateent has its e+ceptions, we (elieve, generally spea>ing, that the nited 'tates!oission, and now the Philippine Gegislature, ay legislate and adopt laws upon allsu()ects not e+pressly prohi(ited (y the Organic Gaw 2ct o congress o July 1, 19/: ore+pressly reserved to !ongress. !ongress did not attept to say to the Philippine Gegislaturewhat laws it ight adopt. !ongress contended itsel (y e+pressly indicating what laws theGegislature should not adopt, with the re7uireent that all laws adopted should (e reportedto it, and with the iplied reservation o the right to nulliy such laws as ight not eet withits approval.

!onsidering the Organic 2ct 2ct o !ongress o July 1, 19/: as the real constitution o thenited 'tates 8overnent in the Philippine Islands, and its inhi(itions upon the power o theGegislature, we (elieve an analogy ay (e drawn relating to the diference (etween the!onstitution o the nited 'tates and the constitution o the diferent 'tates, with reerence towhat laws ay (e adopted (y the diferent 'tates. =hile the stateent needs uche+planation, the general rule is that !ongress has authority to legislate onlyupon the7uestions e+pressly stated in the !onstitution o the nited 'tates, while the state legislatureay legislate upon all 7uestions, not e+pressly conerred upon !ongress, norprohi(ited in itsconstitution. In other words, an e+aination o the !onstitution o the nited 'tates disclosesthe su()ect atter upon which !ongress ay legislate, while e+aination o the constitutionso the diferent 'tates ust (e ade or the purpose o ascertaining upon what su()ects thestate legislature can not legislate. 'tating the rule in another way the !onstitution o the

nited 'tatespermits !ongress to legislate upon the ollowing su()ects0 the constitutions othe 'tates prohi(it the state legislature ro legislating upon the ollowing su()ects.8enerally, then, the legislature o a 'tate any adopt laws upon any 7uestion not e+presslydelegated to !ongress (y the !onstitution o the nited 'tates or prohi(ited (y theconstitution o the particular 'tate.

=e thin> that is the rule which should (e applied to the Philippine Gegislature. %he PhilippineGegislature has power to legislate upon all su()ects afecting the people o the PhilippineIslands which has not (een delegated to !ongress or e+pressly prohi(ited (y said Organic 2ct.8aspar vs.olina, ? Phil. Kep., 19F0 .'., vs.6ull, 1? Phil. Kep., F.:

%he right or power conerred upon the unicipalities (y 2ct o. 1;9 alls within the police

power o the state .' .vs.Ging 'u "an, 1 Phil. Kep., 14.: Police power o the state has (eenvariously de&ned. It has (een de&ned as the power o the governent, inherent in everysovereign, and cannot be limited;Gicense !ases, ? ow. .'.:, 4


4/6

legislature to a>e such laws as they shall )udge to (e or the good o the state and itssu()ects. !oonwealth vs.2lger, F !ush. ass.:, ?;,


5/6

the la(or was not perored under necessity. In other words, the coplaint, in order to (eree ro o()ection raised (y a deurrer, ust show that the person accused o the crie, inthe a(sence o proo, is punisha(le under the law. One who perored la(or under necessitywould not (e lia(le. %he coplaints, in the oregoing e+aples, in the a(sence o anallegation which showed that the party accused did not (elong to the e+epted class, wouldnot (e good. In the a(sence o such negations, the courts would (e una(le to ipose thepenalty o the law, (ecause, perchance, the deendant ight (elong to the e+ept class. %hecoplaint, in a criinal case, ust state every act necessary to a>e out an ofense..'. vs.!oo>, 1F =all. .'.:, 1H


6/6

assist in the aintenance o peace and good order in the counity, (y apprehendingladrones, etc., as well as (y giving inoration o the e+istence o such persons in the locality.

%he aendent contains a punishent or those who ay (e called upon or such service,and who reuse to render the sae.

%he 7uestion as>ed (y the 'upree !ourt is whether there is anything in the law, organic orotherwise, in orce in the Philippine Islands, which prohi(its the central 8overnent, or anygovernental entity connected therewith, ro adopting or enacting rules and regulations orthe aintenance o peace and good governentB

In answering this, the 'upree !ourt cited the tri(al relations o the priitive an, the eudalsyste, the days o the $hundreds$ -- all o which support the idea o an ancient o(ligation othe individual to assist in the protection o the peace and good order o his counity.

%he 'upree !ourt held that the power e+ercised under the provisions o 2ct o. 1;9 allswithin the police power o the state and that the state was ully authori3ed and )usti&ed inconerring the sae upon the unicipalities o the Philippine Islands and that, thereore, theprovisions o the said 2ct are constitutional and not in violation nor in derogation o the rights

o the persons afected there(y.

Is there a cause o actionB

%he coplain is una(le to show a: that the deendant was a ale citi3en o the unicipality0(: that he was an a(le-(odied citi3en0 c: that he was not under 1< years o age nor over ??0nor d: that conditions e+isted which )usti&ed the president o the unicipality in calling uponhi or the services entioned in the law.

$"or all o the oregoing reasons, the )udgent o the lower court is here(y a5red, withcosts. 'o ordered.$

iii a9 us vs. pompeya.doc

Documents