SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Consti 2 Involuntary April 24, 2016 Juvy

servitude
CASE NAME: U.S. vs Pompeya
PONENTE: J. Johnson Case Date: August 6, 1915
Detailed Facts:
The acting prosecuting attorney of the Province of Iloilo charged Silvestre Pompeya
with violation of the municipal ordinance of Iloilo, on the subject of patrol duty,
Executive Order No. 1, based on section 40 (m) of the Municipal Code by failing to
render service on patrol duty, an act performed in violation of the law.
The defendant, through his undersigned attorneys, demurs to the complaint filed in
this case on the ground that the acts charged therein do not constitute a crime.
(A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed
by an opposing party.)
The municipal ordinance alleged to be violated is unconstitutional because it is
repugnant to the Organic Act of the Philippines, which guarantees the liberty of the
citizens.
Section 40 of Act No. 82 (the Municipal Code) relates to the power of municipal
councils. Act No. 1309 amends said section (section 40, paragraph "m") which
reads as follows: "(m)With the approval of the provincial governor, when a province
or municipality is infested with ladrones or outlaws (the municipal council is
empowered):

"To authorize the municipal president to require able-bodied male

residents of the municipality, between the ages of eighteen and fifty
years, to assist, for a period not exceeding five days in any one month, in
apprehending ladrones, robbers, and other lawbreakers and suspicious
characters, and to act as patrols for the protection of the municipality, not
exceeding one day in each week. The failure, refusal, or neglect of any such
able-bodied man to render promptly the service thus required shall be
punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not
more than three months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion
of the court: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall authorize the municipal
president to require such service of officers or men of the Army of Navy of the
United States, civil employees of the United States Government, officers and
employees of the Insular Government, or the officers or servants of companies or
individuals engaged in the business of common carriers on sea or land, or priests,
ministers of the gospel, physicians, practicantes, druggists or practicantes de
farmacia, actually engaged in business, or lawyers when actually engaged in court
proceedings.".

Issue:
(1)Whether or not said law is in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill in
depriving citizens of their rights therein guaranteed (involuntary servitude) -NO
(2)Whether or not stated in the complaint are sufficient to show a cause of action
under the said law - NO
Holding:
(1) NO, the power exercised under the provisions of Act No. 1309 falls

BLOCK D 2019 1
 within the police power of the state and that the state was fully
authorized and justified in conferring the same upon the municipalities of
the Philippine Islands and that, therefore, the provisions of said Act are
constitutional and not in violation nor in derogation of the rights of the
persons affected thereby.

Under "posse comitatus" (power of the county), those persons in the state, county,
or town who were charged with the maintenance of peace and good order were
bound, ex oficio, to pursue and to take all persons who had violated the law. For
that purpose, they might command all the male inhabitants of a certain age to
assist them.

This was a right well recognized at common law. Act No. 1309 is a statutory
recognition of such common-law right. Said Act attempts simply to designate the
cases and the method when and by which the people of the town (pueblo) may be
called upon to render assistance for the protection of the public and the
preservation of peace and order. It is an exercise of the police power of the
state.

(2)NO, the defendant wasnt able to show that he belongs to the class of persons to
which the law is applicable. (no standing)

The persons liable for the service mentioned in the law cannot be called upon at
the mere whim or caprice of the president. There must be some just and
reasonable ground, at least sufficient in the mind of a reasonable man, before the
president can call upon the persons for the service mentioned in the law. The law
does not apply to all persons. The law does not apply to every condition. The law
applies to special persons and special conditions.

A complaint based upon such a law, in order to be free from objection under a
demurrer, must show that the person charged belongs to the class of persons to
which the law is applicable. Even admitting all of the facts in the complaint in the
present case, the court would be unable to impose the punishment provided for by
law, because it does not show (a) that the defendant was a male citizen of the
municipality; (b) that he was an able-bodied citizen; (c) that he was not under 18
years of age nor over 55 [50]; nor (d) that conditions existed which justified the
president of the municipality in calling upon him for the services mentioned in the
law.

Ruling:
Ordinance was constitutional
Other Opinions:
None

BLOCK D 2019 2