You are on page 1of 1

US VS POMPEYA

31 PHIL 245
G.R. No. L-10255 ; August 6, 1915
FACTS:
This case is regarding the complaint filed by the prosecuting attorney
of the Province of Iloilo, charging Silvestre Pompeya with violation of the
municipal ordinance of Iloilo for willfully, illegally, and criminally and without
justifiable motive failing to render service on patrol duty, required under said
municipal ordinance.
Upon arraignment, Pompeya presented a demurrer, stating that the
acts charged in the complaint do not constitute a crime and that the
municipal ordinance is unconstitutional for being repugnant to the Organic
Act of the Philippines, which guarantees the liberty of the citizens.
ISSUE:
WON the said law is in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill.
HELD:
No. The municipal ordinance was enacted pursuant to the provisions of
Act No. 1309, the specific purpose of which is to require each able-bodied
male resident of the municipality, between the ages of 18 and 55, as well as
each householder when so required by the president, to assist in the
maintenance of peace and good order in the community, by apprehending
ladrones, etc., as well as by giving information of the existence of such
persons in the locality. The amendment contains a punishment for those who
may be called upon for such service, and who refuse to render the same.
The Supreme Court held that the power exercised under the provisions
of Act No. 1309 falls 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
the said Act are constitutional and not in violation nor in derogation of the
rightsof the persons affected thereby.