Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ruffy vs Chief of Staff Case Digest on Military Law Jurisdiction During War

    Uploaded by

    Dune Acosta
    62 views1 page
    Petitioners Ruffy challenged whether they were subject to military law for actions during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The Supreme Court held that as officers in the Bolo Area contingent of the 6th military district, which was recognized by the U.S. army, petitioners were subject to the National Defense Act, Articles of War, and other pertinent military laws during the occupation as they had accepted appointments in the Philippine Army.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Sovereignty_7_ Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil 875

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioners Ruffy challenged whether they were subject to military law for actions during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The Supreme Court held that as officers in the Bolo Area contingent of the 6th military district, which was recognized by the U.S. army, petitioners were subject to the National Defense Act, Articles of War, and other pertinent military laws during the occupation as they had accepted appointments in the Philippine Army.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    62 views1 page

    Ruffy vs Chief of Staff Case Digest on Military Law Jurisdiction During War

    Uploaded by

    Dune Acosta
    Petitioners Ruffy challenged whether they were subject to military law for actions during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The Supreme Court held that as officers in the Bolo Area contingent of the 6th military district, which was recognized by the U.S. army, petitioners were subject to the National Defense Act, Articles of War, and other pertinent military laws during the occupation as they had accepted appointments in the Philippine Army.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Case Digest No.

    : 7
    Case Title: Ruffy vs Chief of Staff,
    Citation: G.R. No. 91626, October 3, 1991

    ISSUES:
    Issue #1: ConstiLaw1; Sovereignty
    “Whether the petitioners were subject to the military law at the time
    of war and Japanese occupation.”
    Held: Yes, the petitioners were subject to military law. By their acceptance of
    appointments as officers in the Bolo Area, they became members of the Philippine Army—the
    Bolo Area being a contingent of the 6th military district which is recognized by the United States
    army. Thus, petitioners are covered by the National Defense Act, Articles of War, and other
    pertinent laws during an occupation.

    You might also like