Involuntary Servitude Written Case Digest.docx

US VS POMPEYA

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.

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. The trial judge sustained said demurrer and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Hence,

this

appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the facts stated in the complaint are sufficient to show a cause of action under the said law W/N said law is in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill in depriving citizens of their rights therein guaranteed HELD: 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

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 rights of the persons affected thereby. Is

there

a

cause

of

action?

The complain is unable to 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; nor (d) that conditions existed which justified the president of the municipality in calling upon him for the services mentioned in the law. "For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered."

Robertson V. Baldwin (1897) Robertson V. Baldwin was a united states supreme court case where the defendant Robert Robertson, claimed his Second Amendment rights were being violated when being detained by California marshal, Barry Baldwin for the possession of a concealed firearm. During the deliberations of the case, Robertson argued that the second amendment allowed for him to carry a concealed firearm, but the court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t specifically state or guarantee the right to a concealed firearm, but to firearm itself. Thus, Robertson lost the case and was indicted by the state of California and the U.S. government. This case is extremely important in the development of laws and statutes regarding the Second Amendment. For one it formally recognized the fact that their is another half to the Second Amendment that should be addressed; this being in regards to concealed carry of a firearm. This case paved the way for thoughts towards the idea of concealed carry which are addressed later in the 20th century. Not only that but it allows for the differentiation of laws regarding the Second Amendment and opened a new chapter in American legislation. In todays day and age the distinction between laws regarding concealed and open carry, and possession are as clear as night and day, something that wasn’t present in the time period regarding this case, one can attribute this case as a landmark case that ultimately led to the development of concealed carry permits, open carry permits, and other laws that specified what rights people had when carrying their firearms in the two different ways you can in a public setting. Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy v Gotamco Sawmills; G.R. No. L-1573 ; 29 Mar 1948;

FACTS: For failure of respondent company to accede to the request of petitioners for a wage increase, the laborers declared a strike which suspended all the work in the respondent company. The parties reached a temporary wage arrangement and the laborers were ordered to return to work. Months later and while their main case was still pending in court, the court ordered petitioning union which again picketed against respondent company to return to work. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the order violated the constitutional inhibition against involuntary servitude. HELD: NO. The very impossibility of prompt decision or settlement of the dispute confers upon the court the power to issue the order for the reason that the public has an interest in preventing undue stoppage or paralyzation of the wheels of industry. [As a result of the destructions wrought by the late war, the economic and social rehabilitation of this country urgently demands the reconstruction of industrial, commercial and residential buildings, which in turn necessitates building materials, in which lumber figures prominently among the most vital, public interest of a most real and positive character has attached to the lumber business. It is obvious that any undue stoppage or diminution in the production of lumber or allied products so sorely needed in reconstruction work will inevitably tend to paralyze, impede or slow down the country’s program of rehabilitation which, for obvious and natural reasons, the government is striving to accelerate as much as is humanly possible.] Orders and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations are AFFIRMED.