HIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs.

Major General RAFAEL JAL

ANDONI,Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO
TORALBA,
ColonelI R E N E O B U E N C O N S E J O , C o l o n e l P E D R O T A B
UENA, Major FEDERICOA RANAS, M EL VILLE S. H
U S S E Y a n d R O B E R T P O R T , r e s p o n d e n t s . \ MORAN,
C.J.
: (1949)\Nature: En Banc DecisionDoctrine:
Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
based on the generally accepted principals of international law. Theyform part of the law
of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to theconventions embodying
them, for our Constitution has been deliberately generala n d
extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules
a n d principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government
mayhave been or shall be a signatory.
Facts:
- A Military commission was empaneled under the authority of Executive Order 68 of the
President of the Philippines, which was issued on July 29, 1947. This is an
acte s t a b l i s h i n g a n a t i o n a l w a r c r i m e s o f f i c e a n d p r e s c r i b i n g r u l e s a n
d r e g u l a t i o n governing the trial of accused war criminals.- Shigenori Kuroda,
formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Armyand Commanding
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines from1943-1944, is charged
before a military commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the
Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and
failed" t o d i s c h a r g e h i s d u t i e s a s s u c h c o m m a n d , p e r m i t t i n g t h e m t o c o
m m i t b r u t a l atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and
prisoners of theImperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war".-
Melville Hussey and Robert Port, American lawyers, were appointed prosecutors inbehalf
of USA.- Kuroda challenges the legality of the EO No. 68 and the personality as
prosecutorsof Hussey and Port.- Kurodas arguments were: (1)EO No. is illegal on
the gound that ut wiolates notonly the provisions of our constitutional law but
also our local laws; (2) MilitaryCommission has no Jurisdiction to try him for
acts committed in violation of theHague Convention and the Geneva
Convention because the Philippines is not as i g n a t o r y t o t h e f i r s t a n d
s i g n e d t h e s e c o n d o n l y i n 1 9 4 7 a n d , t h e r e f o r e , h e i s charged with crime
not based on law, national or international; and (3) Husseya n d
Port have no personality as prosecutors in this case because they ar
e n o t qualified to practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and
thea p p o i n t m e n t o f s a i d a t t o r n e y s a s p r o s e c u t o r s i s v i o l a t i
v e o f o u r n a t i o n a l sovereignty.
Issues/Held:
( 1 ) W O N E O N o . 6 8 i s v a l i d a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ? [ Y e s i t i s a v a l i d because
it is based on the generally accepted principles of international law whichform part of our
laws.](2) WON rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions form part
of the law of the nation even if Philippines was not a signatory to the
conventionsembodying them? [Yes, they form part of our laws.](3) WON the
American lawyers could participate in the prosecution of this case?[Yes, they
can.]

Ratio:
(1) The order is valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution providesin its
section 3, that- The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
nationalpolicy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international
law
of t h e p r e s e n t d a y i n c l u d i n g t h e H a g u e C o n v e n t i o n t h e G e n e v a C o n v e
n t i o n a n d significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by
the UnitedN a t i o n , a l l
those person military or civilian who have been guil
t y o f planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the
commissionof crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto
in violation of t h e l a w s a n d c u s t o m s o f w a r , o f h u m a n i t y
a n d c i v i l i z a t i o n a r e h e l d accountable therefor
. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No.
68, the President of the Philippines has acted in conformitywith the generally
accepted and policies of international law which are part of ourConstitution. The
promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of
hispower as Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in
thecase of Yamashita vs. Styer. Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief
isfully empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect of war namely the trial
andpunishment of war criminal through the issuance and enforcement of
ExecutiveOrder No. 68.(2) Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva
conventions form part of andare wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
international law. In fact,these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent
nations, the UnitedStates and Japan, who were signatories to the two
Conventions.
Such rule
andp r i n c i p l e s t h e r e f o r e f o r m p a r t o f t h e l a w o f o
u r n a t i o n e v e n i f t h e Philippines was not a signatory to
the conventions embodying them, forour Constitution has been
deliberately general and extensive in its
scopea n d i s n o t c o n f i n e d t o t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f
r u l e s a n d p r i n c i p l e s o f international law as
contained in treaties to which our government mayhave been or
shall be a signatory.
Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly
committedt h e P h i l i p p i n e s w a s
under the sovereignty of United States and thus we wereequally
bound together with the United States and with Japan to the right
a n d obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries.(3) There is
nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel
appearingb e f o r e s a i d c o m m i s s i o n m u s t b e a t t o r n e y s q u a l i f i e d t o
p r a c t i c e l a w i n t h e Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court. Respondent
Military Commissionis a special military tribunal governed by a special law and not by the
Rules of courtwhich govern ordinary civil court. Secondly, the appointment of the two
Americanattorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It is only fair and
proper
thatU n i t e d S t a t e s , w h i c h h a s s u b m i t t e d t h e v i n d i c a t i o n o f
c r i m e s a g a i n s t h e r government and her people to a tribunal
of our nation, should be allowedr e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e t r i
a l o f t h o s e v e r y c r i m e s . I f t h e r e h a s b e e n a n y relinquish
ment of sovereignty it has not been by our government but by the United

States Government which has yielded to us the trial and punis

h m e n t o f h e r enemies.---
DISSENTING OPINION of Justice Perfecto
(1) Executive Order No. 68., is null and void because, through it, the
President of the Philippines usurped power expressly vested by the Constitution
in Congress andin the Supreme Court.EO No. 68 confers upon military
commissions jurisdiction to try all persons chargedwith war crimes. It is clearly
legislative in nature. The power to define and allocate jurisdiction for the
prosecution of person accused of any crime is exclusively vestedby the
Constitution in Congress. It also appropriates the sum of P700,000 for
theexpenses of the National War Crimes office established by the said EO No.
68.
Thisc o n s t i t u t e s a n o t h e r u s u r p a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e p o w
e r a s t h e p o w e r t o v o t e appropriations belongs to Congress.It
provides rules of procedure for the conduct of trial. This provision on
proceduralsubject constitutes a usurpation of the rule-making power vested by
Constitution inthe Supreme Court.(2) Respondents suggest that the President issued
EO No. 68 under the
emergencyp o w e r s g r a n t e d t o h i m b y C o m m o n w e a l t h
A c t N o . 6 0 0 , a s a m e n d e d b y Commonwealth Act No. 620, and
Commonwelath Act No. 671. The above Acts cannot validly be invoked, because
they ceased to have effect muchbefore Executive Order No. 68 was issued on
July 29, 1947. Said Acts had elapsedupon the liberation of the Philippines
from the Japanese forces or, at the latest,when the surrender of Japan
was signed in Tokyo on September 2, 1945. It
hasn e v e r b e e n t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e N a t i o n a l A s s e m b l y t o e x t e n d
t h e d e l e g a t i o n o f legislative powers to the President beyond the emergency
created by the war, as toextend it farther would be violative of the express
provisions of the Constitution. EONo. 68 is equally offensive to the Constitution
because it violates the fundamentalguarantees of the due process and equal
protection of the law because it permitsthe admission of many kinds
evidence by which no innocent person can afford toget acquittal and by
 which it is impossible to determine whether an accused isguilty or not
beyond all reasonable doubt.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni Digest

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
G.R. L-2662, March 26, 1949
Ponente: Moran, C.J.

Facts:
1. Petitioner Sheginori Kuroda was the former Lt. General of the Japanese Army and
commanding general of the Japanese forces during the occupation (WWII) in the country. He
was tried before the Philippine Military Commission for War Crimes and other atrocities
committed against military and civilians. The military commission was establish under
Executive Order 68.

2. Petitioner assails the validity of EO 68 arguing it is unconstitutional and hence the military
commission did not have the jurisdiction to try him on the following grounds:
- that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention (War Crimes)

3. Petitioner likewise assails that the US is not a party of interest in the case hence the 2 US
prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional thus the military tribunal jurisdiction is

valid

HELD:

1. EO 68 is constitutional hence the tribunal has jurisdiction to try Kuroda. EO 68 was enacted
by the President and was in accordance with Sec. 3, Art. 2 of Constitution which renounces
war as an instrument of national policy. Hence it is in accordance with generally accepted
principles of international law including the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention, and
other international jurisprudence established by the UN, including the principle that all persons
(military or civilian) guilty of plan, preparing, waging a war of aggression and other offenses
in violation of laws and customs of war. The Philippines may not be a signatory to the 2
conventions at that time but the rules and regulations of both are wholly based on the generally
accepted principles of international law. They were accepted even by the 2 belligerent nations
(US and Japan)

2. As to the participation of the 2 US prosecutors in the case, the US is a party of interest

because its country and people have greatly aggrieved by the crimes which petitioner was
being charged of.
3. Moreover, the Phil. Military Commission is a special military tribunal and rules as to parties
and representation are not governed by the rules of court but the provision of this special law.