03 Kuroda v Jalandoni L-2662

Topic: Doctrine of Incorporation

Facts: Shigenori Kuroda was a general of the Japanese Imperial Army during the Second
World War, he and his forces were assigned to the Philippines during the Japanese
occupation in the country.
After the war, Kuroda was prosecuted by a military commission established under EO 68 as
having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such command,
permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant
civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of
war under the said special law promulgated by the president, and international conventions of
law such as the Hague and Geneva conventions on war.
Shegnori now assails the validity of the said EO alleging that there is no law, international or
domestic, for which he can be charged with any crime. The primary reason for this was
because the Philippines was not a signatory of the Hague Convention on Rules and
Regulations covering Land Warfare.
Issue: 1) WON the Executive Order 68 was in violation of the 1935 Constitution (No)
2) WON the Military Commission has jurisdiction to try the petitioner for crimes in violation of
the Hague and Geneva Conventions despite the Philippines not being signatories therof (Yes)
Ruling:
1) No, the SC held it as valid pursuant to Article 2 Sec 3 of the Constituion
“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the nation.”
The special law was enacted in accordance with the generally accepted principle of
international law of the present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention
and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation that
all persons military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a
war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and
incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and
civilization are held accountable therefor.
The promulgation and enforcement of EO 68 the President has acted in conformity with the
generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.

2) Yes Commission has Jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the
Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention despite the Ph not being a signatory to the
first and signed the second only in 1947.
The rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly
based on the generally accepted principals of international law.
These rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nation the United State
and Japan who were signatories to the two Conventions, such rule and principles
therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the
conventions. Embodying them for our Constitution which has been deliberately general and
extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of
international law as continued in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be
a signatory.
Furthermore the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed against
Philippines while under the sovereignty of United States and thus were equally bound
together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the
treaties between the belligerent countries.
The rights and obligation acquired from the conventions were not erased by the Philippines’
assumption of full sovereignty.
The change of government form from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason committed during then Commonwealth
because it is an offense against the same sovereign people and vice versa.
Held: Petition to declare the law null and void as being without basis and unconstitutional is
denied.