SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs.

Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier

General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO
BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S.
HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.\ MORAN, C.J.: (1949)\Nature: En Banc
Decision
Doctrine: Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are
wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. They form part of the
law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying
them, for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not
confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties
to which our government may have 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 act establishing a
national war crimes office and prescribing rules and regulation governing the trial of accused
war criminals.
- Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines from 1943-1944, 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 "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".
- Melville Hussey and Robert Port, American lawyers, were appointed prosecutors in behalf of
USA.
- Kuroda challenges the legality of the EO No. 68 and the personality as prosecutors of Hussey
and Port.
- Kurodas arguments were: (1)EO No. is illegal on the gound that ut wiolates not only the
provisions of our constitutional law but also our local laws; (2) Military Commission has no
Jurisdiction to try him for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva
Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in
1947 and, therefore, he is charged with crime not based on law, national or international;
and (3) Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecutors in this case because they are not
qualified to practice law in Philippines in accordance with our Rules of court and the
appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty.
Issues/Held: (1) WON EO No. 68 is valid and constitutional? [Yes it is a valid because it is
based on the generally accepted principles of international law which form 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 conventions embodying 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 provides in its
section 3, that- The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy 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 the present
day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of

international jurisprudence established by the United Nation, all those person 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. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution
Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally
accepted and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.
The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as
Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita vs.
Styer. Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate
this unfinished aspect of war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the
issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68.
(2) Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In fact, these rules and
principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations, the United States 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 has been deliberately general and extensive
in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of
international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been
or shall be a signatory.
Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound
together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the
treaties between the belligerent countries.
(3) There is nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel appearing before said
commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with
the Rules of Court. Respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a
special law and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. Secondly, the
appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It is only
fair and proper that United States, which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her
government and her people to a tribunal of our nation, should be allowed representation in the
trial of those very crimes. If there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been
by our government but by the United States Government which has yielded to us the trial and
punishment of her 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 and in the
Supreme Court.
EO No. 68 confers upon military commissions jurisdiction to try all persons charged with 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 vested by the Constitution in
Congress. It also appropriates the sum of P700,000 for the expenses of the National War
Crimes office established by the said EO No. 68. This constitutes another usurpation of
legislative power as the power to vote appropriations belongs to Congress.

It provides rules of procedure for the conduct of trial. This provision on procedural subject
constitutes a usurpation of the rule-making power vested by Constitution in the Supreme
Court.
(2) Respondents suggest that the President issued EO No. 68 under the emergency powers
granted to him by Commonwealth Act No. 600, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 620,
and Commonwelath Act No. 671.
The above Acts cannot validly be invoked, because they ceased to have effect much before
Executive Order No. 68 was issued on July 29, 1947. Said Acts had elapsed upon 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 has never been the purpose of the National Assembly
to extend the delegation of legislative powers to the President beyond the emergency created
by the war, as to extend it farther would be violative of the express provisions of the
Constitution. EO No. 68 is equally offensive to the Constitution because it violates the
fundamental guarantees of the due process and equal protection of the law because it permits
the admission of many kinds evidence by which no innocent person can afford to get acquittal
and by which it is impossible to determine whether an accused is guilty or not beyond all
reasonable doubt.

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.

TAADA VS. ANGARA

272 SCRA 18
Facts:
On April 15, 1994, respondent Navarro, Secretary of Department of Trade and
Industry and a representative of the Philippine government, signed in the Final
Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations.
Bys signing the Final Act, the Philippines agreed to submit the agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization that require the Philippines, among
others, to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same
footing as Filipinos and local products. To that effect, the President ratified and
submitted the same to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section21,
Article VII of the Constitution. Hence the petitioner assailed the WTO Agreement
for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give
preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.
Issue: Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization contravene the provisions of Sec. 19, Art. II, and Secs. 10 and 12,
Art. XII, all of the 1987 Philippines Constitution.
Held:
The court ruled the petition in favor of the respondents.

Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies."

These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles
ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as
aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the
legislature in its enactment of laws.
The provisions of Sec. 10 and 12, Article XII of the Constitution, general
principles relating to the national economy and patrimony, is enforceable only in
regard to the grants or rights, privileges and concessions covering national
economy and patrimony and not to every aspect of trade and commerce. While
the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange
with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to
pursue an isolationist policy.
On the other hand, there is no basis on the contention that under WTO, local
industries will all be wiped out and that Filipino will be deprived of control of the
economy, in fact, WTO recognizes need to protect weak economies like the
Philippines.
Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein
respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.
The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners,
through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty
associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted
benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a free
market espoused by WTO.
Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts
and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First
policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said
WTO agreement.
Held:
In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations.
By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles

of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws. Pacta
sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty is
not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as
absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as
when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty
right under the concept of sovereignty as autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid
exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or
viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said
agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership
should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a
limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for
multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade
law. Its alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the
people be allowed, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.Petition is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

GONZALES VS HECHANOVA
Then President Diosdado Macapagal entered into two executive agreements with
Vietnam and Burma for the importation of rice without complying with the requisite of
securing a certification from the Natl Economic Council showing that there is a
shortage in cereals. Hence, Hechanova authorized the importation of 67000 tons of
rice from abroad to the detriment of our local planters. Gonzales, then president of the
Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association assailed the executive agreements. Gonzales
averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, because RA
3452 prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn Administration or
any other government agency.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive agreements entered into
by Macapagal.
HELD: Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws
enacted by Congress. The former may not interfere in the performance of the
legislative powers of the latter, except in the exercise of his veto power. He may not
defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of laws, by indirectly
repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of
the very act prohibited by said laws. In the event of conflict between a treaty and a
statute, the one which is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not applicable to the
case at bar, Hechanova not only admits, but, also, insists that the contracts adverted
to are not treaties. No such justification can be given as regards executive agreements
not authorized by previous legislation, without completely upsetting the principle of
separation of powers and the system of checks and balances which are fundamental in
our constitutional set up.
As regards the question whether an executive or an international agreement may be
invalidated by our courts, suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has

clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing that the SC may not be deprived of its
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of
error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of
inferior courts in All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question. In other words, our
Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the
fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

9 SCRA 230 Political Law Constitutional Law Treaty vs Executive

Agreements Statutes Can Repeal Executive Agreements
During the term of President Diosdado Macapagal, he entered into
two executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma for the
importation of rice without complying with the requisite of securing a
certification from the National Economic Council showing that there is
a shortage in cereals or rice. Hence, the then Executive Secretary,
Rufino Hechanova, authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of rice
from abroad to the detriment of our local planters. Ramon Gonzales,
then president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association
assailed the executive agreements. Gonzales averred that Hechanova
is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, because Republic
Act 3452 prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the Rice and
Corn Administration or any other government agency.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive
agreements entered into by Macapagal.
HELD: Yes. Under the Constitution, the main function of the
Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The former may
not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the
latter, except in the exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat
legislative enactments that have acquired the status of laws, by
indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement
providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.

In the event of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the one which
is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not applicable to the case at
bar, Hechanova not only admits, but, also, insists that the contracts
adverted to are not treaties. No such justification can be given as
regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation,
without completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers
and the system of checks and balances which are fundamental in our
constitutional set up.
As regards the question whether an executive or an international
agreement may be invalidated by our courts, suffice it to say that the
Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative,
by providing that the SC may not be deprived of its jurisdiction to
review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ
of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments
and decrees of inferior courts in All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive
order or regulation is in question. In other words, our Constitution
authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with
the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of
Congress.

Secretary of Justice vs. Hon. Ralph C. Lantion

FACTS:
Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines, signed in Manila the extradition Treaty Between the Government of the
Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said
Treaty.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign
Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private
respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States.
On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take
charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition
documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary
requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S Government and that
he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies
of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of
Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine
Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising
out of a request for extradition.
ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizens basic due process rights or the
governments ironclad duties under a treaty.
RULING: Petition dismissed.
The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused
guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a
contracting state. The duties of the government to the individual deserve preferential
consideration when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government of
another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of binding
obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our
Constitution as part of the law of the land.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted
with situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international

law and the provision of the constitution or statute of the local state.
Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the
extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a
reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.
Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of
the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the
domestic sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted
with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international
law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.
Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it
is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally
accepted principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the
above cited constitutional provision.
In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be
made between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates
that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such
courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.
The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not
pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in
the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries,
decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not
superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior
derogate priori takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a
treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the
Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in
conflict with the constitution.

Facts:
On January 13, 1977 P.D. 1069 was issued prescribing the Procedure of the Extradition of
Persons who have committed Crimes in a Foreign Country. The Decree is founded on The
Doctrine of Incorporation under the Constitution Art II, Sec 2 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
On November 13, 1994 Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon signed in Manila the Extradition
Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of U.S.A. It was
ratified by the Senate.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign
Affairs of U. S. a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the United States who are
charged in the U.S. with the violation of the following: conspiracy, attempt to evade tax,
false statement or entry, election contributions in the name of another.
Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, Mark Jimenez, through a counsel, on
July 1, 1999, requested copies of the official extradition request from the U.S.
Government as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith, and that he be
given ample time to comment on the request after he shall received copies of the
requested papers.
Mark Jimenez insisted the constitutional rights particularly the following:
1. the right to be furnished the request and supporting papers;
2. the right to be heard which consists in having a reasonable period of time to oppose
the request, and to present evidence is support of the opposition;
The Depart of Justice Denied the request.

On Aug 6, 1999 Mark Jimenez filed with the R.T.C against the Secretary of Justice,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI for Mandamus (to compel them to
furnish to Mark Jimenez the extradition documents.), Certiorari (to set aside the Sec. of
Justice letter dated July 13, 1999), Prohibition (to restrain the Sec of Justice from
considering the extradition request).
On August 10, 1999 the Judge ordered:
The Secretary of Justice et al ordered to maintain the status quo by refraining from
committing the acts complained of.
Thus this petition, arguing that Honorable Lantion (Presiding Judge of RTC Manila)acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
abuse discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO:
1. by ordering the Secretary of Justice to refrain from committing the acts complained
of (i.e to desist from refusing Mark Jimenez access to the official extradition request and
documents.)
2. Secretary of Justice was unqualifiedly prevented from performing legal duties under
the extradition treaty and the Philippine Extradition Law.
Issue:
Would Mark Jimenez entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under
the RP-US Extradition Treaty?
Held:
Petition Dismissed.
Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the
extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a
reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.
Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of
the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the
domestic sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted
with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law
and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.

Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is
to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally
accepted principles of international law in observance of the incorporation clause in the
above cited constitutional provision.
In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made
between a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that
municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts
are organs of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.
The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not
pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the
municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees
that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to,
national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori
takes effect a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states
where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the
Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the
constitution