Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171

Facts

Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and

Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines, was
charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. As he was the
commanding general during such period of war, he was tried for failure to discharge
his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by
his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in
violation of of the laws and customs of war. The military commission was
established under Executive Order 68.

Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court
because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is unconstitutional. He
further contends that using as basis the Hague Conventions Rules and Regulations
covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed cannot stand ground as the
Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he
alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two
US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.

Issue

1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is constitutional

2. Won US is a party of interest in the case.

3. Whether American lawyers may participate in a case under a military commission

though they are not qualified to practice law in the Philippines

Ruling

1. Yes..

The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68, creating the National War
Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals, is
constitutional as it is aligned with Sec 3,Article 2 of the Constitution which
states that The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the nation. The generally accepted principles of
international law includes those formed during the Hague Convention, the
Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by
United Nations. These include the principle 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 in violation of laws and customs of war, are
to be held accountable. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines
abides by these principles and therefore has a right to try persons that
commit such crimes and most especially when it is committed againsts its
citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these
conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the
constitution.

The promulgation of said EO is an exercise by the President of his power as

Commander in Chief. The President as Comm. In Chief is fully empowered to
consummate this unfinished aspect of war, namely the trial and punishment of war
criminals thru the issuance and enforcement of EO 68.

2. Yes.It is of common knowledge that the United State and its people have been
equally if not more greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which petitioner stands
charged before the Military Commission. It can be considered a privilege for our
Republic that a leader nation should submit the vindication of the honor of its
citizens and its government to a military tribunal of our country.

3.Yes

The participation of the two American attorneys although under our law, are not
qualified to practice law is valid and constitutional. Military Commission is a special
military tribunal governed by special law not by Rules of the Court, which govern
ordinary civil courts. There is nothing in Executive Order No.68 which requires
counsels need to be qualified to practice law in the Philippines. In fact, it is common
in military tribunals that counsels for the parties are usually military personnel.

When the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed, the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States, and thus we were
equally bound together with the United Sates and with Japan, to the rights and
obligations contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. These rights
and obligations were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If at right, on
our own, of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against our people.

The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law, with
jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive
Order No 68, and having jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by having said
petitioner in its custody, the court will not interfere with the due process of such
Military Commission.

Petition is denied with costs de oficio.