KURADO VS JALANDONI

G.R. No. L-2662 83 Phil 171 March 26, 1949

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.
Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of
the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during Second World War. He was 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”. The said military commission was empaneled under the authority of
Executive Order 68 of the President of the Philippines.

Kuroda challenged the validity of Executive Order 68. His arguments, were as follows:
(1) Executive Order 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates 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
(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.

Issue/s:
Whether or not Executive Order 68 had violated the provisions of our constitutional law

Discussions:
The provision of Article 2 Sec 3 states that “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts 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”. Every State is, by reason of
its membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally accepted principles of international law, which
are considered to be automatically part of its own laws.

uling/s:
No. Executive Order 68 has not violated the provision of our constitutional law. The tribunal has jurisdiction to
try Kuroda. This executive order is in accordance with Article 2 Sec 3, of Constitution. 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)
Furthermore, 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.