Kuroda v.

Jalandoni
GR No. L-2662 / 26 Mar 1949 / C.J. Moran
FACTS:
Former Lt. Gen. Shigenori Kuroda was the Commanding General of the

Japanese Imperial Forces in the PH from 1943 to 1944.

He is charged before a Military Commission convened by the AFP Chief of

Staff with having failed to "discharge his duties as such commander to control
the operations of members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal
atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners
of the JIF, in violation of the laws and customs of war"
Prosecuting him is two American lawyers, Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port.

ISSUES:
1 W/N EO 68 establishing a National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules and
regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals, is void for being
unconstitutional.
2 W/N the Military Commission has jurisdiction to try Kuroda for violations of the
Geneva and Hague conventions.
3 W/N two American lawyers can prosecute the case without being licensed to
practice law in the PH.
HELD:
1 EO 68 is valid and constitutional.
a Kuroda's argument - unconstitutional, for being a legislative measure but
issued by the President without Congressional enactment.
b SC i
1935 Constitution provides in Art. 2 Sec. 3 that generally accepted
principles of international law are part of the law of the nation. In
accordance with GAP of international law, including the Hague
Convention, the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the UN, all those
persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of
planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the
commisison 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. Thus the President acted in conformity with GAP of
international law which are part of the Constitution.
ii
The promulgation of EO 68 is an exercise by the President of his
powers as commander-in-chief, and as held by the Court earlier in
Yamashita v. Styer. "War is not ended simply because hostilities have
ceased." Consequently the President is fully empowered to
consummate the unfinished aspect of war, the trial and punishment
of war criminals, thru EO 68.
1 The MC has jurisdiction

a
b

The
a
b

Kuroda's argument - PH not a signatory to the Hague Convention and only

signed the Geneva Convention in 1947. Thus he cannot be tried for
violations of these conventions.
SC i
Conventions form part and are wholly based on GAP of international
law, and thus because of our Constitution, form part of the law of our
nation.
i
When the crimes were committed the PH was under the sovereignty
of the US, and thus we were equally bound with the US and Japan to
the rights and obligations in the treaties between the belligerent
countries (both were signatories of the conventions). These R&O
were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If anything, it
entitles us to enforce the right, on our own, of trying and punishing
those who committed crimes against our own people.
Americans can participate as prosecutors in the case.
Kuroda's argument - they are not qualified to practice in the PH in
accordance with our Rules of Court, and their appointment as prosecutors
is violative of PH sovereignty.
SC i
MC is a special tribunal governed by a special law (inamin na na law
yung EO 68??) and so not covered by the RoC
ii
If there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty, it has not been
the PH but the US which yielded to the PH the trial and punishment of
her enemies.

DISSENT: J. Perfecto
EO 68 is a legislative act issued by the President, thus it is unconstitutional

for it was not passed by Congress.

Under Commonwealth Act 600 as amended by CA 621 and CA 671, the

President was granted emergency powers because of WWII. It is argued that

this gave the President authority to issue the assailed order.
But EO 68 was issued on 29 July 1947, long after hostilities had ceased. Thus,

the said Commonwealth Acts cannot be the basis for its issue.
EO 68 violates due process (and equal protection). It permits the admission of

many kinds of evidence by which no innocent person can get an acquittal, and
by which it is impossible to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt (magulo?
Magulo talaga ung original)
Rules of evidence are the same as those issued by Gen. Douglas McArthur to

try twelve criminals including former Gen. Yamashita . In the concurring and
dissenting opinion under that and the Homma case, he reiterated that under
those rules no justice can be expected.