PIL CASE DIGEST

#1 KURODA V JALANDONI
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.
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.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case
Ruling
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 United States is a party of interest because the country and its people
have been equally, if not more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which
the petitioner is charged for. By virtue of Executive Order No. 68, the Military

PIL CASE DIGEST

Commission is a special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and
representation are not governed by the rules of court but by the very
provisions of this special law.
#2 CO KIM CHAM V VALDEZ TAN KEH
Facts of the case:
Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese
occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of
the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to
continue hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General
Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and
judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enabling law,
lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial
proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines
(the Philippine government under the Japanese).
The court resolved three issues:
1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the
Japanese occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American
occupation;
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in
which he declared that all laws, regulations and processes of any other
government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null
and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy
occupation and control invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and
proceedings of the courts;
3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthurs
proclamation, those courts could continue hearing the cases pending before
them.
Ratio:
Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a
de facto government are good and valid. The Philippine Executive
Commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese
occupation may be considered de facto governments, supported by the
military force and deriving their authority from the laws of war.
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless
suspended or changed by the conqueror. Civil obedience is expected even
during war, for the existence of a state of insurrection and war did not
loosen the bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the regular
administration of the laws. And if they were not valid, then it would not have
been necessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation abrogating
them.
The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the

PIL CASE DIGEST

phrase processes of any other government and whether or not he intended
it to annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of courts during the
Japanese military occupation.
IF, according to international law, non-political judgments and judicial
proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain valid even after
the occupied territory has been liberated, then it could not have been
MacArthurs intention to refer to judicial processes, which would be in
violation of international law.
A well-known rule of statutory construction is: A statute ought never to be
construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction
remains.
Another is that where great inconvenience will result from a particular
construction, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or
the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the
makers of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.
Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would
clog the dockets and violate international law, therefore what MacArthur said
should not be construed to mean that judicial proceedings are included in the
phrase processes of any other governments.
In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions
are continued in use by the occupant, they become his and derive their force
from him. The laws and courts of the Philippines did not become, by being
continued as required by the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan.
It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, law once established
continues until changed by some competent legislative power. IT IS NOT
CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY. Until, of course, the new
sovereign by legislative act creates a change.
Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the
Philippines, and the laws and courts of the Philippines had become courts of
Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon
them have continued in force until now, it follows that the same courts may
continue exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before
the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, until abolished or the
laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said
government.
DECISION:
Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the
proceedings in civil case no. 3012.
Summary of ratio:
1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil
laws continue even during occupation unless repealed.
2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be
applied on judicial proceedings because such a construction would violate
the law of nations.

PIL CASE DIGEST

3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case
pending before it.
***3 kinds of de facto government: one established through rebellion (govt
gets possession and control through force or the voice of the majority and
maintains itself against the will of the rightful government)
through occupation (established and maintained by military forces who
invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war; denoted as
a government of paramount force)
through insurrection (established as an independent government by the
inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state)

#3 MEJOFF V DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

Facts
Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a Japanese spy by the US Army
Counter Intelligence Corps on March 18, 1948. He was turned over to the Phil
Commonwealth Government for appropriate disposition. His case was
decided on by the Board of Commissioners of Immigration who declared him
as an illegal alien. The Board ordered his immediate deportation. In the
meantime, we was placed in prison awaiting the ship that will take him back
home to Russia. Two Russian boats have been requested to bring him back to
Russia but the masters refused as they had no authority to do so. Two years
passed and Mejoff is still under detention awaiting the ship that will take him
home.
This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However, the respondent held that
the Mejoff should stay in temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the
process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens. It further states that
is has the right to do so for a reasonable length of time.
Issue
Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison awaiting his
deportation
Ruling
The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released from custody but be
placed under reasonable surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure
that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to
deport him. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines in its constitution
adops the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of Nations. Also, the Philippines has joined the United Nations in its
Resolution entitled Universal Declaration of Human Rights in proclaiming
that life and liberty and all other fundamental rights shall be applied to all
human beings. The contention that he remains a threat of to the security of
the country is unfounded as Japan and the US or the Phils are no longer at
war.
#5 TANADA V ANGARA

PIL CASE DIGEST

Facts
On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by its Secretary of
the Department of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act binding the
Philippine Government to submit to its respective competent authorities the
WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval for such. On
December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate
to ratify the WTO Agreement.
This is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it
violates Sec 19, Article II, providing for the development of a self reliant and
independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII, providing
for the Filipino first policy.
Issue
Whether or not the Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is
unconstitutional
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled the Resolution No. 97 is not unconstitutional. 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 interests only against foreign competition and
trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend
to pursue an isolationalist policy. Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a
self-reliant and independent national economy does not necessarily rule
out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates
neither economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international
community.
The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave its consent to the WTO
Agreement thereby making it a part of the law of the land. The Supreme
Court gave due respect to an equal department in government. It presumes
its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is convincing proof
and persuasive agreements to the contrary. As a result, the ratification of the
WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. A treaty
engagement is not a mere obligation but creates a legally binding obligation
on the parties. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is
bound to make its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.
#6 LIM ET. AL V EXEC. SEC
FACTS:

PIL CASE DIGEST

Beginning January of year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the
United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in
conjunction with the Philippine military, in Balikatan 02-1. They are a
simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty
a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United
States in 1951. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological
capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American
counterparts; the Balikatan is the largest such training exercise directly
supporting the MDTs objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts
and the obligations thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed
this petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of
the joint exercise.
Issue:
Whether Balikatan 02-1 activities covered by the Visiting Forces
Agreement?
Ruling:
To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. The VFA permits
United States personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in activities,
the exact meaning of which was left undefined. The sole encumbrance
placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States
personnel must abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this
agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains
provisos governing interpretations of international agreements. It clearly
provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination
of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties intentions. The
Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the
meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as
other elements may be taken into account alongside the aforesaid context.
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the
word .activities arose from accident. It was deliberately made that way to
give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. In this manner, visiting US
forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military. As
conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of
patrol and surveillance to protect the nations marine resources, sea searchand-rescue operations to assist vessels in distress, disaster relief operations,
civic action projects such as the building of school houses, medical and
humanitarian missions, and the like.

PIL CASE DIGEST

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan
exercises. It is only logical to assume that .Balikatan 02-1, a mutual antiterrorism advising, assisting and training exercise, falls under the umbrella
of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement.