Kuroda vs.

Jalandoni
G.R. L-2662, March 26, 1949
Facts:
1. Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda was the former Lt. General of the Japanese Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces covering 1943-1944 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
two US prosecutors Atty. Melville Hussey and Atty. Robert Port -- cannot practice law
in the Philippines.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional
2. Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case
3. Whether or not Atty. Melville Hussey and Robert Port is allowed to practice law
profession in the Philippines
HELD:
1. Executive Order No. 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. 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 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
3. As to the participation of the two 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
Undigested: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html