amashita v.

Styer Digest
Yamashita vs. Styer
G.R. L-129 December 19, 1945
Ponente: Moran, C.J.

Facts:
1. Yamashita was the Commanding General of the Japanese army in the
Philippines during World War 2. He was charged before the American
military commission for war crimes.

2. He filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition against Gen. Styer to
reinstate his status as prisoner of war from being accused as a war
criminal. Petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the military tribunal.

Issue: Whether or not the military tribunal has jurisdiction

Held:

YES.
1. The military commission was lawfully created in conformity with an act of
Congress sanctioning the creation of such tribunals.

2. The laws of war imposes upon a commander the duty to take any
appropriate measures within his powers to control the troops under his
command to prevent acts which constitute violation of the laws of war.
Hence, petitioner could be legitimately charged with personal responsibility
arising from his failure to take such measure. In this regard the SC invoked
Art. 1 of the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, as well as Art. 19 of Hague
Convention No. X, Art. 26 of 1929 Geneva Convention among others.

3. Habeas corpus is untenable since the petitioner merely sought for

restoration to his former status as prisoner of war and not a discharge from
confinement. This is a matter of military measure and not within the
jurisdiction of the courts.

4. The petition for prohibition against the respondent will also not life since
the military commission is not made a party respondent in the case. As such,
no order may be issued requiring it to refrain from trying the petitioner.