TAYLOR vs.

MORTON
67 US 481 (1862)

FACTS:

Plaintiffs claimed that import duties under the Tariff Act of 1842 violated an 1832
Treaty between the United States and Russia when a $15 higher rate of duty was
imposed on the unmanufactured hemp which they imported from Russia. Writing for the
Circuit Court, Justice Curtis acknowledged that the language of Article VI established no
clear priority between laws and treaties. Reasoning that the legislative had the power to
repeal prior laws, the court concluded that the power was not limited to the President
and Senate. Congress could effectively repeal treaties by declaration of war, so the
power to annul might also be exercised by enacting contrary legislation. If bound to
foreign powers irrevocably by treaty obligation, the nation would surrender an essential
attribute of sovereignty.

In this case, the court simply accepted the allegation of inconsistency between
treaty and statute without attempting to reconcile their provisions.

In the absence of any controlling precedent, the lower court applied the last-in-
time doctrine.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the last-in-time doctrine is acceptable for agreements with foreign
nations.

RULING:

No. The last-in-time doctrine is only limited to Indian Treaties. Treaties with
domestic dependent nations lacked the force of agreement with foreign states.

The last-in-time doctrine is applied by the courts to settle disputes between

treaties and statutes by giving effect to whichever was enacted later in time.
SHIGENORI KURODA vs. JALANDONI, et. al
G.R. NO. L-2662, March 26, 1949

FACTS:

The petitioner, Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant General of the Japanese

Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the
Philippines was charged before the Military Commission with having unlawfully
discharge his duties, permitting them to commit brutal and other high crimes against
civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and
customs of war.

Petitioner assailed that Executive Order No. 68 promulgated by the President of

the Philippines is illegal.

Petitioner further argues that the 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 in 1947.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional.

RULING:

Yes, the promulgation of Executive Order No. 68 establishing a National War

Crimes Office, prescribing rules and regulations governing the trials of persons accused
of war crimes is valid and constitutional. This Executive Order No. 68 finds basis under
Article 2 of our Constitution which provides in its Section 3 thereof 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 including that of the Hague
and Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence
established by the United Nation, all those persons - military or civilian, who have been
guilty of planning, preparing or waging war or aggression and the commission of crimes
and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in Violation of the laws and costumes
of war, of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor.

The promulgation of said Executive Order No. 68 is an exercise by the President

of his power as Commander-in-Chief of all our armed forces.

As to petitioner’s argument that the Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try

petitioner because the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, it cannot
be denied that the rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions form
part of the generally accepted principles of international law which were accepted by the
two belligerent nation, the United States and Japan who were both signatories of the two
conventions. Such rules and principles therefore, form part of the law of our nation even
if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, for our
Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined
to the recognition of rule and principle of international law as continued in treaties to
which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.