Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

KURODA VS.

JALANDONI

Facts:
President of the Philippines, Manuel Roxas, issued Executive Order no. 68, Establishing a
National War Crimes Office and Prescribing Rules and Regulation Governing the Trial of Accused War
Criminal.
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines in a period covering
1943 & 1944, Lieutenant-General Shigenori Kuroda is charged before a military commission convened
by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded & failed
to discharge his duties as such command permitting them to commit brutal atrocities & other high crimes
against noncombatant civilians & prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws &
customs of war.
Kuroda, comes before SC seeking to establish the illegality of E.O. no. 68 of the President of the
Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melvilled S. Hussey and Robert Port from participation in
the prosecution of the case before the Military Commission and to permanently prohibit respondents from
proceeding with the case at bar.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the Executive Order No. 68 is illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Whether or not the appointment of Melville Hussey and Robert Port, as prosecutor is a violation
of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in the Philippines.
3. Whether or not the appointment of attorneys Hussey & Port have no personality as prosecution
the United States not being a party of interest in the case.

Rulling:
1. The promulgation of the Executive Order no. 68 is an exercise by the President of his power as
commander in chief of all our armed forces. The enforcement of this order is in conformity with the
generally accepted policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.
As the commander in Chief, is empowered to consummate the unfinished aspect of war where the
trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and enforcement of the said Executive
Order no. 68.

In the petitioner’s argument that respondent Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try petitioner
for the acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention & the Geneva Convention because the
Philippines is not a signatory to the first & sign the second only in 1947. When the crimes charges
were allegedly committed, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States, thus making us
equally bound together with US & Japan to the right & obligation contained in the treaties between
them. These rights were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. And in this right to try &
punish those who committed crimes against our people.
2. The Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special law and not by the
Rules of court which governs ordinary civil court. As the constitutionality and validity of Executive
Order no. 68 has already been shown, there is nothing in that executive order requiring that counsel
appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practive law in the Philippines in
accordance with the Rules of court, common in military tribunals that counsel for the parties are
usually military personnel who neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training, hence, their
appointment to appear as counsel is not a violation.

3. That US us not a party in interest as the appointed attorney have no personality as prosecutors. It is
of common knowledge that the US and its people have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved by
the crimes with which the petitioner stands charged before the commission. It can be considered
privilege for our Republic that a leader nation should submit the vindication of the honor of its
citizens and its government to a military tribunal of our country.

SC ruled no interference in the due process of such Military commission as this have been convened
by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of
Executive Order no. 68 and as having said petitioner in its custody. Each party bears his own expenses.

You might also like