Kuroda v. Jalandoni
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General in the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of Japanese Forces in the Philippines during 1943-1944, is charged before a Philippine military commission with unlawfully disregarding his duties. The charges allege that he permitted his command to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against non-combatant civilians and prisoners of war, in violation of the laws and customs of war. Procedural History: The petitioner was charged before a military commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The commission was established under Executive Order No. 68, issued by the President of the Philippines on July 29, 1947, which provided rules and regulations for the trial of accused war criminals. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality of this executive order and the proceedings against him. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68, arguing it violates Philippine constitutional and local laws, and that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, rendering the charges unlawful. He also contends that the participation of American attorneys Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port in the prosecution is an affront to Philippine sovereignty, as they are not authorized to practice law in the Philippines. Furthermore, he argues that the United States is not a party in interest, thus invalidating their role as prosecutors. The petition asks this Court to enjoin the respondents from proceeding with the case.
Issue(s)
Whether Executive Order No. 68 is illegal and unconstitutional. Whether the Military Commission has jurisdiction to try the petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Whether the participation of American attorneys Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port in the prosecution is violative of Philippine sovereignty and the Constitution. Whether the United States is a party in interest in the case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. Executive Order No. 68 is declared valid and constitutional. The Military Commission has jurisdiction to try the petitioner. The participation of the American attorneys is permissible. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the due process of the Military Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 68: The Court held that Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law. In accordance with these principles, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions, individuals guilty of war crimes are held accountable. The President, in promulgating Executive Order No. 68, acted in conformity with these international principles, which are part of Philippine law. The promulgation of the order was a valid exercise of the President's power as Commander-in-Chief, as upheld in Yamashita vs. Styer, which recognized that the power to create military commissions for the trial of war criminals is an aspect of waging war and continues so long as a technical state of war exists. On the jurisdiction of the Military Commission: The Court affirmed that the Military Commission has jurisdiction. The petitioner's argument that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and only signed the Geneva Convention in 1947 is unavailing. The rules and regulations of these conventions form part of the generally accepted principles of international law, which are binding on the Philippines by virtue of its Constitution. Furthermore, at the time the alleged crimes were committed, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States, and both nations were bound by the treaties between the belligerent countries. The assumption of full sovereignty by the Philippines did not erase these rights and obligations; rather, it entitled the Republic to enforce the right to try and punish those who committed crimes against its people. The principle in Laurel vs. Misa was applied, stating that a change in government does not affect the prosecution of crimes committed against the sovereign people. On the participation of American attorneys: The Court found the participation of Attorneys Hussey and Port to be permissible. The Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special law (Executive Order No. 68), not by the Rules of Court governing ordinary civil courts. The executive order does not require that counsel appearing before it must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines. Moreover, their appointment does not violate national sovereignty; instead, it is an act of comity, allowing the United States, which submitted the vindication of crimes against its government and people to a Philippine tribunal, to have representation. The United States, in yielding the trial and punishment of its enemies to the Philippines, has, in a sense, relinquished its own jurisdiction. On the United States as a party in interest: The Court rejected the argument that the United States is not a party in interest. It is common knowledge that the United States and its people were significantly aggrieved by the crimes charged. Allowing representation for the United States in such trials is an act of comity and reflects the spirit of cooperation in seeking justice for crimes that affected both nations.
Main Doctrine
Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules for the trial of accused war criminals, is valid and constitutional, as it conforms to generally accepted principles of international law and is a valid exercise of the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief. The participation of foreign prosecutors is permissible under the principle of comity.