Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
G.R. no. L-2662. March 26, 1949. Moran, C.J.
FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering
1943 and 1944 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of
the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his
duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against
non-combatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and
customs of war" — comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No.
68 on the grounds, among others, that the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague
Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of
'crimes' not based on law, national and international.”
ISSUE: Whether or not E.O. no. 68 is unconstitutional.
RULING: No, E.O. no. 68 is valid and constitutional. Under Section3, Article 2 of our Constitution, the
Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the of the nation.
It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form,
part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In fact, these
rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nation the US and Japan who were
signatories to the two Conventions. Such rule 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. Furthermore, when the crimes charged against
petitioner were allegedly committed, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the US and thus,
we were equally bound together with the US and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in
the treaties between the belligerent countries. These rights and obligation were not erased by our
assumption of full sovereignty. If at all our emergency as a free State entitles us to enforce the right
on our own of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against our people. In this
connection, it is well to remember what we have said in the case of Laurel vs. Misa: The change of our
form of government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those
charged with the crime of treason committed during then Commonwealth because it is an offense
against the same sovereign people. By the same token, war crimes committed against our people and
our government while we were a Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our present Republic.
Additionally, the promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his
power as Commander in chief of all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita
vs. Styer: An importance incident to a conduct of war is the adoption of measure by the military
command not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary measure
those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law of
war. Indeed, the power to create a military commission for the trial and punishment of war criminals
is an aspect of waging war.
Thus, E.O. no. 68 is valid and constitutional in conformity with the generally accepted and
policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.