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 a military Commission for war crimes. He was charged for failing to discharge his duties as the such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war.
Kuroda argues that Executive Order No. 68 is unconstitutional and violates not only the provision of our constitutional law but international law since the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare. The Military commission was created by an unconstitutional law, and therefore without jurisdiction to try the petitioner. Furthermore, he argues that the participation in the prosecution of the case against the petitioner before the Commission on behalf of the United State of America of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port who are a violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in the Philippines.
Issues:
- Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is illegal and violates not only the provision of our constitutional law but also of international law.”
- Whether or not the Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner
- Whether or not the appointment of American lawyers as prosecutors violates the constitution and the rules of court.
Ruling:
- Yes, Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional. Under Article 2, Section 3 of our Constitution provides that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the nation. In the instant case, General Kuroda permitted brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners in violation of the Hague Convention of the Geneva Convention. Hence, in the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.
- Yes, the Military Commission has jurisdiction to try petitioners for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines, even though not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947, 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 nations the United State and Japan who were signatories to the two Convention Therefore, such rules and principles form part of the law of our nation 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.
- No, the Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special law and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. There is nothing in the Executive Order 68 which requires that counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court. In fact, it is common in military tribunals that counsel for the parties is usually military personnel who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training. Hence, the American lawyer’s appointment to the prosecution is not violative of the constitution.
Real LexEcon 