Scribd
Upload
5 views

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 185, L - 2662 March 26, 1949

The court held that: 1) The executive order establishing the military commission trying Kuroda was valid and constitutional, as the Philippines had adopted principles of international law including the Hague and Geneva Conventions. 2) Allowing the two American attorneys to participate in the prosecution did not violate Philippine sovereignty, and was fair given the US submitted crimes against its government and people to a Philippine tribunal. 3) The petition challenging the jurisdiction of the military commission and participation of the American attorneys was denied.

Uploaded by

Christian Parado
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 185, L - 2662 March 26, 1949

The court held that: 1) The executive order establishing the military commission trying Kuroda was valid and constitutional, as the Philippines had adopted principles of international law including the Hague and Geneva Conventions. 2) Allowing the two American attorneys to participate in the prosecution did not violate Philippine sovereignty, and was fair given the US submitted crimes against its government and people to a Philippine tribunal. 3) The petition challenging the jurisdiction of the military commission and participation of the American attorneys was denied.

Uploaded by

Christian Parado
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil.

185, L - 2662 March 26, 1949


Facts Shigenori Kuroda, a formerly a Lietenant-General of the japanese imperial army and commanding general of the japanese imperial forces in the philippines during a period covering 1943 and 1944 ho is no charge !efore a military commission convened !y the chief of staff of the armed forces of the philippines ith having unla fully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit !rutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncom!atant civilians and prisoners of the imperial japanese forces in the violations of the la s and customer of ar" #etitioner argues that respondent $ilitary %ommission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for its acts committed in violation of &ague %onvention and the Geneva convention !ecause the #hilippines is not signatory to &ague %onvention and signed the Geneva only in 194'" &e also challenges the participation of the t o (merican attorneys in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorneys are not )ualified to practice la in the #hilippines" !ssu"s 1" *hether or not the e+ecutive order no" ,- is a ground for the violations of our provision of constitutions la and to our local la " ." *hether or not (tty" $elville S" &ussey and /o!ert #ort is allo ed to practice the la professions in the philippines"

Ruling : 0he court holds that the 1+ecutive 2rder is valid and %onstitutional" (rticle . of our %onstitution provides in its section 3 that 3 0he #hilippines renounces ar as an instruments of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principle of international la as part of the la of nation"3 4n accordance ith the generally accepted principles of international la of the present day, including the &ague and Geneva %onvention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence esta!lished !y the 5"6, all the persons, military or civilian, ho have !een guilty of planning, preparing, or aging a ar of aggression and commission of the crimes and offenses conse)uential and incidental thereto, in violation of the la s and customs of ar of humanity and civili7ation, are held accounta!le therefore" %onse)uently, in the promulgation and enforcement of 1+ecutive 2rder no" ,-, the #resident of the #hilippines has acted in conformity ith the generally accepted principles and policies of international la hich are part our %onstitution" 2n the second issue, the court ruled that the appointment of the t o (merican attorneys is not violative of our national sovereignty" 4t is only fair and proper that the 5"S hich has su!mitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tri!unal of our nation should !e allo ed representation in the trial of those very crimes" 0he lest that e could do in the spirit of comity is to allo this representation in said trial" 0he petition as denied

You might also like