Scribd
Upload
32 views1 page

32 Vs Jalanduni3

Executive Order 68 established a military commission to try Lt. General Kuroda, the former commanding Japanese general in the Philippines during WWII, for war crimes and atrocities committed against civilians and military personnel. Kuroda challenged the validity and constitutionality of the military commission's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that EO 68 was constitutional and the military tribunal had jurisdiction because the order was consistent with international law principles, even though the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions. The Court also allowed the participation of two US prosecutors, finding that the US had a interest in the case due to crimes committed against its citizens.

Uploaded by

Capirawan Elementary School
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views1 page

32 Vs Jalanduni3

Executive Order 68 established a military commission to try Lt. General Kuroda, the former commanding Japanese general in the Philippines during WWII, for war crimes and atrocities committed against civilians and military personnel. Kuroda challenged the validity and constitutionality of the military commission's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that EO 68 was constitutional and the military tribunal had jurisdiction because the order was consistent with international law principles, even though the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions. The Court also allowed the participation of two US prosecutors, finding that the US had a interest in the case due to crimes committed against its citizens.

Uploaded by

Capirawan Elementary School
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Kuroda vs.

Jalandoni
G.R. L-2662, March 26, 1949

Facts:
1. Petitioner Sheginori Kuroda was the former Lt. General of the Japanese Army and
commanding general of the Japanese forces during the occupation (WWII) in the
country. He was tried before the Philippine Military Commission for War Crimes and other
atrocities committed against military and civilians. The military commission was establish
under Executive Order 68.

2. Petitioner assails the validity of EO 68 arguing it is unconstitutional and hence the


military commission did not have the jurisdiction to try him on the following grounds:
- that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention (War Crimes)

3. Petitioner likewise assails that the US is not a party of interest in the case hence the 2 US
prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional thus the military tribunal jurisdiction is valid
HELD:
1. EO 68 is constitutional hence the tribunal has jurisdiction to try Kuroda. EO 68 was
enacted by the President and was in accordance with Sec. 3, Art. 2 of Constitution which
renounces war as an instrument of national policy. Hence it is in accordance with
generally accepted principles of international law including the Hague Convention and
Geneva Convention, and other international jurisprudence established by the UN,
including the principle that all persons (military or civilian) guilty of plan, preparing,
waging a war of aggression and other offenses in violation of laws and customs of
war. The Philippines may not be a signatory to the 2 conventions at that time but the rules
and regulations of both are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of
international law. They were accepted even by the 2 belligerent nations (US and Japan)

2. As to the participation of the 2 US prosecutors in the case, the US is a party of interest


because its country and people have greatly aggrieved by the crimes which petitioner
was being charged of.

3. Moreover, the Phil. Military Commission is a special military tribunal and rules as to
parties and representation are not governed by the rules of court but the provision of this
special law.

You might also like