CASES FOR SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Asylum Case (Columbia vs. Peru) page 11 bernas

2. The SS Lotus Case [(France vs. Turkey) (1927)] page 134 bernas
3. Kuroda vs. Jalandoni (G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949)
Facts
Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army
and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines
was charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. As he
was the commanding general during such period of war, he was tried for
failure to discharge his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other
high crimes committed by his men against noncombatant civilians and
prisoners of the Japanese forces, in violation of of the laws and customs of
war.
Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid
court because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is
unconstitutional. He further contends that using as basis the Hague
Conventions Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crime
committed cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a signatory of
such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he alleges that the United States
is not a party of interest in the case and that the two US prosecutors cannot
practice law in the Philippines.
Issue
1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is constitutional
2.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68, creating the National
War Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals,
is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec 3,Article 2 of the Constitution which
states that The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the nation. The generally accepted principles of
international law includes those formed during the Hague Convention, the
Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by
United Nations. These include the principle that all persons, military or
civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of
aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws
and customs of war, are to be held accountable. In the doctrine of
incorporation, the Philippines abides by these principles and therefore has a
right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially when it is
committed againsts its citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory
to these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the
constitution.
The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people
have been equally, if not more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which
the petitioner is charged for. By virtue of Executive Order No. 68, the Military
Commission is a special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and
representation are not governed by the rules of court but by the very
provisions of this special law.
4. Yamashita vs. Styer (G.R. No. L-129, December 19, 1945)
5. Nicaragua vs. US (Merits) page 12, 16, 237 bernas
6. Kookooritchin vs. The Solicitor General (G.R. No. L-1812, August 27, 1948)
7. Request for an examination of the Situation in Accordance with Par. 63 of
the Courts Judgment of 20 December 1974 in Nuclear Test Case [(New
Zealand vs. France) (1995) page 25 bernas
8. Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) - page 97 bernas
9. The Paquete Habana Case (1900) page 10 bernas
10. The Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia vs. Thailand)
(Merits) (1962)
11. Chorzow Factory Case (Germany vs. Poland) (Indemnity) (Merits) (1928)
page 18, 245
12. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Case (Belgium vs. Spain)
(1970) page 18, 224 bernas
Atty. Al Conrad B. Espaldon