In re Yamashita, 327 U.S.

1 (1946)

FACTS (from 1945 case decision – dinagdag ko lang to kasi kulang yung facts sa 1946 case)
 Tomoyuki Yamashita – commanding genral of the 14th Army group of the Japanese Imperial Army
o He is charged before an American Military Commission
o He came to the Court with a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition ahainst Lt. Gen. Wilhem D.
Styer, Commanding General of the United States Army forces
 It is alleged by the petitioner that after his surrender, he became a prisoner of war of the USA but was later
removed from such status and placed in confinement as an accused war criminal charged before an American
Military Commission constituted by the respondent
o Petitioner asks to be reinstated to his former status as prisoner of war and that Military Commission
cannot exercise jurisdiction thereon

FACTS:
 Prior to September 3, 1945, petitioner Tomoyuki Yamashita was the Commanding General of the
Fourteenth Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippine Islands.
 On that day, he surrendered to the United States Army and became a prisoner of war.
 Respondent was the Commanding General of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific, whose
command embraced the Philippine Islands.
o Respondent appointed a military commission to try the petitioner on a charge of violation of the law
of war.
 The gist of the charge was that petitioner had failed in his duty as an army commander to control the
operations of his troops, "permitting them to commit" specified atrocities against the civilian population and
prisoners of war.
 Petitioner was found guilty, and sentenced to death.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the military commission appointed to try the petitioner was lawfully created
2. W/N the trial of the petitioner by military commission was lawful
3. W/N the charge preferred against the petitioner was a violation of the law of war
4. W/N the military commission violated any Act of Congress, treaty, or military command defining the
commission’s authority

HELD:
1. YES. The military commission appointed to try the petitioner was lawfully created.

A military commission may be appointed by any field commander, or by any commander competent to
appoint a general court-martial, as was respondent by order of the President. The order creating the
military commission was in conformity with the Act of Congress sanctioning the creation of such
tribunals for the trial of offenses against the law of war committed by enemy combatants.

2. YES. Trial of the petitioner by the military commission was lawful, although hostilities had ceased.

A violation of the law of war, committed before the cessation of hostilities, may lawfully be tried by a military
commission after hostilities have ceased -- at least until peace has been officially recognized by treaty or
proclamation by the political branch of the Government.

Trial of the petitioner by the military commission was authorized by the political branch of the
Government, by military command, by international law and usage, and by the terms of the surrender of
the Japanese government.

3. YES. The charge preferred against the petitioner was of a violation of the law of war.
 The law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within his
power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of acts which are violations of the law of
war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and he
may be charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take such measures when violations result.

What measures, if any, petitioner took to prevent the alleged violations of the law of war, and whether such
measures as he may have taken were appropriate and sufficient to discharge the duty imposed upon him,
were questions within the peculiar competence of the military officers composing the commission, and were
for it to decide.

Charges of violations of the law of war triable before a military tribunal need not be stated with the precision
of a common law indictment. The allegations of the charge here, tested by any reasonable standard,
sufficiently set forth a violation of the law of war, and the military commission had authority to try and
to decide the issue which it raised.

4. NO. In admitting on behalf of the prosecution a deposition and hearsay and opinion evidence, the military
commission did not violate any Act of Congress, treaty, or military command defining the commission's
authority.

The Articles of War, including Articles 25 and 38, are not applicable to the trial of an enemy combatant by
a military commission for violations of the law of war, and imposed no restrictions upon the procedure to
be followed in such trial.

Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, which provides that: "Sentence may be pronounced against a
prisoner of war only by the same courts and according to the same procedure as in the case of persons
belonging to the armed forces of the detaining Power," does not require that Articles 25 and 38 of the
Articles of War be applied in the trial of the petitioner.

Article 63 refers to sentence "pronounced against a prisoner of war" for an offense committed while a
prisoner of war, and not for a violation of the law of war committed while a combatant.

On an application for habeas corpus, the Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. By
sanctioning trials of enemy aliens by military commission for offenses against the law of war, Congress recognized
the right of the accused to make a defense, and did not foreclose their right to contend that the Constitution or laws
of the United States withhold authority to proceed with the trial. The Court does not appraise the evidence on which
the petitioner here was convicted.

The military commission's rulings on evidence and on the mode of conducting the proceedings against the petitioner
are not reviewable by the courts, but only by the reviewing military authorities. From this viewpoint, it is
unnecessary to consider what, in other situations, the Fifth Amendment might require.

Article 60 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, which provides that,

"At the opening of a judicial proceeding directed against a prisoner of war, the detaining Power shall advise the
representative of the protecting Power thereof as soon as possible, and always before the date set for the opening of
the trial," applies only to persons who are subjected to judicial proceedings for offenses committed while prisoners
of war. The detention of the petitioner for trial, and his detention upon his conviction, subject to the prescribed
review by the military authorities, were lawful.

PETITION DENIED.