SUBJECT TOPIC
Constitutional Law 1 International Law and Municipal Law:
Treaties and Agreements
G.R No. L-2662 March 26, 1949
Kuroda v. Jalandoni
FACTS
Petitioner ​Shigenori Kuroda​ served as the Commanding
General of the Japanese Imperial Forces (he was the highest
ranking officer back then sa pinas) in the PH during
1943-1944. He is charged before a military commission for his
brutal atrocities against noncombatant civilians and prisoners
during the war. Kuroda argues that he cannot be held liable
because a) E.O 68 is illegal, on the grounds that it violated not
only the following provision in the constitution:
Art 2, Sec. 3 of the 1935 Constitution
“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the of the nation.”
But also the local laws because PH is not a signatory of the
Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering
Land Warfare​, and that the commission did not have the
jurisdiction to put him on trial because the law that created its
existence is illegal and unconstitutional. Kuroda also argued
that b) the participation of two American lawyers (Melville
Hussey and Robert Port) in behalf of United States, were not
authorized by Supreme Court and their appointment as
attorneys were in violation of our consti bcoz they were not
qualified to practice law in PH.
ISSUE
W/N E.O 68 was unconstitutional.
HELD
No, the Supreme Court ruled that it is valid and constitutional.
DIGEST MAKER
Kai Uy
RATIONALE
E.O 68 established a National War Crimes Office prescribing
the rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war
criminals. It was issued on ​July 29, 1947​ by ​Pres. Manuel
Roxas​ in accordance with the generally accepted principles of
international law including the Hague Convention and the
Geneva Convention as well as significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the UN.
Consequently, Pres. Roxas’ promulgation of E.O 68 (an
exercise by the President of his power as
Commander-In-Chief of AFP aka his Emergency Powers) is
valid and constitutional. Citing the case of Yamashita vs. Styer
(L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664), the Court ruled that although there
was a cessation in the hostilities of the war, it is still the duty
of the president to create a military commission for the trial
and punishment of war criminals.
Kuroda also argued that the military commission had no
jurisdiction to try his case bcos PH was not a signatory to the
above mentioned conventions. However, both U.S and Japan
accepted the rules and principles of these conventions, as they
are both signatories. These crimes were committed in the PH
and back then, PH was under the sovereignty of U.S. so we are
also equally bound to honor the rights and obligations brought
forth by these conventions. Even after the PH was declared
independent, this does not release us from the obligations that
we are under. The change in the form of government does not
affect the prosecution of such crimes because they were still
committed against the Filipino people.
The Court also stated that even if PH was not a signatory, such
rules and principles were part of and wholly based on the
generally accepted principles of international law, which
according to our Constitution, a part of the law of the nation.

DISSENTING OPINION
PERFECTO, J.

Judge Perfecto voted to declare E.O 68 as null and void on the

following grounds:
a) The President of the PH exercised legislative and judicial
power that was expressly vested in the Congress and Supreme
Court thru his promulgation of E.O 68.

- The executive order provides that the person accused

as war criminal be tried by military commission.
Perfecto states that it is clearly legislative in nature as
it confers upon military commissions the jurisdiction
to try all persons who have been charged with war
crimes. This power to define and allocate jurisdiction
for prosecution of any crime is exclusively vested in
the congress.

- E.O 68 also provided rules of procedure for the

conduct of the trials and the provision is an
usurpation of power vested in the Supreme Court.

- E.O 68 also appropriated the sum of P7000 for the

expenses of the military commission and this is an
usurpation of legislative power to vote
appropriations.

The President invoked his Emergency Powers as a

constitutional and legal basis for the promulgation of E.O
68 but it cannot be invoked in this case bcos the acts had
elapsed upon the liberation of PH from the Japanese
forces. The emergency powers were made for the purpose
of facing the impending war and the enact measures to
protect the welfare of the citizens and to carry out national
policies in times of war.

Perfecto stated that it had never been the purpose of National

Assembly to extend the power beyond emergency created
by the war because it would endanger the rights and
liberties of the Philippine democracy and it may be
susceptible to a system of dictatorship.