KURODA V JALONDI

Facts: 1.Shigenori Kuroda was the highest ranking Japanese officer stationed in the Philippines
during the Japanese occupation. He was then charged before the Military Commission due
to the cruelty that were done against non-combatant civilians and prisoners during the
war.

2. His trial was in pursuant to EO No. 68 which established the National War Crimes Office
and prescribing rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals.

3. 4. He further underscores the fact that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague
Convention on Rules and Regulations Covering Land Warfare hence we cannot impose
against him any criminal charges because it has no laws to base on, national or international.

Petitioner 1. Kuroda is questioning the legality of the said EO arguing that the same is not
provided in the Constitution.

2. Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try

petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva
Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the
second only in 1947

3. therefore he was charged of “crimes not based on law, national and international.”
Respondent:
RTC
CA
Issue/s: 1. WON EO 68 is constitutional
2. WON Kuroda can be charged in Philippine courts.
Held YES , This court holds that EO 68 is valid and constitutional
Discussion 1. EO 68 was enacted by the president in accordance with the generally accepted
principles and policies of international law including Hague Convention and the
Geneva Convention.

a. That all person either military or civilian that are guilty of planning or waging
war of aggression and of offenses incidental thereto in violation of the laws
and customs of war, humanity shall be held accountable

2. EO 68 also is an exercise by the President of his power as Commander in chief

a. As a commander in chief – it should subject disciplinary measure to enemies who in
their attempt violates the law of war
b. It is also an unfinished aspect of war, namely the trial and punishment of war
through EO 68

3. Third, even Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague and Geneva Convention,
these conventions are wholly based on generally accepted principles of international
law.
 a. They form part of our law even we are not a signatory of it, because our
Constitution has deliberately general and extensive in its scope which does
not only recognize treaties which needs the signatory of our government

4. War crimes committed against our people and our government while we were a
Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our present Republic because the
crimes committed by the petitioner are crimes against the sovereign people.
Doctrine/s 1. "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."

2. All those persons, military of civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or
waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses
consequential and incidental thereto, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of
humanity and civilization, are held accountable therefor – General accepted
principle

3. International Law forms part of our law even the Philippines was not a signatory
thereof

4. Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines