SHINEGORI KURODA vs. MAJOR GENERAL RAFAEL JALANDONI, et.al.

G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949

En Banc; Moran, C.J.
Facts
In this case, Shigenori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army, challenges
the legality of Executive Order No. 68 of the Philippines. Kuroda is facing charges before a Military
Commission for his alleged involvement in permitting brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed
by the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war during his command in The
Philippines from 1943 to 1944. Kuroda seeks to establish the illegality of the executive order and halt the
proceedings against him. His principal arguments are as follows:
I. Kuroda argues that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the grounds that it violates both
Philippine constitutional law and local laws. He contends that the Philippines is not a signatory to
the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare, and therefore the
charges against him are not based on law, either nationally or internationally. He asserts that the
Military Commission lacks jurisdiction to try him due to the alleged unconstitutional nature of the
order.
II. Kuroda also objects to the participation of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port, who are
not authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines, in his prosecution on
behalf of the United States of America. He argues that their involvement diminishes the country's
independence and that their appointment as prosecutors violates the Philippine Constitution.
III. Additionally, Kuroda contends that Hussey and Port lack the necessary legal standing to
prosecute the case, as the United States is not a party of interest in the matter.
Issue
Whether or not the Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on The Hague and Geneva
Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto.
Ruling
Yes. The court upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 68, which established a National War
Crimes Office and prescribed rules for the trial of war criminals, asserting that it was in accordance with
generally accepted principles of international law, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The
court reasoned that the President, acting as Commander in Chief, had the authority to exercise jurisdiction
over war criminals based on precedents, even during periods of armistice or military occupation.
The court also rejected arguments against the participation of American attorneys in the prosecution,
noting that the Military Commission was governed by its own special law and did not require attorneys
qualified to practice in the Philippines. It ruled that the involvement of American attorneys was not a
violation of national sovereignty but rather a fair representation in the trial of war crimes against the
United States. As a result, the court denied the petitioner's claims and upheld the jurisdiction and due
process of the Military Commission under Executive Order No. 68.