Scribd
Upload
42 views2 pages

United States Is Not A Party of Interest in The Case and That The Two US Prosecutors Can or Cannot Practice Law in The Philippines

Kuroda, a former Japanese Lieutenant-General and commander of Japanese forces in the Philippines during World War 2, was tried before a military commission for failing to prevent atrocities committed against civilians by members of his command. Kuroda argued that 1) Executive Order 68 establishing the military commission was unconstitutional since the Philippines was not party to international laws of war, 2) the US was not a party of interest in the case, and 3) US prosecutors could not practice law in the Philippines. The court ruled that 1) the Philippines was bound by international laws the US and Japan were party to, 2) the US was a party of interest as crimes were committed against US citizens, and 3) the military commission was a

Uploaded by

Raymond Pasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views2 pages

United States Is Not A Party of Interest in The Case and That The Two US Prosecutors Can or Cannot Practice Law in The Philippines

Kuroda, a former Japanese Lieutenant-General and commander of Japanese forces in the Philippines during World War 2, was tried before a military commission for failing to prevent atrocities committed against civilians by members of his command. Kuroda argued that 1) Executive Order 68 establishing the military commission was unconstitutional since the Philippines was not party to international laws of war, 2) the US was not a party of interest in the case, and 3) US prosecutors could not practice law in the Philippines. The court ruled that 1) the Philippines was bound by international laws the US and Japan were party to, 2) the US was a party of interest as crimes were committed against US citizens, and 3) the military commission was a

Uploaded by

Raymond Pasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

KURODA VS.

JALANDONI, 83 PHIL, 171

Facts:

Shinegori Kuroda a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese


Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial
Forces in the Philippines (1943-1944) is charged before a Military
Commission. Being the Commander General during the war he was
tried for having failed to discharge his duties as commander to control
the operations of members of his command, permitting them to
commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant
civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces, in violation of
the laws and customs of war.

Kuroda petitioned and argued that:

First. "Executive Order No. 68 is unconstitutional. The Philippines, he


argues, is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention's
Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare that created E.O. No. 68.
Thus, the petitioner claims that he is charged of crimes not based on
law, national and international.

Second. The two US prosecutors, in behalf of USA, involved in his case


cannot practice law in the Philippines since they are not attorneys
authorized by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Allowing them so,
petitioner argues, is unconstitutional.

Third. United States is not a party in interest in the case.

Issues:

1. Whether or not E.O No. 68 is unconstitutional

2. Whether or not United States is not a party of interest in the case


and that the two US prosecutors can or cannot practice law in the
Philippines.

Ruling:
When the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed,
the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States, thus
we were equally bound together with the United States and with
Japan, to the rights and obligations contained in their treaties between
the belligerent counties. This includes the Hague and Geneva
Conventions which the United States and Japan were both signatories.
Thus, E.O. No. 68 is not unconstitutional.

It is of common knowledge that the United States and its people have
been equally aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner is
charged of, thus the United States is a party of interest in the said
case. Regarding the attendance of the American attorneys, respondent
Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a
special law and not by the Rules of Court which govern civil courts. It
has already been shown that E.O. No. 68 which provides for the
organization of such military commissions is a valid and constitutional
law. Moreover, there is nothing in the said E.O. which requires that
counsel appearing before the said commissions must be attorneys
qualified to practice law in the Philippines.

Thus the Court will not interfere with the due process of such military
Commission.

N.B.

What is Executive Order No. 68?

E.O. No. 68; "Establishing a national war crimes office and prescribing
rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals".

You might also like