KURODA VS. JALANDONI, G.R. NO.
L-2662, MARCH 26, 1949
FACTS
Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the
Philippines during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military
Commission of war crimes.
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. Kuroda is
questioning the legality of the said EO arguing that the same is not provided in the Constitution.
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.
Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during a period
covering 1943 and 1944, who is now charged before a Military Commission with having
unlawfully disregarded and failed “to discharge his duties as such 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” — comes before the Court seeking to establish the
illegality of EO No. 68, which established a National War Crimes Offices and provides that
persons accused as war criminals shall be tried by military commission; and to permanently
prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioner.
Petitioner argues that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the
provision of our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the
Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and
Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on
law, national and international.
ISSUE
WON the Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on The Hague and Geneva
Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto and whether it can create a
Military Commission to try violations of the Hague Convention?
RULING
Yes. Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and
regulation governing the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by the President of the
Philippines on the 29th days of July, 1947 This Court holds that this order is valid and
constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that —
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.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day
including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those person military or 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. Consequently in
the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines
has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies of international law which are
part of the our Constitution.
Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the
Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound
together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the
treaties between the belligerent countries. These rights and obligation were not erased by our
assumption of full sovereignty. If at all our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the
right on our own of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against crimes against
our people. In this connection it is well to remember what we have said in the case of Laurel vs.
Misa (76 Phil., 372):
Thus, although the Philippines was not a signatory to the Hague Convention and became a
signatory to the Geneva Convention only in 1947, the Court held that a Philippine Military
Commission had jurisdiction over war crimes committed in violation of the two conventions
prior to 1947. Apparently, the Court considered jurisdiction over war crimes part of customary
law.
