Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2662)
Facts:
Shigenori Kuroda v. Major General Rafael Jalandoni, et al., G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moran, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, formerly Lieutenant‑General and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during 1943–1944, was placed in custody and arraigned before a Military Commission convened to try accused war criminals; the Commission was empaneled on December 1, 1948. Petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to annul Executive Order No. 68 (promulgated July 29, 1947), to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating in the prosecution before the Military Commission, and to permanently forbid the Commission from proceeding with petitioner’s trial.
Petitioner’s main contentions were threefold: (1) Executive Order No. 68 is unlawful and unconstitutional because it purports to create criminal jurisdiction based on international instruments (e.g., the Hague and Geneva Conventions) to which the Philippines was not a signatory, and thus the Commission lacks jurisdiction; (2) the appearance of American attorneys Hussey and Port—who were not authorized by the Supreme Court to practice in the Philippines—violates national sovereignty and the Rules of Court; and (3) Hussey and Port lacked legal personality as prosecutors because the United States was not a party in interest in the prosecution.
The Military Commission had been constituted under EO 68, which (among other things) established a National War Crimes Office, set out offenses triable by military commission, prescribed membership, procedure, powers of the commissions, allowed appointment of prosecutors, and appropriated P700,000. No intermediate civil court or tribunal decision is reported in the record; the matter was brought directly before the Supreme Court for relief against the Commission’s exercise of authority.
The Supreme Court (Moran, C.J.) denied the petition, upholding EO 68 and the participation of the American prosecutors. A dissenting opinion by Justice Perfecto argued EO 68 was an unconstitutional exercise of legislative and r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Executive Order No. 68 validly authorize military commissions to try alleged war criminals and thus vest jurisdiction to try petitioner?
- May foreign attorneys not authorized to practice in the Philippines (Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port) appear as prosecutors before a military commission convened under EO 68, or does their appearance violate the Constitution and the Rules of Court?
- Do Hussey and Port possess prosecutorial personality before the Commission although the United States is not formally a party in the criminal informatio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)