Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2662)
Petitioner’s Principal Arguments
- Executive Order No. 68 lacks constitutional basis, violates Philippine local law, and charges war crimes not recognized by the Philippines (which did not sign the Hague Convention and only signed the Geneva Convention in 1947), rendering the Commission’s jurisdiction void.
- Appointment of Hussey and Port—Aliens not authorized to practice in Philippine courts—diminishes national sovereignty and violates the Constitution.
- The United States has no personality in this proceeding; its attorneys cannot serve as prosecutors.
Validity of Executive Order No. 68
The Court upheld Executive Order No. 68 as valid. Under the 1935 Constitution, Article II, Section 3, 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.” By embodying Hague and Geneva rules and United Nations precedents, EO 68 conforms to these constitutional mandates. The President, as Commander in Chief, may convene military commissions to complete “incidents of war” after hostilities cease—a power recognized in Yamashita v. Styer and by U.S. precedent (Ex parte Quirin).
Jurisdiction under International Law
Although the Philippines was not a party to the Hague Convention at the time of Kuroda’s alleged offenses, those rules reflect customary international law—and thus are binding under the Constitution’s general incorporation clause. Moreover, during the period in question, the Philippines was under U.S. sovereignty and bound by treaties to which the U.S. was a party. Independence has not extinguished the Republic’s right to prosecute war criminals who committed offenses against its people and government. Laurel v. Misa confirms that changes in government form do not impair prosecution for prior offenses.
Participation of American Prosecutors
The Court found no constitutional bar to Hussey’s and Port’s participation. Military Commissions are special tribunals governed by EO 68, not by the Supreme Court’s Rules of Court. EO 68 imposes no requirement that prosecutors be Philippine-licensed attorneys. Given the United States’ significant interest—the crimes charged include offenses against U.S. nationals and property—it is appropriate, as a matter of comity, to allow American representation.
Majority Ruling on Commission’s Jurisdiction
The Military Commission, convened under a valid executive order, possesses jurisdiction over the charged war crimes and over Kuroda’s person (in custody). Having established the legality of EO 68 and the propriety of the prosecutors, the Supreme Court re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2662)
Facts of the Case
- Shigenori Kuroda, former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of Japanese forces in the Philippines (1943–1944), is charged before a Philippine Military Commission.
- The charges allege that he “unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as such commander,” permitting his subordinates to commit atrocities and high crimes against civilians and prisoners in violation of the laws and customs of war.
- Kuroda seeks:
- A declaration that Executive Order No. 68 (establishing the National War Crimes Office and military commissions) is illegal and unconstitutional.
- An injunction prohibiting American attorneys Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating as prosecutors.
- A permanent prohibition against further prosecution before the Military Commission.
Petitioner’s Principal Contentions
- Executive Order No. 68 is void for violating:
- The Philippine Constitution and local laws.
- The principle that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare at the time of the alleged acts.
- The rule that crimes must be based on existing national or international law.
- The Military Commission lacks jurisdiction because it derives from an unconstitutional order.
- The appointment of Hussey and Port (not admitted to practice in the Philippines) infringes national sovereignty and violates the Constitution.
- The United States, not being a party in interest, cannot vest personality or prosecutorial authority in Hussey and Port.
Respondents’ Principal Arguments and Government Position
- Executive Order No. 68 is a valid exercise of presidential power as Commander-in-Chief, aligning with Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution (“The Philippines adopts generally accepte