G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,
vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.
vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.
FACTS:
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 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a
military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces
of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to
discharge his duties as such 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 this Court seeking to enjoin and prohibit
respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from participating in the
prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission and to
permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of
petitioners.
He alleged that Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation governing the trial of accused war criminals, issued by the President, to be illgal 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." Hence petitioner argues "That in view off the fact that this commission has been empanelled by virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein petitioner."
He alleged that Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation governing the trial of accused war criminals, issued by the President, to be illgal 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." Hence petitioner argues "That in view off the fact that this commission has been empanelled by virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein petitioner."
ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is valid.
HELD:
Supreme 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.
It
cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva
conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted
principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles
were accepted by the two belligerent nation the United State and Japan
who were signatories to the two Convention, such rule and principles
therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was
not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution
has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not
confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law
as continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shall
be a signatory, thus Military
Commission has Jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in
violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention.
No comments:
Post a Comment