Kuroda v.

Jalandoni
Facts
Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was
charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. As he was the
commanding general during such period of war, he was tried for failure to discharge
his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by
his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in
violation of of the laws and customs of war.
Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court
because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is unconstitutional. He
further contends that using as basis the Hague Conventions Rules and Regulations
covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed cannot stand ground as the
Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he
alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two
US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.

Issue
1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is constitutional
2.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68, creating the National War
Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals, is
constitutional as it is aligned with Sec 3,Article 2 of the Constitution which states
that 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. The generally accepted principles of international law includes those
formed during the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and other
international jurisprudence established by United Nations. These include the
principle that all persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning,
preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and
offenses in violation of laws and customs of war, are to be held accountable. In the
doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines abides by these principles and therefore
has a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially when it is

committed againsts its citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to
these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution.
The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people have
been equally, if not more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner
is charged for. By virtue of Executive Order No. 68, the Military Commission is a
special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and representation are not
governed by the rules of court but by the very provisions of this special law.