Kuroda Vs Jalandoni
Kuroda Vs Jalandoni
I.
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.
II.
That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitioner before the
Commission in behalf of the United State of America of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert
Port who are not attorneys authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines
is a diminution of our personality as an independent state and their appointment as prosecutor
are a violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in
the Philippines.
III.
That Attorneys Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecution, the United States
not being a party in interest in the case.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Executive Order No. 68 which established National War Crimes Office
which is constitutional.
2. Whether or not Attorneys Hussey and Port has personality to prosecute Shigenori Kuroda
in behalf of the United States.
HELD:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68 establishing the National War
Crimes Office is constitutional. Article II, sec. 3 of the Philippine Constitution provides that:
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the nation.
In the promulgation and enforcement of Executive 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.
The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power
as Commander in chief of all our armed forces.
2. The appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nations
sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that United States, which has submitted the vindication
of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be allowed
representation in the trial of those very crimes.
Alleging that the United State is not a party in interest in the case petitioner challenges
the personality of attorneys Hussey and Port as prosecutors. It is of common knowledge that
the United State and its people have been equally if not more greatly aggrieved by the crimes
with which petitioner stands charged before the Military Commission.