Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Kuroda v. Jalandoni Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kriselle Joy Manalo
    EO 68 established a military commission to try Lt. Gen. Kuroda, the former commanding general of Japanese forces in the Philippines during WWII, for war crimes and atrocities committed against civilians. Kuroda challenged the validity of EO 68, arguing it violated constitutional and international law. However, the Supreme Court held that EO 68 was constitutional as the President enacted it in accordance with the Philippine Constitution's adoption of international law principles. As EO 68 and the military tribunal conformed to international laws like the Hague Convention, the tribunal had valid jurisdiction to try Kuroda for war crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kuroda v. Jalandoni Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kriselle Joy Manalo
    12 views1 page
    EO 68 established a military commission to try Lt. Gen. Kuroda, the former commanding general of Japanese forces in the Philippines during WWII, for war crimes and atrocities committed against civilians. Kuroda challenged the validity of EO 68, arguing it violated constitutional and international law. However, the Supreme Court held that EO 68 was constitutional as the President enacted it in accordance with the Philippine Constitution's adoption of international law principles. As EO 68 and the military tribunal conformed to international laws like the Hague Convention, the tribunal had valid jurisdiction to try Kuroda for war crimes.

    Original Description:

    Report in international law

    Original Title

    report IL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    EO 68 established a military commission to try Lt. Gen. Kuroda, the former commanding general of Japanese forces in the Philippines during WWII, for war crimes and atrocities committed against civilians. Kuroda challenged the validity of EO 68, arguing it violated constitutional and international law. However, the Supreme Court held that EO 68 was constitutional as the President enacted it in accordance with the Philippine Constitution's adoption of international law principles. As EO 68 and the military tribunal conformed to international laws like the Hague Convention, the tribunal had valid jurisdiction to try Kuroda for war crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views1 page

    Kuroda v. Jalandoni Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kriselle Joy Manalo
    EO 68 established a military commission to try Lt. Gen. Kuroda, the former commanding general of Japanese forces in the Philippines during WWII, for war crimes and atrocities committed against civilians. Kuroda challenged the validity of EO 68, arguing it violated constitutional and international law. However, the Supreme Court held that EO 68 was constitutional as the President enacted it in accordance with the Philippine Constitution's adoption of international law principles. As EO 68 and the military tribunal conformed to international laws like the Hague Convention, the tribunal had valid jurisdiction to try Kuroda for war crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Kuroda v.

    Jalandoni Digest
    Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
    G.R. L-2662, March 26, 1949
    Ponente: Moran, C.J.

    Facts:
    1. Petitioner Sheginori Kuroda was the former Lt. General of the Japanese Army and
    commanding general of the Japanese forces during the occupation (WWII) in the country.
    He was tried before the Philippine Military Commission for War Crimes and other atrocities
    committed against military and civilians. The military commission was establish under
    Executive Order 68.

    2. Petitioner assails the validity of EO 68 arguing 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."

    Issue: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional thus the military tribunal jurisdiction is valid

    HELD:

    EO 68 is constitutional hence the tribunal has jurisdiction to try Kuroda. EO 68 was enacted
    by the President and was in accordance with Sec. 3, Art. 2 of which provides:
    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.

    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 including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of
    international jurisprudence established by the United Nation including the principle that 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.

    You might also like