Kuroda vs.

Jalandoni
Yamashita vs. Styer
 1941

The Japanese
Occupation 1942

1943 Timeline

1944
 • Start of the Japanese Occupation
1941

• Imperial Japanese Forces occupied the city of Manila

• Commander-in-Chief proclaimed the “Military Administration”
1942

• The 1943 Constitution was promulgated

1943

• End of the Japanese Occupation

1944
Executive Order No. 68
(Military Commission)
Established the National War Crimes Office
prescribing rule and regulation governing the trial
of accused war criminals

governed by a special law and not by the Rules of

Court which govern ordinary civil court

issued by the President of the Philippines (Roxas)

on the 29th day of July, 1947
The Hague & Geneva Conventions
Geneva Conventions
 Comprise of four (4) treaties and three (3) additional
protocols, that establish the standards of international law
for the humanitarian treatment in war
 Extensively defines the basic rights of wartime prisoners
(civilians and military personnel)
 Establishes protections for the wounded and sick and
 Establishes protections for the civilians in and around a
war-zone.
 Defines the rights and protections afforded to non-
combatants
 About people in war, the articles do not address warfare
proper—the use of weapons of war
The Hague Conventions (1899 & 1907)
a series of international treaties and declarations
negotiated at two international peace conferences
at The Hague in the Netherlands
among the first formal statements of the laws of
war and war crimes in the body of secular
international law based on the Lieber Code
addressed the conduct of warfare —the use of
weapons of war
 SHIGENORI KURODA,
petitioner

RAFAEL JALANDONI,
petitioner
FACTS:
Shigenori Kuroda was a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial
Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in
The Philippines (1943 and 1944).

He was charged before the Military Commission for his unlawful
disregard and discharge of his duties – permitting the Japanese army
to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against non-
combatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces, a
violation to the laws and customs of war.

He sought before the Supreme Court the declaration of illegality of

Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines and the
permanent prohibition of respondents Attorneys Melville S. Hussey
and Robert Port’s participation in the prosecution of his case before
the Military Commission.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is

illegal and unconstitutional
RULING
No, E.O. 68 is not illegal and not unconstitutional. Article II, Section
3 of the 1935 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 law of the nation.”

The rules and regulations of The Hague and Geneva Conventions form
part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
International law. Therefore, even when the Philippines was not yet a
signatory at the time when the crimes charged against him were
allegedly committed, the rules and principles of the Hague and Geneva
Conventions already form part of the law of our nation.
 TOMOYUKI YAMASHITA,
petitioner

WILHELM D. STYER,
respondent
FACTS:
 Tomoyuki Yamashita, a commanding general of the 14th army
group of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines who was
charged before the Military Commission constituted by respondent
Lieutenant General Styer.

It was alleged that while commander of the armed forces of Japan
at war with the United States and its allies, Yamashita unlawfully
disregarded and failed in the discharge his duty as commander and
control the operations of the members of his command, permitting
them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against the
people of the United States and its allies and dependencies,
particularly the Philippines.
FACTS:
 Yamashita’s status was initially a prisoner of war; however, after
the investigation, he was placed as an accused war criminal.

On this premise, he filed a petition for habeas corpus, asking the
Supreme Court to reinstate his former status as a prisoner of war
(in conformity with the provision of article 9 of the Geneva
Convention of July 27, 1929, relative to the treatment of prisoners
of war and of paragraph 82 of the Rules of Land Warfare, F. M. 27-
10, United States War Department) and prohibit the Military
Commission in trying his case because it was not duly constituted
and therefore has no jurisdiction over his case.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Military Commission is duly

constituted and has jurisdiction over Yamashita’s
case
RULING
Under Paragraph 356 of the Rules of the Land Welfare, a Military
Commission for the trial and punishment of the war criminals must
be designated by the belligerent. And the belligerent's
representative in this case is none other than General Douglas
MacArthur.

The Military Commission was validly constituted by

Lieutenant General Styer duly issued by General Douglas
MacArthur, in accordance with the authority vested in him as the
Commander in Chief, United States Army Force Pacific

As to the jurisdiction of the Military Commission over war crimes,

the Supreme Court of the United States said:
 Supreme Court of the United States
From the very beginning of its
history this Court has recognized
and applied the law of war as
including that part of the law of
nations which prescribes, for the
conduct of war, the status rights
and duties and of enemy nations as
well as of enemy individuals.

By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly
provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals
shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war
in appropriate cases.
RULING
Articles of War Nos. 12 and 15 recognized the "Military
Commission" appointed by military command as an appropriate
tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law
of the war not ordinarily tried by court martial. (Ex parte Quirin,
supra.)

This has always been the United States’ military practice since
the Mexican War of 1847 when General Winfield Scott took the
position that, under the laws of war, a military commander has an
implied power to appoint and convene a Military Commission.
This is upon the theory that since the power to create a Military
Commission is an aspect of waging war, Military Commanders
have that power unless expressly withdrawn from them.
JAPANESE PERIOD (1941-1944)
Military Commission

• shall have jurisdiction over all of Japan and other areas occupied by
the armed forces commanded by the Commander in Chief, United
States Army Forces, Pacific
NOTE: The Philippines is not an occupied territory. The American
Forces have occupied the Philippines for the purpose of liberating the
Filipino people from the shackles of Japanese tyranny, and the
creation of a Military Commission for the trial and punishment of
Japanese war criminals is an incident of such war of liberation.
Geneva and Hague Convention
Laurel vs. Misa (76 Phil., 372)
“The change of our form government from
Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the
prosecution of those charged with the crime of treason
committed during then Commonwealth because it is an
offense against the same sovereign people...By the
same token war crimes committed against our people
and our government while we were a Commonwealth
are triable and punishable by our present Republic.
RULING
Second Issue

The Military Commission is a special military tribunal

governed by a special law and not by the Rules of Court which
govern ordinary civil court. It has already been shown that
Executive Order No. 68, which provides for the organization of
such military commission, is a valid and constitutional law.
There is nothing in the said executive order which requires that
counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys
qualified to practice law in the Philippines in accordance with
the Rules of Court. In facts it is common in military tribunals
that counsel for the parties are usually military personnel who
are neither attorney nor one who possessed legal training.
Lieber Code
The first official comprehensive codified law that:
• set out regulations for behavior in times of martial law
• protection of civilians and civilian property and punishment
of transgression
• deserters, prisoners of war, hostages, and pillaging;
partisans; spies; truces and prisoner exchange
• parole of former rebel troops;
• the conditions of any armistice, and respect for human life;
assassination and murder of soldiers or citizens in hostile
territory
• the status of individuals engaged in a state of civil war
against the government.