KURODA VS. JALANDONI
83 Phil. 171 (1949) Court of the Philippines
83 Phil. 171 (1949) Court of the Philippines
Facts:
Kuroda, Lieutenant General of the Japanese Imperial Army, was prosecuted for war crimes before the Military Commission set up by Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Kuroda challenged the legality and constitutionality of the Military Commission and contended that it lacked jurisdiction to try him for violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, since the Philippines was not a signatory to these conventions.
Issue: Whether or not the established Military Commission is legal and constitutional.
Held:
The court ruled that the Military Commission was legal and constitutional base on the citation of Article II, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution declaring that “the Philippine adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation”.
The court ruled that in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who had 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, were held accountable therefore. Although the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines had acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.
Kuroda, Lieutenant General of the Japanese Imperial Army, was prosecuted for war crimes before the Military Commission set up by Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines. Kuroda challenged the legality and constitutionality of the Military Commission and contended that it lacked jurisdiction to try him for violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, since the Philippines was not a signatory to these conventions.
Issue: Whether or not the established Military Commission is legal and constitutional.
Held:
The court ruled that the Military Commission was legal and constitutional base on the citation of Article II, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution declaring that “the Philippine adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation”.
The court ruled that in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nations, all those persons, military or civilian, who had 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, were held accountable therefore. Although the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68, the President of the Philippines had acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment