kuroda marcos ah ch iong

4
Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171 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 Convention’s 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.

Upload: thelaughingman-jubz

Post on 19-Aug-2015

4 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Case Digests

TRANSCRIPT

Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171FactsShinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Jaanese !merial "rm# and $ommanding General of the Jaanese !merial Forces in the Philiines %as charged &efore the Philiine 'ilitar# $ommission for %ar crimes( "s he %as the commanding general duringsuch eriod of %ar, he %as tried for failure to discharge his duties and ermitting the &rutal atrocities and other high crimes committed his men against noncom&atant civilians and risoners of the Jaanese forces, in violation of of the la%s and customs of %ar(Kuroda, in his etition, argues that the 'ilitar# $ommission is not a valid court &ecause the la% that created it, )*ecutive +rder ,o( -8, is unconstitutional( .e further contends that using as &asis the .ague $onvention/s 0ules and 0egulations covering Land 1arfare for the %ar crime committed cannot stand ground as the Philiines %as not a signator# of such rules in such convention( Furthermore, he alleges that the 2nited States is not a art# of interest in the case and that the t%o 2S rosecutors cannot ractice la% in the Philiines( !ssue1(1hether or not )*ecutive +rder ,o( -8 is constitutional3(1hether or not the 2S is a art# of interest to this case0uling4he Sureme $ourt ruled that )*ecutive +rder ,o( -8, creating the ,ational 1ar $rimes +ffice and rescri&ing rules on the trial of accused %ar criminals, is constitutional as it is aligned %ith Sec 3,"rticle 3 of the $onstitution %hich states that 54he Philiines renounces %ar as an instrument of national olic# and adots the generall# acceted rinciles of international la% as art of the la% of the nation(6 4he generall# acceted rinciles of international la% includes those formed during the .ague $onvention, the Geneva $onvention and other international 7urisrudence esta&lished 2nited ,ations( 4hese include the rincile that all ersons, militar# or civilian, %ho have &een guilt# of lanning, rearing or %aging a %ar of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of la%s and customs of %ar, are to &e held accounta&le( !n the doctrine of incororation, the Philiines a&ides these rinciles and therefore has a right to tr# ersons that commit such crimes and most eseciall# %hen it is committed againsts its citi8ens( !t a&ides %ith it even if it %as not a signator# to these conventions the mere incororation of such rinciles in the constitution(4he 2nited States is a art# of interest &ecause the countr# and its eole have &een e9uall#,if not more greatl#, aggrieved the crimes %ith %hich the etitioner is charged for( :# virtue of )*ecutive +rder ,o( -8, the 'ilitar# $ommission is a secial militar# tri&unal and that the rules as to arties and reresentation are not governed the rules of court &ut the ver# rovisions of this secial la%('arcos;$oncordia vs( "FPG0 ,o( L-!" fromt he i rr i gh tt oaea ra sc ou ns elo nt h egr ou ndt h a tt h e#a r e>!S?2"L!F!)>;)@)'P4)>;!,.!:!4)> from S)$ 17, "rticle 17 of the $onstitution= S)$( 17= ,o Senator or 'em&er of the .ouse of 0eresentatives shall directl# or indirectl#&e financiall# interested in an# contract %ith the Government or an# su&divisionor instrumentalit# thereof, or in an# franchise or secial rivilege granted the$ongress during his term of office(.e shall not aear as counsel &efore the )lectoral 4ri&unals or &efore any court in an# civilcase%hereintheGovernmentoran#su&divisionorinstrumentalit#thereofistheadverseart#,orinan#criminalcase%hereinanofferoremlo#eeoftheGovernment is accused of an offense committed in relation to his officeA6!SS2)=1+,therohi&itioncontainedinthea&ove9uotedsection17ofour$onstitutionisalica&le to the etitioners in the t%o cases( B)S(.)L>='"0$+S",>$+,$+,>!">!S?2"L!F!)>4+"PP)"0"S$+2,S)LF+0"$$2S)>!, $+204-'"04!"LS( "FP >!> ,+4 2,L"1F2LLB )@$L2>)> 4.)!0 0!G.4S( .),$),P)4!4!+,S F+0 '",>"'2S "0) >),!)> 1!4. $+S4S('"0$+S;$+,$+0>!"=alica&le,&ecausethe%ordsCan#courtCincludestheGeneral$ourt-'artial,andacourt-martialcaseisacriminalcase%ithinthemeaningofthea&ove 9uoted rovisions of our $onstitution(1ords5an#court6,usedinrohi&itingmem&ersof$ongresstoaearascounsel5inan#criminal case in %hich an officer or emlo#ee of the Government is accused ofan offense committed in relation to his office,6 refers not onl# to civil, &ut also tomilitar# courts(DifEsuortListsF i(DendifFGeneralmeaningmustrevailoverrestrictedmeaning2,L)SSthenatureofthesu&7ectmatterclearl#indicatesthatlimitedsense is intended(!t%ould&ea&artoanotherrosecutionforthesamecase%hich%ouldresultto>+2:L)J)+P"0>B(5!facourt-martialhas7urisdictiontotr#anofficerorsoldierforacrime,its7udgment%ill&eaccorded the finalit# and conclusiveness as to the issues involved %hich attendthe 7udgments of a civil court in a case of %hich it ma# legall# taGe cogni8ance(0estricting our decision to the a&ove 9uestion of dou&le 7eoard#, the laintiff in error, having&een ac9uitted of the crime of homicide, could not &e su&se9uentl# tried for thesame offense in a civil court e*ercising authorit# in that territor#(6!nSec17,itiso&viousthatthereasonofrohi&itingaearanceofmem&ersoftheSenate;.ouse of0eresentatives as counsel for the accusedin court-martials,asforinhi&itingthemtoaearassuchincivilcourts,&ecausetheindeendence of civil courts/ 7udges is guaranteed our $onstitution(2&i eadem ratio i&i eadem le*i" court-martial is strictl# a criminal court( !t has no civil 7urisdictionH cannot enforce a contract,collect a de&t or a%ard damages in favor of an individual(Judgment is a criminal sentence, not a civil verdict(Proer function is to a%ard unishment uon the ascertainment of guilt($ourt-martial is a la%ful tri&unal e*isting same authorit#that an# othere*ists, andthemilitar# la% is a &ranch of la% as valid as the others(!tdiffersfromotherla%sonl#&ecause-italiestoofficersandsoldiers&utnottoothermem&ers of the &od# olitic, it is limited to &eaches of militar# dut#(2S vs( "h $hong I$rim1J4he 2nited States, laintiff-aellee, vs( "h $hong, defendant-aellant()n :anc$arson, 'arch 1K, 1K1L4oic= 'ental element I'ens reaJ - >eli&erate intent I>oloJ - 'istaGe of factFacts=4he defendant "h $hong %as a cooG at C+fficersM 9uarters, ,o( 37,C Fort 'cKinle#, 0i8al Province Pascual Gual&erto, deceased, %orGs at the same lace as a house &o# or muchachoC+fficersM 9uarters, ,o( 37C %as a detached house some