In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international
SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,
vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI,Brigadier General CALIXTO
DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA, ColonelIRENEO
BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICOARANAS,
MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.\MORAN,
C.J.
: (1949)\Nature: En Banc DecisionDoctrine:
Rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form
part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
international law. They form part of the law of our nation even if the
Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them,
for 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.
Facts:
- A Military commission was empaneled under the authority of
Executive Order 68 of the President of the Philippines, which was
issued on July 29, 1947. This is an act establishing a national war
crimes office and prescribing rules and regulation governing the trial
of accused war criminals.- Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-
General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of
the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines from 1943-1944, is
charged before a military commission convened by the Chief of
Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully
disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as such command,
permitting them to commit brutalatrocities and other high crimes
against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial
Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and customs of war".-
Melville Hussey and Robert Port, American lawyers, were appointed
prosecutors inbehalf of USA.- Kuroda challenges the legality of the
EO No. 68 and the personality as prosecutorsof Hussey and Port.-
Kurodas arguments were: (1)EO No. is illegal on the gound that it
violates not only the provisions of our constitutional law but also our
local laws; (2) Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to try him for
acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the
Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not asignatory to the
first and signed the second only in 1947 and, therefore, he is
charged with crime not based on law, national or international;
and (3) Husseyand Port have no personality as prosecutors in this
case because they are not qualified to practice law in Philippines in
accordance with our Rules of court and the appointment of said
attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national sovereignty.
Issues/Held:
(1) WON EO No. 68 is valid and constitutional? [Yes it is valid
because it is based on the generally accepted principles of
international law which form part of our laws.]
(2) WON rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva
Conventions form part of the law of the nation even if Philippines
was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them? [Yes, they
form part of our laws.]
(3) WON the American lawyers could participate in the prosecution
of this case?[Yes, they can.]
Ratio:
(1) The order is valid and constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution
provides in its section 3, 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.
law of the present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva
Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence
established by the United Nation, 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. Consequently, in 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 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 as
upheld by this Court in thecase of Yamashita vs. Styer.
Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief is fully
empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect of war namely
the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and
enforcement of ExecutiveOrder No. 68.(2) Rules and regulations of
the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In
fact, these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent
nations, the UnitedStates and Japan, who were signatories to the
two Conventions.
Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of our nation
even if thePhilippines was not a signatory to the conventions
embodying them, for 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.
Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were
allegedly committed the Philippines was under the sovereignty of
United States and thus we were equally bound together with the
United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in
the treaties between the belligerent countries.
(3) There is nothing in 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. Respondent Military Commission is a special military
tribunal governed by a special law and not by the Rules of court
which govern ordinary civil court. Secondly, the appointment of the
two American attorneys is not violative of our nation 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. If there has been any relinquishment of
sovereignty it has not been by our government but by the United
States Government which has yielded to us the trial and punishment
of her enemies.---
DISSENTING OPINION of Justice Perfecto
(1) Executive Order No. 68., is null and void because, through it, the
President of the Philippines usurped power expressly vested by the
Constitution in Congress and in the Supreme Court. EO No. 68
confers upon military commissions jurisdiction to try all persons
charged with war crimes. It is clearly legislative in nature. The power
to define and allocate jurisdiction for the prosecution of person
accused of any crime is exclusively vested by the Constitution in
Congress. It also appropriates the sum of P700,000 for the expenses
of the National War Crimes office established by the said EO No. 68.
This constitutes another usurpation of legislative power as the
power to vote appropriations belongs to Congress. It provides rules
of procedure for the conduct of trial. This provision on procedural
subject constitutes a usurpation of the rule-making power vested by
Constitution in the Supreme Court.

(2) Respondents suggest that the President issued EO No. 68 under

the emergency powers granted to him by Commonwealth Act No.
600, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 620, and
Commonwelath Act No. 671. The above Acts cannot validly be
invoked, because they ceased to have effect much before Executive
Order No. 68 was issued on July 29, 1947. Said Acts had elapsed
upon the liberation of the Philippines from the Japanese forces or, at
the latest,when the surrender of Japan was signed in Tokyo on
September 2, 1945. It has never been the purpose of the National
Assembly to extend the delegation of legislative powers to the
President beyond the emergency created by the war, as to extend it
farther would be violative of the express provisions of the
Constitution. EONo. 68 is equally offensive to the Constitution
because it violates the fundamental guarantees of the due process
and equal protection of the law because it permits the admission of
many kinds evidence by which no innocent person can afford to get
acquittal and by which it is impossible to determine whether an
accused is guilty or not beyond all reasonable doubt.
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 it is
unconstitutional and hence the military commission did not
have the jurisdiction to try him on the following grounds:
- that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague
Convention (War Crimes)
3. Petitioner likewise assails that the US is not a party of
interest in the case hence the 2 US prosecutors cannot practice
law in the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional thus the
military tribunal jurisdiction is valid
HELD:
1. 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 Constitution which renounces
war as an instrument of national policy. Hence it is in
accordance with generally accepted principles of international
law including the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention,
and other international jurisprudence established by the UN,
including the principle that all persons (military or civilian)
guilty of plan, preparing, waging a war of aggression and other
offenses in violation of laws and customs of war. The
Philippines may not be a signatory to the 2 conventions at that
time but the rules and regulations of both are wholly based on
the generally accepted principles of international law. They
were accepted even by the 2 belligerent nations (US and Japan)
2. As to the participation of the 2 US prosecutors in the case,
the US is a party of interest because its country and people
have greatly aggrieved by the crimes which petitioner was
being charged of.
3. Moreover, the Phil. Military Commission is a special military
tribunal and rules as to parties and representation are not
governed by the rules of court but the provision of this special
law.
Tags GR L-2662, Kuroda v. Jalandoni Digest, Kuroda vs.
Jalandoni, PIL, Political Law, Public International Law
Philip Morris vs. Court of Appeals
[GRN 91332 July 16, 1993.]MELO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioners Philip Morris, Inc., Benson and Hedges (Canada), Inc.,
and Fabriques of TabacReunies, S.A., are ascribing whimsical
exercise of the faculty conferred upon magistrates by Section 6, Rule
58 of the Revised Rules of Court when respondent Court of Appeals
lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier had issued against
Fortune Tobacco Corporation, herein private respondent, from
manufacturing and selling "MARK" cigarettes in the local market.
Banking on the thesis that petitioners' respective symbols "MARK
VII", 'MARK TEN", and "MARK", also for cigarettes, must be
protected against unauthorized appropriation,Philip Morris,
Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Virginia, United States of America, and does business at 100 Park
Avenue, New York, New York, United States of America. The two
other plaintiff foreign corporations, which are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Philip Morris, Inc., are similarly not doing business in
the Philippines but are suing on an isolated transaction. Plaintiffs-
petitioners asserted that defendant Fortune Tobacco Corporation
has no right to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the allegedly
identical or confusingly similar trademark' Plaintiffs admit in the
complaint that "xxx they are not doing business in the Philippines
and are suing on an isolated transaction xxx'. This simply means that
they are not engaged in the sale, manufacture, importation,
exportation and advertisement of their cigarette products in
thePhilippines.
Issue:
Whether or not there has been an invasion of plaintiffs' right of
property to such trademark or tradename. Whether of not there is a
violation of the International Agreement on protection of
trademarks.
Held:
There is no proof whatsoever that any of plaintiffs products which
they seek to protect from any adverse effect of the trademark
applied for by defendant, is in actual use and available
for commercial purposes anywhere in the Philippines. To sustain a
successful prosecution of their suit for infringement, petitioners, as
foreign corporations not engaged in local commerce, rely on Section
21-A of the Trademark Law reading as follows:
SECTION 21-A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a
mark or trade-name has been registered or assigned under this act
may bring an action here under for infringement, for
unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false
description, whether or not it has been licensedto do business in the
Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fiftynine, as
amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it
brings complaint: Provided, That the country of which the said
foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen or in which it is
domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to
corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (As inserted by Sec. 7
of Republic Act No. 638.) to drive home the point that they are not
precluded from initiating a cause of action in the Philippines on
account of the principal perception that another entity is pirating
their symbol without any lawful authority to do so.
A Secretary of Justice vs. Judge Ralph Lantion 343 SCRA 377
FACTS:
On January 13, 1977, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
Presidential Decree No. 1069 Prescribing
the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have
Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country.
The Decree is founded on: the Doctrine of Incorporation under
the Constitution; the mutual concern for the suppression of
crime both in the state where it was committed and the state
where the criminal may have escaped. On November 13,
1994, Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the
Government of the Republic of the Phil
ippines, signed in Manila the E
xtradition Treaty between the Government of the Philippines
and the Government of the U.S.A.
The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty. On June 18,
1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department
of Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a
request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez
to the United States. Mark Jimenez was charged of multiple
crimes ranging from tax evasion to wire tapping to conspiracy
to defraud the USA. Jimenez was then wanted in the US. The
US government, pursuant to the RP-US extradition treaty
requested to have Jimenez be extradited there. Jimenez
requested for a copy of the complaint against him as well as
the extradition request by the USA. The DOJ secretary:
1.
refused to provide him copy thereof advising that it is still
premature to give him so and that it is not a preliminary
investigation hence he is not entitled to receive such copies; 2.
denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-
US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine
Government must present the interests of the United States in
any proceedings arising out of a request for
extradition. Jimenez sued the DOJ Secretary (Franklin Drilon).
The lower court ruled in favor of Jimenez. ISSUE:
Whether or not Jimenez is deprived of due process. HELD:
The Petition was dismissed. The human rights of person,
whether citizen or alien, and the rights of the accused
guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over
treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the
government to the individual deserve preferential consideration
when they collide with its treaty obligations to the government
of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a
source of binding obligations under generally accepted
principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution
as part of the law of the land. The doctrine of incorporation is
applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with
situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule
of international law and the provision of the constitution or
statute of the local state. Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is
ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition
request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark
Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment
with supporting evidence.
*Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law
form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action
is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic
sphere. *The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever
municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in which
there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international
law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local
FACTS:
Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the extradition Treaty Between
the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the U.S.A. The
Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of
Foreign Affairs U.S Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the
extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States.
On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to
take charge of and to handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated
extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through counsel, wrote a letter to Justice
Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S
Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after
he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied
the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty
stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of
the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.
ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizens basic due process rights or the
governments ironclad duties under a treaty.
RULING: Petition dismissed.
The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the
accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take precedence over treaty
rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the government to the
individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty
obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we
recognize treaties as a source of binding obligations under generally accepted
principles of international law incorporated in our Constitution as part of the
law of the land.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are
confronted with situation in which there appears to be a conflict between a
rule of international law and the provision of the constitution or statute of the
local state.
Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of
the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark
Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his comment with
supporting evidence.
Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of
the law of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such
rules applicable in the domestic sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a
rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the
local state.
Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both
since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard
for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the
incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision.
In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has
to be made between a rule of international law and a municipal law,
jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal
courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are
accordingly bound by it in all circumstances.
The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does
not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or
municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as
applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given
equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogate priori takes effect a treaty
may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the
Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the
Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict
with the constitution.
 Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the
Exercise of Police Power
Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the
country to take advantage of business opportunities herein
abound (then) particularly in the retail business. For some
time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a
monopoly in the local market in Pasay. Until in June
1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail
Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to
reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail
business. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the
said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties
concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the
equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that
as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in
the country who helps in the income generation of the
country he should be given equal opportunity.
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede
treaties or generally accepted principles.
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally
accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all
between the raised generally accepted principle and with
RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause does not
demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced; and, that the equal
protection clause is not infringed by legislation which
applies only to those persons falling within a specified
class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and
reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between
those who fall within such class and those who do not.
For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that
a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute
must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the
police power which, being inherent could not be bargained
away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty.
Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his
market stalls in the Pasay city market.
Constitutional Law Treaty vs Executive Agreements
Statutes Can Repeal Executive Agreements
Then President Diosdado Macapagal entered into two
executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma for the
importation of rice without complying with the requisite of
securing a certification from the Natl Economic Council
showing that there is a shortage in cereals. Hence,
Hechanova authorized the importation of 67000 tons of rice
from abroad to the detriment of our local planters.
Gonzales, then president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn
Planters Association assailed the executive agreements.
Gonzales averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction, because RA 3452 prohibits the
importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn
Administration or any other government agency.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2
executive agreements entered into by Macapagal.
HELD: Under the Constitution, the main function of the
Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The
former may not interfere in the performance of the
legislative powers of the latter, except in the exercise of his
veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that
have acquired the status of laws, by indirectly repealing the
same through an executive agreement providing for the
performance of the very act prohibited by said laws. In the
event of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the one
which is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not
applicable to the case at bar, Hechanova not only admits,
but, also, insists that the contracts adverted to are not
treaties. No such justification can be given as regards
executive agreements not authorized by previous
legislation, without completely upsetting the principle of
separation of powers and the system of checks and balances
which are fundamental in our constitutional set up.
As regards the question whether an executive or an
international agreement may be invalidated by our courts,
suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has
clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing that the SC
may not be deprived of its jurisdiction to review, revise,
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of
error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final
judgments and decrees of inferior courts in All cases in
which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question.
In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification
of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental
law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.