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

Facts: Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military Commission of war crimes. He questioned the constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that created the National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules on the trial of accused war criminals. He contended that the Philippines not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and international. ISSUE: Whether or not EO 68 is constitutional HELD: Yes, EO 68 is valid and constitutional because it is in conformity with the Sec. 3, Article 2 of the Constitution which 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. In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law 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. Thus the questioned military tribunal has jurisdiction to try Kuroda. The Hague Convention and Geneva Convention being wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law shall form part of the law of our nation, even the Philippines may not be a signatory to these two conventions because our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international law.