11/28/2013 4:16:00 PM SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2009 Mejoff vs Director of Prisons 90 Phil 70 (1951) Facts: This is a second petition

for habeas corpus by Boris Mejoff, the first having been denied in a decision of this Court on July 30, 1949. "The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to this country from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during the latter's regime in these Islands. Upon liberation, he was arrested as a Japanese spy by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. Thereafter, the People's Court ordered his release. But the Deportation Board taking his case up found that having no travel documents, Mejoff was an illegal alien in this country, and consequently referred the matter to the immigration authorities. After the corresponding investigation, the Immigration Board of Commissioners declared on April 5, 1948 that Mejoff had entered the Philippines illegally in 1944, without inspection and admission by the immigration officials at a designated port of entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the first available transportation to Russia. The petitioner was then under custody, he having been arrested on March 18, 1948. In October 1948, after repeated failures to ship this deportee abroad, the authorities moved him to Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interests of the country to keep him under detention while arrangements for his departure are being made. Two years having elapsed since the aforesaid decision was promulgated, the Government has not found ways and means of removing the petitioner out of the country, and none are in sight, although, it should be said in fairness to the deportation authorities that it was through no fault of theirs that no ship or country would take the petitioner. Issue: Whether or not Boris Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation. Ruling:

The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and except for crimes committed against the laws of the land, is not limited to Philippine citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality. Moreover, Sec. 3, Art. II of the Constitution of the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation." And in a resolution entitled, "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights," and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It was there resolved that "all human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that "everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2); that "every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law" (Art. 8); that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Art. 9 ); etc. Premises considered, the writ will issue commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from custody upon these terms: that the petitioner shall be placed under the surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. The surveillance shall be reasonable and the question of reasonableness shall be submitted to this Court or to the Court of First Instance of Manila for decision in case of abuse. No costs will be charged.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949

DECISION (En Banc)

MORAN, C.J.: I. THE 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 the Philippines is 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.

II.

THE ISSUES

Was E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional? III. THE RULING

[The Court DENIED the petition and upheld the validity and constitutionality of E.O. No. 68.] YES, E.O. No. 68 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 law of the nation. In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international 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 the our Constitution. xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations the United State and Japan who were signatories to the two Convention. Such rule and principles therefore 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 rule and principle of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

Earlier, in Kuroda v. Jalandoni, the Court said that the provision 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. Thus, although the Philippines was not a signatory to the Hague Convention and became a signatory to the Geneva Convention only in 1947, the Court held that a Philippine Military Commission had jurisdiction over war crimes committed in violation of the two conventions prior to 1947. Apparently, the Court considered jurisdiction over war crimes part of customary law.

11/28/2013 4:16:00 PM

11/28/2013 4:16:00 PM