YAMASHITA VS STYER

FACTS:
 Petitioner Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita – the “Tiger of Malaya” – was the commanding
general of the 14th Army Group of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines.
 He commanded the Japanese army in their retreat from the Philippines (1944-1945),
wherein the Japanese Army committed arson, murder, rape, pillage, and other atrocities
against the Filipinos and Americans.
 September 3, 1945 – Following the defeat of Japan, Yamashita surrendered to the US
Army in Baguio. He became a United States prisoner of war and was held in New Bilibid
Prison.
 October 1, 1945 – By command of respondent Gen. William Styer (Commanding
General, US Army, Western Pacific) and pursuant to authorization from General
Headquarters, United States Armed Forces, Western Pacific, a Military Commission was
appointed to try Yamashita.
 October 2, 1945 – A charge for violation of the laws of war was served upon Yamashita.
 The charge alleged that during the period between October 9, 1944 and September 3,
1945, Yamashita, “while commander of the armed forces of Japan at war with the
Unites States and its allies, unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as
commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them
to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against the people of the United
States and its allies and dependencies, particularly the Philippines.”
 October 8, 1945 – Upon arraignment, Yamashita pleaded not guilty. On the same date,
the prosecution filed a bill of particulars specifying 64 offenses committed by Yamashita.
Later 123 offenses were added.
 October 19, 1945 – Yamashita moved to dismiss the case, alleging:
o That the charge, as modified by the bill of particulars, failed to state a violation
of the laws of war by Yamashita
o That the Military Commission had no jurisdiction to try the case
 October 29, 1945 – Yamashita’s motion to dismiss was denied. Trial of the case began
on the same day.
o At the opening of the trial, the prosecution stated that the United States did not
give notice of the trial to the protecting power of Japan (Spain), such notice
being required by Article 60 of the Geneva Convention, and by paragraph 133 of
the Rules of Land Warfare, United States War Department.
o The defense objected to the introduction to two pieces of evidence (both
objections were overruled):
  Affidavit of Naukata Utsunomia, on the grounds that Article of War 25
prohibited the introduction of depositions by the prosecution in trials of
capital cases before a court-martial or military commission;
 Unspecified piece of hearsay evidence, on the ground that the admission
of hearsay evidence violated Article of War 38 as well as the rules of
evidence in US District courts.
 Yamashita then filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition against Gen. Styer,
praying that he be returned to prisoner-of-war status and that the Military Commission
be prohibited from trying his case.
ISSUES:
 Does the military Commission have jurisdiction to try Yamashita’s case?
 Is the Philippines “occupied territory” wherein the Military Commission can exercise
jurisdiction?
 Did the non-notification of Spain, Japan’s protecting power, divest the Military
Commission of its jurisdiction?
 Did the charge against Yamashita state a violation of the laws of war?
 Did the introduction of inadmissible evidence over Yamashita’s objection deprive him of
his right to a fair trial?

HELD:
 YES. The Supreme Court, being a civil court, has no jurisdiction to grants the remedies
being prayed for, as the trial is military in nature and the Military Commission has not
been impleaded.
o The Supreme Court still has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition even if the
Military Commission is impleaded as a respondent.
 Raquiza vs. Bradford: An exercise of jurisdiction by the civil courts over
the United States Army before the expiration of the state of war is a
violation of the country’s faith. This ruling applies greater force to
Yamashita, who is accused of committing horrible atrocities against the
Filipino people.
 A state of war may continue to prevail after hostilities have ceased; and a Military
Commission has jurisdiction as long as a technical state of war prevails.
o A state of war may be extended beyond the date of actual cessation of hostilities
for the purpose of rounding up war criminals.
o A state of war may prevail even during an armistice, during peace negotiations,
and may even be extended by treaty.
 Payumo vs. Floyd: The Supreme Court has no power to review the proceedings of a
military tribunal in a habeas corpus case, if it has no jurisdiction over such court.
 SC: “The Military Commission thus duly constituted has jurisdiction both over the
person of the petitioner and over the offenses with which he is charged. It has
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner by reason of his having fallen into the
hands of the United States Army Forces. Under paragraph 347 of the Rules of Land
Warfare , "the commanders ordering the commission of such acts, or under whose
authority they are committed by their troops, may be punished by the belligerent into
whose hands they may fall.”
 Ex parte Quinn: " From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and
applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for
the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy
individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly
provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have
jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. ”
 Paragraph 356 of the Rules of Land Warfare and Articles of War 12 and 15 together
provide for the establishment of a Military Commission to try and punish offenses
against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court-martial, and that this Commission
must be designated by the belligerent. o In this case the belligerent state is the United
States, as represented by General Styer as Commander of the US Army, Western Pacific.
The Commission was thus validly constituted by General Styer, with the authority vested
in him by General Douglas McArthur (Commander in Chief of the US Army in the Pacific).

 YES. According to the Regulations Governing the Trial of War Criminals in the Pacific ,
the Military Commission has jurisdiction “over all of Japan and other areas occupied by
the armed forces commanded by the Commander in Chief, United States Army Forces,
Pacific”.
 This should be understood to mean the Philippines, as the United States Army has
occupied the Philippines to liberate the Filipino people from Japanese occupation.
 The creation of a Military Commission to try Japanese war criminals is an incident of this
“war of liberation.”

 NO. Contrary to Yamashita’s allegation, there is nothing in the Geneva Convention

which requires notice to the protecting power for a Military Commission appointed by
the winning belligerent to acquire jurisdiction.
 Japan’s unconditional surrender is a waiver of such notice.
 The fact that Spain had cut diplomatic ties with Japan over the commission of atrocities
against Spanish subjects in the Philippines is an indication that Spain had ceased to be
the protecting power of Japan.

 YES. The charge, as modified by the two bills of particulars, clearly specifies the offenses
committed under Yamashita’s command.
 Among these charges – which are all offenses against the laws of war as described in
Paragraph 347 of the Rules of Land Warfare - are:
o brutal massacre of civilian noncombatants, including bayoneting of children
o rape of young girls
o hateful pillage of public, private, and religious property
 NO. These “alleged irregularities” cannot divest the Commission of its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the issue cannot be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding.