Case Digest
CASE DIGEST
CASE #1: Kuroda v. Jalandoni 83 Phil 171
• FACTS:
- Shigenori Kuroda, former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Forces of the Philippines, was charged before a Military Commission in violation of the laws and customs of war. The Petitioner seeks to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines; to enjoin and prohibit two US prosecutors from participating in the prosecution of the petitioner’s case; and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of the petitioner.
- Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and, therefore, petitioner is charged of crimes not based on law, national and international. Hence, Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try him.
• ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 valid and constitutional.
• RULING:
- The Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Executive Order No. 68 was enacted in accordance with Art. 2 Sec. 3 of the Constitution. Hague and Geneva Convention form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principle of international law, therefore, even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions, such rules and principles form part of the law of our nation. As to the participation of the two US prosecutors, United States 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.
CASE #2: Reyes v. Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553
• FACTS:
- Petitioner, JBL Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00-5:00 in the afternoon from Luneta to the gates of the US Embassy. The march would be attended by the local and foreign
CASE #1: Kuroda v. Jalandoni 83 Phil 171
• FACTS:
- Shigenori Kuroda, former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Forces of the Philippines, was charged before a Military Commission in violation of the laws and customs of war. The Petitioner seeks to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines; to enjoin and prohibit two US prosecutors from participating in the prosecution of the petitioner’s case; and to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of the petitioner.
- Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and, therefore, petitioner is charged of crimes not based on law, national and international. Hence, Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try him.
• ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 valid and constitutional.
• RULING:
- The Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Executive Order No. 68 was enacted in accordance with Art. 2 Sec. 3 of the Constitution. Hague and Geneva Convention form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principle of international law, therefore, even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions, such rules and principles form part of the law of our nation. As to the participation of the two US prosecutors, United States 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.
CASE #2: Reyes v. Bagatsing 125 SCRA 553
• FACTS:
- Petitioner, JBL Reyes, on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00-5:00 in the afternoon from Luneta to the gates of the US Embassy. The march would be attended by the local and foreign