Summary Summary for Public International Law

CASE DIGESTS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Public International Law Presented to: ATTY. VICTOR TULALIAN By: MA. FLORINA G. GUZMAN-CUREG Manila Law College, Sta. Cruz, Manila March 30, 2019 Kuroda vs Jalandoni 83 Phil 171 Facts Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. As he was the commanding general during such period of war, he was tried for failure to discharge his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in violation of of the laws and customs of war. Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is unconstitutional. He further contends that using as basis the Hague Convention’s Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines. Issue 1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is constitutional 2.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68, creating the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals, is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec 3,Article 2 of the Constitution which states 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.” The generally accepted principles of international law includes those formed during the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by United Nations. These include the principle that all persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws and customs of war, are to be held accountable. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines abides by these principles and therefore has a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially when it is committed againsts its citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution. The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people have been equally, if not more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner is charged for. By virtue of Executive Order No. 68, the Military Commission is a special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and representation are not governed by the rules of court but by the very provisions of this special law. Lo Ching vs. Archbishop of Manila 81 PHIL., 601 Facts On August 30, 1940, the Archbishop of Manila through the Bank of the Philippine Islands leased a farm to Lo and So Yun Ching Chong Co. with Nos. 1095 with 1101 R. located at de la Calle Hidalgo, Manila, under a monthly income of P500 by the end of three years counting from the first of September 1940, extendable to two years (two years upon agreement of the parties). The tenant took the property by setting it in a hotel. In February 1942, the Japanese army echoed the tenants of the property and delivered the latter to German Otto Schulze who worked until January 1945 at the advent of the liberation army. In early February 1945, tenant reoccupied the property and paid the monthly rental fee. Before the end of August of that year, the landlord required the tenants to vacate the property, however, they refused. Therefore, the landlord on September 8, 1945 filed for an application for eviction in the Municipal Court of Manila. On October 8, 1945, it ordered the tenants to vacate the property and pay its monthly rent of P625 from the first September 1945, plus damages in the amount of P500 and legal expenses. The appellants contend that they are entitled to occupy the property for three full years, the occupation must be effective, and continuous material, which should not be deprived of the use and enjoyment of the property, and the appellants are entitled to deduct that period of three years, all the time that no longer have the lease available to the Japanese army. Issue: WON Hague Convention of 1907 allows occupation and seizure of private lands; WON Japanese soldiers occupied the farm in dispute. Held: No. The Hague Convention of 1907 does not allow an occupying army to seize private property in the territory invaded. In contrast, states that: "Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." (Article 46). The farm is not even used as army barracks, and there is no evidence that it was seized by military necessity, what can be deduced that the Japanese soldiers disposed of the property, not in the legitimate exercise the authority of an occupying army, but spurred on by uncontrolled and uncontrollable des