8/21/2021 G.R. No.

L-2662

Today is Saturday, August 21, 2021

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2662             March 26, 1949

SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,

vs.
Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, Colonel MARGARITO TORALBA,
Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDRO TABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S.
HUSSEY and ROBERT PORT, respondents.

Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner.

Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yengco, Jr., Ricardo A. Arcilla and S. Melville Hussey for respondents.

MORAN, C.J.:

Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the
Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before
a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully
disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and
other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the
laws and customs of war" — comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of
the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port from
participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission and to permanently prohibit
respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners.

In support of his case petitioner tenders the following principal arguments.

First. — "That Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground that it violates not only the provision of our
constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of the fact (that) the Philippines is not a signatory nor an
adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore petitioners is
charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international." Hence petitioner argues — "That in view off the
fact that this commission has been empanelled by virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission
is without jurisdiction to try herein petitioner."

Second. — That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitioner before the Commission in behalf
of the United State of America of attorneys Melville Hussey and Robert Port who are not attorneys authorized by the
Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines is a diminution of our personality as an independent state and their
appointment as prosecutor are a violation of our Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law
in the Philippines.

Third. — That Attorneys Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecution the United State not being a party in
interest in the case.

Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation governing the trial
of accused war criminals, was issued by the President of the Philippines on the 29th days of July, 1947 This Court
holds that this order is 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 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
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 1/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

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.

The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as Commander in chief of all
our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of Yamashita vs. Styer (L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664) 1 when we
said —

War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities incident of war
may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of war. An importance incident to a conduct of
war is the adoption of measure by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemies but to seize
and subject to disciplinary measure those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort
have violated the law of war. (Ex parte Quirin 317 U.S., 1; 63 Sup. Ct., 2.) Indeed the power to create a
military commission for the trial and punishment of war criminals is an aspect of waging war. And in the
language of a writer a military commission has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues. This
includes the period of an armistice or military occupation up to the effective of a treaty of peace and may
extend beyond by treaty agreement. (Cowles Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals, America Bar
Association Journal June, 1944.)

Consequently, the President as Commander in Chief is fully empowered to consummate this unfinished aspect of
war namely the trial and punishment of war criminal through the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No.
68.

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 nation 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
continued inn treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed the Philippines was under the
sovereignty of United States and thus we were equally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the
right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. These rights and obligation were not
erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all our emergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on
our own of trying and punishing those who committed crimes against crimes against our people. In this connection it
is well to remember what we have said in the case of Laurel vs. Misa (76 Phil., 372):

. . . The change of our form government from Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of
those charged with the crime of treason committed during then Commonwealth because it is an offense
against the same sovereign people. . . .

By the same token war crimes committed against our people and our government while we were a Commonwealth
are triable and punishable by our present Republic.

Petitioner challenges the participation of two American attorneys namely Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port in the
prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorney's are not qualified to practice law in Philippines in
accordance with our Rules of court and the appointment of said attorneys as prosecutors is violative of our national
sovereignty.

In the first place respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special law and not by
the Rules of court which govern ordinary civil court. It has already been shown that Executive Order No. 68 which
provides for the organization of such military commission is a valid and constitutional law. There is nothing in said
executive order which requires that counsel appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to
practice law in the Philippines in accordance with the Rules of Court. In facts it is common in military tribunals that
counsel for the parties are usually military personnel who are neither attorneys nor even possessed of legal training.

Secondly the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of our nation sovereignty. It is only fair and
proper that United States, which 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. If there has been any
relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been by our government but by the United State Government which has
yielded to us the trial and punishment of her enemies. The least that we could do in the spirit of comity is to allow
them representation in said trials.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 2/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

Alleging that the United State is not a party in interest in the case petitioner challenges the personality of attorneys
Hussey and Port as prosecutors. It is of common knowledge that the United State and its people have been equally
if not more greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which petitioner stands charged before the Military Commission. It
can be considered a privilege for our Republic that a leader nation should submit the vindication of the honor of its
citizens and its government to a military tribunal of our country.

The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over the crimes charged
which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No. 68, and having said petitioner in its custody, this Court will not
interfere with the due process of such Military commission.

For all the foregoing the petition is denied with costs de oficio.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

A military commission was empanelled on December 1, 1948 to try Lt. Gen. Shigenori Kuroda for Violation of the
laws and customs of land warfare.

Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port, American citizens and not authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law
were appointed prosecutor representing the American CIC in the trial of the case.

The commission was empanelled under the authority of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines
the validity of which is challenged by petitioner on constitutional grounds. Petitioner has also challenged the
personality of Attorneys Hussey and Port to appear as prosecutors before the commission.

The charges against petitioner has been filed since June 26, 1948 in the name of the people of the Philippines as
accusers.

We will consideration briefly the challenge against the appearance of Attorneys Hussey and Port. It appearing that
they are aliens and have not been authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law there could not be any question
that said person cannot appear as prosecutors in petitioner case as with such appearance they would be practicing
law against the law.

Said violation vanishes however into insignificance at the side of the momentous question involved in the challenge
against the validity of Executive Order No. 68. Said order is challenged on several constitutional ground. To get a
clear idea of the question raised it is necessary to read the whole context of said order which is reproduced as
follows:

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 68.

ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL WAR CRIMES OFFICE AND PRESCRIBING RULES AND

REGULATION GOVERNING THE TRIAL OF ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL.

I, Manuel Roxas president of the Philippines by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and laws
of the Philippines do hereby establish a National War Crimes Office charged with the responsibility of
accomplishing the speedy trial of all Japanese accused of war crimes committed in the Philippines and
prescribe the rules and regulation such trial.

The National War crimes office is established within the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army of
the Philippines and shall function under the direction supervision and control of the Judge Advocate General.
It shall proceed to collect from all available sources evidence of war crimes committed in the Philippines from
the commencement of hostilities by Japan in December 1941, maintain a record thereof and bring about the
prompt trial maintain a record thereof and bring about the prompt trial of the accused.

The National War Crimes Office shall maintain direct liaison with the Legal Section General Headquarters,
Supreme Commander for the Allied power and shall exchange with the said Office information and evidence
of war crimes.

The following rules and regulation shall govern the trial off person accused as war criminals:

ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 3/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

(a) General. — person accused as war criminal shall be tried by military commission to be convened by or
under the authority of the Philippines.

II. JURISDICTION

(a) Over Person. — Thee military commission appointed hereunder shall have jurisdiction over all persons
charged with war crimes who are in the custody of the convening authority at the time of the trial.

(b) Over Offenses. — The military commission established hereunder shall have jurisdiction over all offenses
including but not limited to the following:

(1) The planning preparation initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international
treaties agreement or assurance or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of
any of the foregoing.

(2) Violation of the laws or customs of war. Such violation shall include but not be limited to murder ill-
treatment or deportation to slave labor or for other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory;
murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or internees or person on the seas or elsewhere; improper
treatment of hostage; plunder of public or private property wanton destruction of cities towns or village; or
devastation not justified by military necessity.

(3) Murder extermination enslavement deportation and other inhuman acts committed against civilian
population before or during the war or persecution on political racial or religion ground in executive of or in
connection with any crime defined herein whether or not in violation of the local laws.

III. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSIONS

(a) Appointment. — The members of each military commission shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines or under authority delegated by him. Alternates may be appointed by the convening authority.
Such shall attend all session of the commission, and in case of illness or other incapacity of any principal
member, an alternate shall take the place of that member. Any vacancy among the members or alternates,
occurring after a trial has begun, may be filled by the convening authority but the substance of all proceeding
had evidence taken in that case shall be made known to the said new member or alternate. This facts shall
be announced by the president of the commission in open court.

(b) Number of Members. — Each commission shall consist of not less than three (3) members.

(c) Qualifications. — The convening authority shall appoint to the commission persons whom he determines
to be competent to perform the duties involved and not disqualified by personal interest or prejudice, provided
that no person shall be appointed to hear a case in which he personally investigated or wherein his presence
as a witness is required. One specially qualified member whose ruling is final in so far as concerns the
commission on an objection to the admissibility of evidence offered during the trial.

(d) Voting. — Except as to the admissibility of evidence all rulings and finding of the Commission shall be by
majority vote except that conviction and sentence shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than conviction
and sentence shall be by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds (2\3) of the member present.

(e) Presiding Member. — In the event that the convening authority does not name one of the member as the
presiding member, the senior officer among the member of the Commission present shall preside.

IV. PROSECUTORS

(a) Appointment. — The convening authority shall designate one or more person to conduct the prosecution
before each commission.

(b) Duties. — The duties of the prosecutor are:

(1) To prepare and present charges and specifications for reference to a commission.

(2) To prepare cases for trial and to conduct the prosecution before the commission of all cases referred for
trial.

V. POWER AND PROCEDURE OF COMMISSION

(a) Conduct of the Trial. — A Commission shall:

(1) Confine each trial strictly to fair and expeditious hearing on the issues raised by the charges, excluding
irrelevant issues or evidence and preventing any unnecessary delay or interference.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 4/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

(2) Deal summarily with any contumacy or contempt, imposing any appropriate punishment therefor.

(3) Hold public session when otherwise decided by the commission.

(4) Hold each session at such time and place as it shall determine, or as may be directed by the convening
authority.

(b) Rights of the Accused. — The accused shall be entitled:

(1) To have in advance of the trial a copy of the charges and specifications clearly worded so as to apprise
the accused of each offense charged.

(2) To be represented, prior to and during trial, by counsel appointed by the convening authority or counsel of
his own choice, or to conduct his own defense.

(3) To testify in his own behalf and have his counsel present relevant evidence at the trial in support of his
defense, and cross-examine each adverse witness who personally appears before the commission.

(4) To have the substance of the charges and specifications, the proceedings and any documentary evidence
translated, when he is unable otherwise to understand them.

(c) Witnesses. — The Commission shall have power:

(1) To summon witnesses and require their attendance and testimony; to administer oaths or affirmations to
witnesses and other persons and to question witnesses.

(2) To require the production of documents and other evidentiary material.

(3) To delegate the Prosecutors appointed by the convening authority the powers and duties set forth in (1)
and (2) above.

(4) To have evidence taken by a special commissioner appointed by the commission.

(d) Evidence.

(1) The commission shall admit such evidence as in its opinion shall be of assistance in proving or disproving
the charge, or such as in the commission's opinion would have probative value in the mind of a reasonable
man. The commission shall apply the rules of evidence and pleading set forth herein with the greatest
liberality to achieve expeditious procedure. In particular, and without limiting in any way the scope of the
foregoing general rules, the following evidence may be admitted:

(a) Any document, irrespective of its classification, which appears to the commission to have been signed or
issued by any officer, department, agency or member of the armed forces of any Government without proof of
the signature or of the issuance of the document.

(b) Any report which appears to the commission to have been signed or issued by the International Red
Cross or a member of any medical service personnel, or by any investigator or intelligence officer, or by any
other person whom commission considers as possessing knowledge of the matters contained in the report.

(c) Affidavits, depositions or other signed statements.

(d) Any diary, letter to other document, including sworn statements, appearing to the commission to contain
information relating to the charge.

(e) A copy of any document or other secondary evidence of the contents, if the original is not immediately
available.

(2) The commission shall take judicial notice of facts of common knowledge, official government documents of
any nation, and the proceedings, records and findings of military or other agencies of any of the United
Nation.

(3) A commission may require the prosecution and the defense to make a preliminary offer of proof
whereupon the commission may rule in advance on the admissibility of such evidence.

(4) The official position of the accused shall not absolve him from responsibility nor be considered in
mitigation of punishment. Further action pursuant to an order of the accused's superior, or of his Government,
shall not constitute a defense, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the commission
determines that justice so requires.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 5/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

(5) All purposed confessions or statements of the accused shall bee admissible in evidence without any
showing that they were voluntarily made. If it is shown that such confession or statement was procured by
mean which the commission believe to have been of such a character that may have caused the accused to
make a false statement the commission may strike out or disregard any such portion thereof as was so
procured.

(e) Trial Procedure. — The proceedings of each trial shall be conducted substantially as follows unless
modified by the commission to suit the particular circumstances:

(1) Each charge and specification shall be read or its substance stated in open court.

(2) The presiding member shall ask each accused whether he pleads "Guilty" or "Not guilty."

(3) The prosecution shall make its opening statement."(4) The presiding member may at this or any other time
require the prosecutor to state what evidence he proposes to submit to the commission and the commission
thereupon may rule upon the admissibility of such evidence.

(4) The witnesses and other evidence for the prosecution shall be heard or presented. At the close of the
case for the prosecution, the commission may, on motion of the defense for a finding of not guilty, consider
and rule whether he evidence before the commission may defer action on any such motion and permit or
require the prosecution to reopen its case and produce any further available evidence.

(5) The defense may make an opening statement prior to presenting its case. The presiding member may, at
this any other time require the defense to state what evidence it proposes to submit to the commission where
upon the commission may rule upon the admissibility of such evidence.

(6) The witnesses and other evidence for the defense shall be heard or presented. Thereafter, the
prosecution and defense may introduce such evidence in rebuttal as the commission may rule as being
admissible.

(7) The defense and thereafter the prosecution shall address the commission.

(8) The commission thereafter shall consider the case in closed session and unless otherwise directed by the
convening authority, announce in open court its judgment and sentence if any. The commission may state the
reason on which judgment is based.

( f ) Record of Proceedings. — Each commission shall make a separate record of its proceeding in the trial of
each case brought before it. The record shall be prepared by the prosecutor under the direction of the
commission and submitted to the defense counsel. The commission shall be responsible for its accuracy.
Such record, certified by the presiding member of the commission or his successor, shall be delivered to the
convening authority as soon as possible after the trial.

(g) Sentence. — The commission may sentence an accused, upon conviction to death by hanging or
shooting, imprisonment for life or for any less term, fine or such other punishment as the commission shall
determine to be proper.

(h) Approval of Sentence. — No. sentence of a military commission shall be carried into effect until approved
by the chief off Staff: Provided, That no sentence of death or life imprisonment shall be carried into execution
until confirmed by the President of the Philippines. For the purpose of his review the Chief of Staff shall create
a Board of Review to be composed of not more than three officers none of whom shall be on duty with or
assigned to the Judge Advocate General's Office. The Chief of Staff shall have authority to approve, mitigate
remit in whole or in part, commute, suspend, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence imposed, or (without
prejudice to the accused) remand the case for rehearing before a new military commission; but he shall not
have authority to increase the severity of the sentence. Except as herein otherwise provided the judgment
and sentence of a commission shall final and not subject to review by any other tribunal.

VI. RULE-MAKING POWER

Supplementary Rule and Forms. — Each commission shall adopt rules and forms to govern its procedure, not
inconsistent with the provision of this Order, or such rules and forms as may be prescribed by the convening
authority]or by the President of the Philippines.

VII. The amount of amount of seven hundred thousand pesos is hereby set aside out of the appropriations for
the Army of the Philippines for use by the National War Crimes Office in the accomplishment of its mission as
hereinabove set forth, and shall be expended in accordance with the recommendation of the Judge Advocate
General as approved by the President. The buildings, fixtures, installations, messing, and billeting equipment
and other property herefore used by then Legal Section, Manila Branch, of the General Headquarters,
Supreme Commander for the Allied Power, which will be turned over by the United States Army to the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 6/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

Philippines Government through the Foreign Liquidation Commission and the Surplus Property Commission
are hereby specification reserved for use off the National War Crimes Office.

Executive Order No. 64, dated August 16, 1945, is hereby repealed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and forty-seven,
and of the Independence of the Philippines, the second.

MANUEL ROXAS
President of the Philippines

By the President:

EMILIO ABELLO
Chief of the Executive Office

EXECUTIVE LEGISLATION

Executive Order No. 68 is a veritable piece of Legislative measure, without the benefit of congressional enactment.

The first question that is trust at our face spearheading a group of other no less important question, is whether or not
the President of the Philippines may exercise the legislative power expressly vested in Congress by the
Constitution. .

The Constitution provides:

The Legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and
House of Representatives. (Section 1, Article VI.)

While there is no express provision in the fundamental law prohibiting the exercise of legislative power by agencies
other than Congress, a reading of the whole context of the Constitution would dispel any doubt as to the
constitutional intent that the legislative power is to be exercised exclusively by Congress, subject only to the veto
power of the President of the President of the Philippines, to the specific provision which allow the president of the
Philippines to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus and to place any part of the Philippines under
martial law, and to the rule-making power expressly vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court.

There cannot be any question that the member of the Constitutional Convention were believers in the tripartite
system of government as originally enunciated by Aristotle, further elaborated by Montequieu and accepted and
practiced by modern democracies, especially the United State of America, whose Constitution, after which ours has
been patterned, has allocated the three power of government — legislative, executive, judicial — to distinct and
separate department of government.

Because the power vested by our Constitution to the several department of the government are in the nature of
grants, not recognition of pre-existing power, no department of government may exercise any power or authority not
expressly granted by the Constitution or by law by virtue express authority of the Constitution.

Executive Order No. 68 establishes a National War Crimes Office and the power to establish government office is
essentially legislative.

The order provides that person accused as war criminals shall be tried by military commissions. Whether such a
provision is substantive or adjective, it is clearly legislative in nature. It confers upon military commissions
jurisdiction to try all persons charge with war crimes. The power to define and allocate jurisdiction for the
prosecution of person accused of any crime is exclusively vested by the Constitution in Congress. .

It provides rules of procedure for the conduct of trial of trial. This provision on procedural subject constitutes a
usurpation of the rule-making power vested by Constitution in the Supreme Court.

It authorized military commission to adopt additional rule of procedure. If the President of the Philippines cannot
exercise the rule -making power vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court, he cannot, with more reason,
delegate that power to military commission.

It appropriates the sum of P7000,000 for the expenses of the National War Crimes office established by the said
Executive Order No. 68. This constitutes another usurpation of legislative power as the power to vote appropriations
belongs to Congress.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 7/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

Executive Order No. 68., is, therefore, null and void, because, though it the President of the Philippines usurped
power expressly vested by the Constitution in Congress and in the Supreme Court.

Challenged to show the constitutional or legal authority under which the President issued Executive Order No. 68,
respondent could not give any definite answer. They attempted, however, to suggest that the President of the
Philippines issued Executive Order No. 68 under the emergency power granted to him by Commonwealth Act No.
600, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 620, and Commonwealth Act No. 671, both of which are transcribed
below:

COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 600.

AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO

PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATION TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEGRITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND TO INSURE THE TRANQUILITY OF ITS INHABITANTS.

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

SECTION 1. The existence of war in many parts of the world has created a national emergency which makes
it necessary to invest the President of the Philippines with extraordinary power in order to safeguard the
integrity of the Philippines and to insure the tranquility of its inhabitants, by suppressing espionage,
lawlessness, and all subversive to the people adequate shelter and clothing and sufficient food supply, and by
providing means for the speedy evacuation of the civilian population the establishment of an air protective
service and the organization of volunteer guard units, and to adopt such other measures as he may deem
necessary for the interest of the public. To carry out this policy the President is authorized to promulgate rules
and regulations which shall have the force and effect off law until the date of adjournment of the next
regulation which shall have the force and effect of law until the date of adjournment of the next regular
session of the First Congress of the Philippines, unless sooner amended or repealed by the Congress of
Philippines. Such rules and regulation may embrace the following objects: (1) to suppress espionage and
other subversive activities; (2) to require all able-bodied citizens (a) when not engaged in any lawful
occupation, to engage in farming or other productive activities or (b) to perform such services as may bee
necessary in the public interest; (3) to take over farm lands in order to prevent or shortage of crops and
hunger and destitution; (4) to take over industrial establishment in order to insure adequate production,
controlling wages and profits therein; (5) to prohibit lockouts and strikes whenever necessary to prevent the
unwarranted suspension of work in productive enterprises or in the interest of national security; (6) to regulate
the normal hours of work for wage-earning and salaried employees in industrial or business undertakings of
all kinds; (7) to insure an even distribution of labor among the productive enterprises; (8) to commandership
and other means of transportation in order to maintain, as much as possible, adequate and continued
transportation facilities; (9) to requisition and take over any public service or enterprise for use or operation by
the Government;(10) to regulate rents and the prices of articles or commodities of prime necessity, both
imported and locally produced or manufactured; and (11) to prevent, locally or generally, scarcity,
monopolization, hoarding injurious speculations, and private control affecting the supply, distribution and
movement of foods, clothing, fuel, fertilizer, chemical, building, material, implements, machinery, and
equipment required in agriculture and industry, with power to requisition these commodities subject to the
payment of just compensation. (As amended by Com. Act No. 620.)

SEC. 2. For the purpose of administering this Act and carrying out its objective, the President may designate
any officer, without additional compensation, or any department, bureau, office, or instrumentality of the
National Government.

SEC. 3. Any person, firm, or corporation found guilty of the violation of any provision of this Act or of this Act
or any of the rules or regulations promulgated by the President under the authority of section one of this Act
shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than ten thousand
pesos, or by both. If such violation is committed by a firm or corporation, the manager, managing director, or
person charge with the management of the business of such firm, or corporation shall be criminally
responsible therefor.

SEC. 4. The President shall report to the national Assembly within the first ten days from the date of the
opening of its next regular session whatever action has been taken by him under the authority herein granted.

SEC. 5. To carry out the purposed of this Act, the President is authorized to spend such amounts as may be
necessary from the sum appropriated under section five Commonwealth Act Numbered four hundred and
ninety-eight.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 8/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

SEC. 6. If any province of this Act shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be
unconstitutional and void, such declaration shall not invalidate the remainder of this Act.

SEC. 7. This Act shall take upon its approval.

Approved, August 19, 1940.

COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 671

AN ACT DECLARING A STATE OF TOTAL EMERGENCY AS A RESULT OF WAR INVOLVING THE

PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO PROMULGATE RULE AND REGULATIONS
TO MEET SUCH EMERGENCY.

Be it enacted the National Assembly of the Philippines;

SECTION 1. The existed of war between the United State and other countries of Europe and Asia, which
involves the Philippines, makes it necessary to invest the President with extraordinary powers in order to
meet the resulting emergency.

SEC. 2. Pursuant to the provision of Article VI, section 16, of the Constitution, the President is hereby
authorized, during the existence of the emergency, to promulgate such rules and regulation as he may deem
necessary to carry out the national policy declared in section 1 hereof. Accordingly, he is, among other things,
empowered (a) to transfer the seat of the Government or any of its subdivisions, branches, department,
offices, agencies or instrumentalities; (b) to reorganize the Government of the Commonwealth including the
determination of the order of precedence of the heads of the Executive Department; (c) to create new
subdivision, branches, departments, offices, agency or instrumentalities of government and to abolish any of
those already existing; (d) to continue in force laws and appropriation which would lapse or otherwise became
inoperative, and to modify or suspend the operation or application of those of an administrative character; (e)
to imposed new taxes or to increase, reduce, suspend, or abolish those in existence; (f) to raise funds
through the issuance of bonds or otherwise, and to authorize the expensive of the proceeds thereof; (g) to
authorize the National, provincial, city or municipal governments to incur in overdrafts for purposes that he
may approve; (h) to declare the suspension of the collection of credits or the payment of debts; and (i) to
exercise such other power as he may deem necessary to enable the Government to fulfill its responsibilities
and to maintain and enforce its authority.

SEC. 3. The President of the Philippines report thereto all the rules and regulation promulgated by him under
the power herein granted.

SEC. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval and the rules and regulations. promulgated hereunder
shall be in force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall otherwise provide.

Approved December 16, 1941.

The above Acts cannot validly be invoked, Executive Order No. 68 was issued on July 29, 1947. Said Acts had
elapsed upon the liberation of the Philippines form the Japanese forces or, at the latest, when the surrender of
Japan was signed in Tokyo on September 2, 1945.

When both Acts were enacted by the Second National Assembly, we happened to have taken direct part in their
consideration and passage, not only as one of the members of said legislative body as chairman of the Committee
on Third Reading population Known as the "Little Senate." We are, therefore in a position to state that said
measures were enacted by the second national Assembly for the purpose of facing the emergency of impending war
and of the Pacific War that finally broke out with the attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. We approved said
extraordinary measures, by which under the exceptional circumstances then prevailing legislative power were
delegated to the President of the Philippines, by virtue of the following provisions of the Constitution:

In time of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize the President, for a limited
period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out
declared national policy. (Article VI, section 26.)

It has never been the purpose of the National Assembly to extend the delegation beyond the emergency created by
the war as to extend it farther would be violative of the express provision of the Constitution. We are of the opinion
that there is no doubt on this question.; but if there could still be any the same should be resolved in favor of the
presumption that the National Assembly did not intend to violate the fundamental law.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 9/10
8/21/2021 G.R. No. L-2662

The absurdity of the contention that the emergency Acts continued in effect even after the surrender of Japan can
not be gainsaid. Only a few months after liberation and even before the surrender of Japan, or since the middle of
1945, the Congress started to function normally. In the hypothesis that the contention can prevail, then, since 1945,
that is, four years ago, even after the Commonwealth was already replaced by the Republic of the Philippines with
the proclamation of our Independence, two district, separate and independence legislative organs, — Congress and
the President of the Philippines — would have been and would continue enacting laws, the former to enact laws of
every nature including those of emergency character, and the latter to enact laws, in the form of executive orders,
under the so-called emergency powers. The situation would be pregnant with dangers to peace and order to the
rights and liberties of the people and to Philippines democracy.

Should there be any disagreement between Congress and the President of the Philippines, a possibility that no one
can dispute the President of the Philippines may take advantage of he long recess of Congress (two-thirds of every
year ) to repeal and overrule legislative enactments of Congress, and may set up a veritable system of dictatorship,
absolutely repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Executive Order No. 68 is equally offensive to the Constitution because it violates the fundamental guarantees of
the due process and equal protection of the law. It is especially so, because it permit the admission of many kinds
evidence by which no innocent person can afford to get acquittal and by which it is impossible to determine whether
an accused is guilty or not beyond all reasonable doubt.

The rules of evidence adopted in Executive Order No. 68 are a reproduction of the regulation governing the trial of
twelve criminal, issued by General Douglas Mac Arthur, Commander in Chief of the United State Armed Forces in
Western Pacific, for the purpose of trying among other, General Yamashita and Homma. What we said in our
concurring and dissenting opinion to the decision promulgated on December 19, 1945, in the Yamashita case, L-
129, and in our concurring and dissenting opinion to the resolution of January 23, 1946 in disposing the Homma
case, L-244, are perfectly applicable to the offensive rules of evidence in Executive Order No. 68. Said rules of
evidence are repugnant to conscience as under them no justice can expected.

For all the foregoing, conformably with our position in the Yamashita and Homma cases, we vote to declare
Executive Order No. 68 null and void and to grant petition.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/mar1949/gr_l-2662_1949.html 10/10