CASE DIGEST : Kuroda vs Jalandoni

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.

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.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not E.O. 68 is Constitutional
2) Whether or not the 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
3) Whether or not Attorneys Hussey and Port have no personality as prosecution United State not being a party in
interest in the case.

Held:

1) The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his power as Commander in chief of all
our armed forces. 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. 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

2) 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. 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

3) Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by a special law and not by the Rules of court which
govern ordinary civil court. 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. 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.
Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 189155 07 September 2010 PONENTE: Perez, J. PARTIES:

PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT

TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, PC/SIPT/
LEON NILO DELA CRUZ, MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC, and
ROSE NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas
Data Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the
Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issu Hence, on 01 June 2009,
Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before the Supreme Court,
impleading the high-ranking officials of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the belief that it
was the government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. On 09 June 2009, the Supreme
Court issued the writs and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence
and appropriate action. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of writs of amparo and habeas data.
However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it was not convinced that the respondents
were responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas. Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the
Supreme Court.

PERTINENT ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo
petition.

2. Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and affiliation of the
perpetrators is enough ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo.

3. Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ may be
extended.

ANSWERS: 1. No. 2. It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be preferred over
mere circumstantial evidence. 3. Yes.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO
Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate – The use of the
doctrine of command responsibility as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo petition,
is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability
and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition.
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy – As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo
is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures
and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of
violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not fix liability for such
disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the
applicable substantive law. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of
individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a
summary amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility
does not preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in
the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may
be impleaded — not actually on the basis of command responsibility—but rather on the ground of their
responsibility, or at least accountability.

2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity

must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence – In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be
accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of military involvement depends largely on the availability
or non-availability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity and
affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere
circumstantial evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater
certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators.

3. EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened

violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable requirement
before the privilege of the writ may be extended – An indispensable requirement before the privilege of
the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to
show that there is an actual or threatened violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any of the
respondents were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference
regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy becomes
farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of the
privilege of the writ of habeas data.

DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, it modified the
directive of the Court of the Appeals for further investigation, as follows: Appointing the CHR as the lead
agency tasked with conducting further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take
the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the
petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to petitioner’s
abduction and torture. Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), or his
successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance to the
ongoing investigation of the CHR, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel
records circa the time of the petitioner’s abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations
consistent with the Constitution and existing laws. Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or
his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a
copy of the reports of its investigations and their recommendations, other than those that are already
part of the records of this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision. Further directing the
CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of
the reports on its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and to (b) provide or continue to
provide protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may
hereinafter be determined by this Court. The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court
of Appeals, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above directives and determining
whether, in light of any recent reports or recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence
to hold any of the public respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such
determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own report with recommendation to the Supreme
Court for its consideration. It was declared that the Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction
over this case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.