Kuroda vs. Jalandoni

Kuroda vs. Jalandoni [83 Phil. 171]

Facts:

Petitioner is facing charges in violation of two Conventions namely the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention. He contends that the Military Commission had no jurisdiction over him and jurisdiction over his case alleging that the Philippines was not a signatory to the Hague Convention and only became a signatory to the Geneva Convention by year 1947.

Issue:

Is petitioner correct?

Held:

The Supreme Court held otherwise. The rules of both Conventions, the Hague and the Geneva, are said to have formed part of the generally accepted principles of international law. The said rules are based on such principles that they now form part of the law of our nation even if we [The Philippines] is not a signatory to the Conventions embodying them. In fact, our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.