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 as charged !efore the Philippine "ilitary Commission for ar crimes# As he as the commanding general during such period of ar, he as tried for failure to discharge his duties and permitting the !rutal atrocities and other high crimes committed !y his men against non com!atant ci$ilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in $iolation of the la s and customs of ar# Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the "ilitary Commission is not a $alid court !ecause the la that created it, %&ecuti$e 'rder (o# )*, is unconstitutional# +e further contends that using as !asis the +ague Con$ention,s -ules and -egulations co$ering Land .arfare for the ar crime committed cannot stand ground as the Philippines as not a signatory of such rules in such con$ention# Furthermore, he alleges that the /nited States is not a party of interest in the case and that the t o /S prosecutors cannot practice la in the Philippines# Issue 0#.hether or not %&ecuti$e 'rder (o# )* is constitutional 1#.hether or not the /S is a party of interest to this case -uling 2he Supreme Court ruled that %&ecuti$e 'rder (o# )*, creating the (ational .ar Crimes 'ffice and prescri!ing rules on the trial of accused ar criminals, is constitutional as it is

aligned ith Sec 3,Article 1 of the Constitution hich states that 42he Philippines renounces ar as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international la as part of the la of the nation#5 2he generally accepted principles of international la includes those formed during the +ague Con$ention, the Gene$a Con$ention and other international 6urisprudence esta!lished !y /nited (ations# 2hese include the principle that all persons, military or ci$ilian, ho ha$e !een guilty of planning, preparing or aging a ar of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in $iolation of la s and customs of ar, are to !e held accounta!le# In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines a!ides !y these principles and therefore has a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially hen it is committed againsts its citi7ens# It a!ides ith it e$en if it as not a signatory to these con$entions !y the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution# 2he /nited States is a party of interest !ecause the country and its people ha$e !een e8ually, if not more greatly, aggrie$ed !y the crimes ith hich the petitioner is charged for# 9y $irtue of %&ecuti$e 'rder (o# )*, the "ilitary Commission is a special military tri!unal and that the rules as to parties and representation are not go$erned !y the rules of court !ut !y the $ery pro$isions of this special la #

Agustin vs Edu 88 SCRA 195 Facts 2his case is a petition assailing the $alidity or the constitutionality of a Letter of Instruction (o# 11:, issued !y President Ferdinand %# "arcos, re8uiring all $ehicle o ners, users or dri$ers to procure early arning de$ices to !e installed a distance a ay from such $ehicle hen it stalls or is disa!led# In compliance ith such letter of instruction, the Commissioner of the Land 2ransportation 'ffice issued Administrati$e 'rder (o# 0 directing the compliance thereof# 2his petition alleges that such letter of instruction and su!se8uent administrati$e order are unla ful and unconstitutional as it $iolates the pro$isions on due process, e8ual protection of the la and undue delegation of police po er# Issue .hether or not the Letter of Instruction (o# 11: and the su!se8uent Administrati$e 'rder issued is unconstitutional -uling 2he Supreme Court ruled for the dismissal of the petition# 2he statutes in 8uestion are deemed not unconstitutional# 2hese ere definitely in the e&ercise of police po er as such as esta!lished to promote pu!lic elfare and pu!lic safety# In fact, the letter of instruction is !ased on the constitutional pro$ision of adopting to the generally accepted principles of international la as part of the la of the land# 2he letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and !asis, the resolutions of the 0:)* ;ienna Con$ention on

-oad Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety !y the /nited (ations - that such letter as issued in consideration of a gro ing num!er of road accidents due to stalled or par<ed $ehicles on the streets and high ays#

Ichong v H rnand !" 1#1 Phil$ 115 %acts& Petitioner, for and in his o n !ehalf and on !ehalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships ad$ersely affected !y the pro$isions of -epu!lic Act (o# 00*=, !rought this action to o!tain a 6udicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, and to en6oin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its pro$isions# Petitioner attac<s the constitutionality of the Act, contending among others that> it denies to alien residents the e8ual protection of the la s and depri$es them of their li!erty and property ithout due process of la ? it $iolates international and treaty o!ligations of the -epu!lic of the Philippines? and its pro$isions against the transmission !y aliens of their retail !usiness thru hereditary succession, and those re8uiring 0==@ Filipino capitali7ation for a corporation or entity to entitle it to engage in the retail !usiness, $iolate the spirit of Sections 0 and A, Article BIII and Section * of Article BI; of the Constitution# -epu!lic Act (o# 00*= is entitled CAn Act to -egulate the -etail 9usiness#C In effect it nationali7es the retail trade !usiness# 2he main pro$isions of the Act are> D0E a prohi!ition against persons, not citi7ens of the Philippines, and against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of hich are not holly o ned !y citi7ens of the Philippines, from

engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade? D1E an e&ception from the a!o$e prohi!ition in fa$or of aliens actually engaged in said !usiness on "ay 0A, 0:AF, ho are allo ed to continue to engage therein, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance ith the la , until their death or $oluntary retirement in case of natural persons, and for ten years after the appro$al of the Act or until the e&piration of term in case of 6uridical persons? D3E an e&ception therefrom in fa$or of citi7ens and 6uridical entities of the /nited States? DFE a pro$ision for the forfeiture of licenses Dto engage in the retail !usinessE for $iolation of the la s on nationali7ation, economic control eights and measures and la!or and other la s relating to trade, commerce and industry? DAE a prohi!ition against the esta!lishment or opening !y aliens actually engaged in the retail !usiness of additional stores or !ranches of retail !usiness, D)E a pro$ision re8uiring aliens actually engaged in the retail !usiness to present for registration ith the proper authorities a $erified statement concerning their !usinesses, gi$ing, among other matters, the nature of the !usiness, their assets and lia!ilities and their offices and principal offices of 6uridical entities? and DGE a pro$ision allo ing the heirs of aliens no engaged in the retail !usiness ho die, to continue such !usiness for a period of si& months for purposes of li8uidation# H ld& 2he Court held that the Act as appro$ed in the e&ercise of the police po er# It has !een said that police po er is so far-reaching in scope, that it has !ecome almost impossi!le to limit its s eep# As it deri$es its e&istence from the $ery e&istence of the State itself, it does not need to !e e&pressed or defined in its scope? it is said to !e coe&tensi$e ith self-protection and sur$i$al, and as such it is the most positi$e and acti$e of all go$ernmental processes, the most essential, insistent and illimita!le# %specially is it so under a modern democratic frame or< here the demands of society and of nations ha$e multiplied to almost unimagina!le proportions? the field and scope of police po er has !ecome almost !oundless, 6ust as the fields of pu!lic interest and pu!lic elfare ha$e

!ecome almost all- em!racing and ha$e transcended human foresight# 'ther ise stated, as e cannot foresee the needs and demands of pu!lic interest and elfare in this constantly changing and progressi$e orld, so e cannot delimit !eforehand the e&tent or scope of police po er !y hich and through hich the State see<s to attain or achie$e pu!lic interest or elfare# So it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or e&tent of the police po er of the State? hat they do is to set forth the limitations thereof# 2he most important of these are the due process clause and the e8ual protection clause# 2he e8ual protection of the la clause is against undue fa$or and indi$idual or class pri$ilege, as ell as hostile discrimination or the oppression of ine8uality# It is not intended to prohi!it legislation, hich is limited either in the o!6ect to hich it is directed or !y territory ithin hich it is to operate# It does not demand a!solute e8uality among residents? it merely re8uires that all persons shall !e treated ali<e, under li<e circumstances and conditions !oth as to pri$ileges conferred and lia!ilities enforced# 2he e8ual protection clause is not infringed !y legislation hich applies only to those persons falling ithin a specified class, if it applies ali<e to all persons ithin such class, and reasona!le grounds e&ists for ma<ing a distinction !et een those ho fall ithin such class and those ho do not# 2he due process clause has to do ith the reasona!leness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the police po er, Is there pu!lic interest, a pu!lic purpose? is pu!lic elfare in$ol$edH Is the Act reasona!ly necessary for the accomplishment of the legislatureIs purpose? is it not unreasona!le, ar!itrary or oppressi$eH Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection ith the matter in$ol$ed? or has there not !een a capricious use of the legislati$e po erH Can the aims concei$ed !e achie$ed !y the means used, or is it not merely an un6ustified interference ith pri$ate interestH 2hese are the 8uestions that e

as<

hen the due process test is applied#

2he conflict, therefore, !et een police po er and the guarantees of due process and e8ual protection of the la s is more apparent than real# Properly related, the po er and the guarantees are supposed to coe&ist# 2he !alancing is the essence or, shall it !e said, the indispensa!le means for the attainment of legitimate aspirations of any democratic society# 2here can !e no a!solute po er, hoe$er e&ercise it, for that ould !e tyranny# Jet there can neither !e a!solute li!erty, for that ould mean license and anarchy# So the State can depri$e persons of life, li!erty and property, pro$ided there is due process of la ? and persons may !e classified into classes and groups, pro$ided e$eryone is gi$en the e8ual protection of the la # 2he test or standard, as al ays, is reason# 2he police po er legislation must !e firmly grounded on pu!lic interest and elfare, and a reasona!le relation must e&ist !et een purposes and means# And if distinction and classification has !een made, there must !e a reasona!le !asis for said distinction# 2he disputed la as enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed !y alien dominance and control of the retail !usiness and free citi7ens and country from such dominance and control? that the enactment clearly falls ithin the scope of the police po er of the State, thru hich and !y hich it protects its o n personality and insures its security and future? that the la does not $iolate the e8ual protection clause of the Constitution !ecause sufficient grounds e&ist for the distinction !et een alien and citi7en in the e&ercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of la clause, !ecause the la is prospecti$e in operation and recogni7es the pri$ilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasona!ly protects their pri$ilege? that the isdom and efficacy of the la to carry out its o!6ecti$es appear to us to !e plainly e$ident K as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate !ut actually necessary K and that in

any case such matter falls ithin the prerogati$e of the Legislature, ith hose po er and discretion the Judicial department of the Go$ernment may not interfere? that the pro$isions of the la are clearly em!raced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected? and that it cannot !e said to !e $oid for supposed conflict ith treaty o!ligations !ecause no treaty has actually !een entered into on the su!6ect and the police po er may not !e curtailed or surrendered !y any treaty or any other con$entional agreement# 2he 2reaty of Amity !et een the -epu!lic of the Philippines and the -epu!lic of China of April 0*, 0:FG is also claimed to !e $iolated !y the la in 8uestion# All that the treaty guarantees is e8uality of treatment to the Chinese nationals Cupon the same terms as the nationals of any other country#C 9ut the nationals of China are not discriminated against !ecause nationals of all other countries, e&cept those of the /nited States, ho are granted special rights !y the Constitution, are all prohi!ited from engaging in the retail trade# 9ut e$en supposing that the la infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is al ays su!6ect to 8ualification or amendment !y a su!se8uent la , and the same may ne$er curtail or restrict the scope of the police po er of the State#

'on!al s vs$ H chanova 9 SCRA (3# Facts> -espondent e&ecuti$e secretary authori7ed importation of )G,=== tons of foreign rice to !e purchased from pri$ate sources# -amon A# Gon7ales, a rice planter and president of ilo-ilo palay and corn planters asso#, filed and a$erring that in ma<ing or attempting to ma<e importation of foreign rice are acting ithout 6urisdiction or in e&cess of 6urisdiction !ecause -A 11=G, e&plicitly prohi!its the importation of rice and corn !y -ice and Corn Administration or any go$ernment agency# Issue> .hether an international agreement may !e in$alidated !y our courts# +eld> 2he po er of 6udicial re$ie is $ested ith the supreme court in consonace to section 1 art# ;III of the constitution# the alleged consummation of the contracts ith $ietnam and !urma does not render this case academic# -A 11=G, en6oins our go$ernment not from entering contracts for the purchase of rice, !ut from entering rice, e&cept under conditions prescri!ed in said act# A 6udicial declaration of illegality of the proposed importation ould not compel our go$ernment to default in the performance of such o!ligations as it mat ha$e contracted ith the sellers of rice in 8uestion !ecause aside from the fact that said o!ligations may !e

complied ithout importing the said commodity into the phils#, the proposed importation may still !e legali7ed !y complying ith the pro$isions of the aforementioned la #

In R 'arcia ( SCRA 985

Facts> Arturo %# Garcia,has applied for admission to the practice of la in the phils# ithout su!mitting to the re8uired !ar e&aminations# In his $erified petition, he a$ers among others that he is a filipino citi7en !orn in !acolod city of filipino parentage# +e finished 9achillerato Superior in spain# +e as allo ed to practice la profession in spain under the pro$ision of the treaty on academic degrees and the e&ercise of profession !et een the repu!lic of the phils# Issue> .hether treaty can modify regulations go$erning admission to the phil# !ar# +eld> 2he court resol$ed to deny the petition# 2he pro$ision of the treaty on academic degrees !et een the repu!lic of the phils# and spanish state cannot !e in$o<ed !y the applicant# said treaty as intende to go$ern filipino citi7ens desiring to practice their profession in spain# 2he treaty could not ha$e !een intended to modify the la s and regulations go$erning admission to the practice of la in the phils#, for the reason the e&ecuti$e may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogati$e of the supreme court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of the la in the phils# 2he po er to repeal, alter or supplement such rules !eing reser$ed only to the congress of the phils# P o)l v *ag+an" t$ Al" ,, Phil$ 13

%acts& In these t o cases DG#-# (os# FA*:1 and FA*:3E, the appellants 2ran8uilino Lagman and Primiti$o de Sosa are charged ith a $iolation of section )= of Common ealth Act (o# 0, <no n as the (ational Lefense La # It is alleged that these t o appellants, !eing Filipinos and ha$ing reached the age of t enty years in 0:3), illfully and unla fully refused to register in the military ser$ice !et een the 0st and Gth of April of said year, not ithstanding the fact that they had !een re8uired to do so# 2he e$idence sho s that these t o appellants ere duly notified !y the corresponding authorities to appear !efore the Acceptance 9oard in order to register for military ser$ice in accordance ith la , and that the said appellants, in spite of these notices, had not registered up to the date of filing of the information# 2he appellants do not deny these facts, !ut they allege in defense that they ha$e not registered in the military ser$ice !ecause Primiti$o de Sosa is fatherless and has a mother and a !rother eight years old to support, and 2ran8uilino Lagman also has a father to support, has no military leanings, and does not ish to <ill or !e <illed# %ach of these appellants as sentenced !y the Court of First Instance to one month and one day of imprisonment, ith the costs# In this instance, the $alidity of the (ational Lefense La , under hich the accused ere sentenced, is impugned on the ground that it is unconstitutional# H ld& 2he Court held that 2he (ational Lefense La , in so far as it esta!lishes compulsory military ser$ice, does not go against this constitutional pro$ision !ut is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance there ith# 2he duty of the Go$ernment to defend the State cannot !e performed e&cept through an army# 2o lea$e the organi7ation of an army to the ill of the citi7ens ould !e to ma<e this duty of the Go$ernment e&cusa!le should there

!e no sufficient men ho $olunteer to enlist therein# 2he right of the Go$ernment to re8uire compulsory military ser$ice is a conse8uence of its duty to defend the State and is reciprocal ith its duty to defend the life, li!erty, and property of the citi7en# In the case of Jaco!son $s# "assachusetts D0:G /#S#, 00? 1A Sup# Ct# -ep#, 3*AE, it as said that, ithout $iolating the Constitution, a person may !e compelled !y force, if need !e, against his ill, against his pecuniary interests, and e$en against his religious or political con$ictions, to ta<e his place in the ran<s of the army of this country, and ris< the chance of !eing shot do n in its defense# In the case of /nited States $s# 'lson D1A3 Fe!#, 133E, it as also said that this is not depri$ation of property ithout due process of la , !ecause, in its 6ust sense, there is no right of property to an office or employment# 2he circumstance that these decisions refer to la s enacted !y reason of the actual e&istence of ar does not ma<e our case any different, inasmuch as, in the last analysis, hat 6ustifies compulsory military ser$ice is the defense of the State, hether actual or hether in preparation to ma<e it more effecti$e, in case of need# 2he circumstance that the appellants ha$e dependent families to support does not e&cuse them from their duty to present themsel$es !efore the Acceptance 9oard !ecause, if such circumstance e&ists, they can as< for deferment in complying ith their duty and, at all e$ents, they can o!tain the proper pecuniary allo ance to attend to these family responsi!ilities Dsecs# )A and ): of Common ealth Act (o# 0E# Agli)a- v$ Rui! G- FAFA:, 03 "arch 0:3G D)F Phil 1=0E First Li$ision, Laurel DpE> A concur#

%acts& In "ay 0:3), the Lirector of Posts announced in the dailies of "anila that he ould order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the cele!ration in the City of "anila of the 33rd International %ucharistic Congress, organi7ed !y the -oman Catholic Church# 2he petitioner, "ons# Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme +ead of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of hat he considers to !e a ci$ic duty, re8uested ;icente Sotto, %s8#, mem!er of the Philippine 9ar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines# In spite of the protest of the petitioner,s attorney, the Lirector of Posts pu!licly announced ha$ing sent to the /nited States the designs of the postage for printing# 2he said stamps ere actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold# 2he further sale of the stamps as sought to !e pre$ented !y the petitioner# Issu & .hether the issuance of the postage stamps as in $iolation of the Constitution# H ld& -eligious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not inhi!ition of profound re$erence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs# -eligion as a profession of faith to an acti$e po er that !inds and ele$ates man to his Creator is recogni7ed# And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated# .hen the Filipino people, in the pream!le of their Constitution, implored 4the aid of Li$ine Pro$idence, in order to esta!lish a go$ernment that shall em!ody their ideals, conser$e and de$elop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general elfare, and secure to themsel$es and their posterity the !lessings of independence under a regime of 6ustice, li!erty and democracy,5 they there!y manifested their intense religious nature and placed unfaltering reliance upon +im ho guides the destinies of men and nations# 2he ele$ating influence of religion in human society is recogni7ed here as else here#

Act F=A1 contemplates no religious purpose in $ie # .hat it gi$es the Lirector of Posts is the discretionary po er to determine hen the issuance of special postage stamps ould !e 4ad$antageous to the Go$ernment#5 'f course, the phrase 4ad$antageous to the Go$ernment5 does not authori7e the $iolation of the Constitution? i#e# to appropriate, use or apply of pu!lic money or property for the use, !enefit or support of a particular sect or church# In the case at !ar, the issuance of the postage stamps as not inspired !y any sectarian feeling to fa$or a particular church or religious denominations# 2he stamps ere not issued and sold for the !enefit of the -oman Catholic Church, nor ere money deri$ed from the sale of the stamps gi$en to that church# 2he purpose of the issuing of the stamps as to ta<e ad$antage of an e$ent considered of international importance to gi$e pu!licity to the Philippines and its people and attract more tourists to the country# 2hus, instead of sho ing a Catholic chalice, the stamp contained a map of the Philippines, the location of the City of "anila, and an inscription that reads 4Seat BBBIII International %ucharistic Congress, Fe!# 3-G, 0:3G#5 2he Supreme Court denied the petition for a rit of prohi!ition, to costs# ithout pronouncement as

. - r v$ / 0ras1a Facts of the Case> (e!ras<a, along ith other states, prohi!ited the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade school children# "eyer, ho taught German in a Lutheran school, as con$icted under this la #

Muestion> Loes the (e!ras<a statute $iolate the Fourteenth AmendmentIs Lue Process clauseH Conclusion> Jes, the (e!ras<a la is unconstitutional# (e!ras<a $iolated the li!erty protected !y due process of the Fourteenth Amendment# Li!erty means more than freedom from !odily restraint# State regulation of li!erty must !e reasona!ly related to a proper state o!6ecti$e# 2he legislatureIs $ie of reasona!leness as su!6ect to super$ision !y the courts# 2he legislati$e purpose of the la as to promote assimilation and ci$ic de$elopment# 9ut these purposes ere not ade8uate to 6ustify interfering ith "eyerIs li!erty to teach or the li!erty of parents to employ him during a Ctime of peace and domestic tran8uillity#C

Pi rc v$ Soci t- o2 Sist rs Facts of the Case> 2he Compulsory %ducation Act of 0:11 re8uired parents or guardians to send children !et een the ages of eight and si&teen to pu!lic school in the district here the children resided# 2he Society of Sisters as an 'regon corporation hich facilitated care for orphans, educated youths, and esta!lished and maintained academies or schools# 2his case as decided together ith Society of Sisters $# +ill "ilitary Academy# Muestion>

Lid the Act $iolate the li!erty of parents to direct the education of their childrenH Conclusion> Jes# 2he unanimous Court held that Cthe fundamental li!erty upon hich all go$ernments in this /nion repose e&cludes any general po er of the State to standardi7e its children !y forcing them to accept instruction from pu!lic teachers only#C

3)osa t al$ v$ %ulg ncio S$ %actoran" Jr$ t al 4'$R$ /o$ 1#1#835 Country>Philippines 2hematic focus>Lirecti$e Principles, %n$ironmental -ights, '!ligation to -espect, Standing Forum and Late of Lecision>Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 3=, 0::3 2o participate in the discussions a!out the case or share your comments or e&planation please 6oin> escr-6ustNyahoogroups#com

Nature of the case Class action see<ing the cancellation and non-issuance of tim!er licence agreements hich allegedly infringed the constitutional right to a !alanced and healthful ecology DSection 0)E? non-impairment of contracts? %n$ironmental la ? 6udicial re$ie and the political 8uestion doctrine? inter-generational responsi!ility? -emedial la > cause of action and standing? Lirecti$e principles? (egati$e o!ligation on State Summary An action as filed !y se$eral minors represented !y their parents against the Lepartment of %n$ironment and (atural -esources to cancel e&isting tim!er license agreements in the country and to stop issuance of ne ones# It as claimed that the resultant deforestation and damage to the en$ironment $iolated their constitutional rights to a !alanced and healthful ecology and to health DSections 0) and 0A, Article II of the ConstitutionE# 2he petitioners asserted that they represented others of their generation as ell as generations yet un!orn# Finding for the petitioners, the Court stated that e$en though the right to a !alanced and healthful ecology is under the Leclaration of Principles and State Policies of the Constitution and not under the 9ill of -ights, it does not follo that it is less important than any of the rights enumerated in the latter> [it] concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. 2he right is lin<ed to the constitutional right to health, is 4fundamental5, 4constitutionalised5, 4self-e&ecuting5 and 46udicially enforcea!le5# It imposes the correlati$e duty to refrain from impairing the en$ironment# 2he court stated that the petitioners ere a!le to file a class suit !oth for others of their

generation and for succeeding generations as the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. Significance of the case 2his case has !een idely-cited in 6urisprudence orld ide, particularly in cases relating to forestOtim!er licensing# +o e$er, the approach of the Philippino Supreme Court to economic, social and cultural rights has pro$ed some hat inconsistent, ith some 6udgments resulting in the enforcement of such rights De#g#, Lel -osario $ 9ang7on, 0*= SC-A A10 D0:*:E? Manila rince !otel v "overnment #ervice $nsurance #ystem, G# -# (o# 0110A) D3 Fe!ruary, 0::GE !ut at least one instance in hich the Court made a statement that economic, social and cultural rights are not real rights Dsee, %rigido #imon v &ommission on !uman 'ights, G# -# (o# 0==0A=, A January 0::FE#

6ASC3 7S PA'C3R 419915 48 l gation to *oc 'ov5 Facts> Petitioners filed the instant petition see<ing to annul PAGC'- Charter DPL 0*):E !ecause it is allegedly contrary to morals, pu!lic policy and order, and !ecause K a# It constitutes a ai$er of a right pre6udicial to a third person ith a right recogni7ed !y la # It ai$ed the "anila City go$ernmentIs right to impose ta&es and license fees, hich is recogni7ed !y la ?

!# For the same reason stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the la has intruded into the local go$ernmentIs right to impose local ta&es and license fees# 2his, in contra$ention of the constitutionally enshrined principle of local autonomy? c# It $iolates the e8ual protection clause of the constitution in that it legali7es PAGC'K conducted gam!ling, hile most other forms of gam!ling are outla ed, together ith prostitution, drug traffic<ing and other $ices? d# It $iolates the a$o ed trend of the Cory go$ernment a ay from monopolistic and crony economy, and to ard free enterprise and pri$ati7ation# Dp# 1, Amended Petition? p# G, -olloE ISS/% Drele$ant to ta&E> .'( the Charter has intruded into the local go$ernment,s right to impose ta&es and license fees +eldO-atio> ('Petitioners contend that the e&emption clause in P#L# 0*): is $iolati$e of the principle of local autonomy# 2hey must !e referring to Section 03 par# D1E of P#L# 0*): hich e&empts PAGC'-, as the franchise holder from paying any Cta& of any <ind or form, income or other ise, as ell as fees, charges or le$ies of hate$er nature, hether (ational or Local#C 2heir contention is ithout merit for the follo ing reasons> DaE 2he City of "anila, !eing a mere "unicipal corporation has no inherent right to impose ta&es# 2hus, Cthe Charter or statute must plainly sho an intent to confer that po er or the municipality cannot assume it#5 Its Cpo er to ta&C therefore must al ays yield

to a legislati$e act hich is superior ha$ing !een passed upon !y the state itself the Cinherent po er to ta&C

hich has

D!E 2he Charter of the City of "anila is su!6ect to control !y Congress# It should !e stressed that Cmunicipal corporations are mere creatures of CongressC hich has the po er to Ccreate and a!olish municipal corporationsC due to its Cgeneral legislati$e po ers#C Congress, therefore, has the po er of control o$er Local go$ernments# And if Congress can grant the City of "anila the po er to ta& certain matters, it can also pro$ide for e&emptions or e$en ta<e !ac< the po er# DcE 2he City of "anilaIs po er to impose license fees on gam!ling, has long !een re$o<ed# As early as 0:GA, the po er of local go$ernments to regulate gam!ling thru the grant of Cfranchise, licenses or permitsC as ithdra n !y P#L# (o# GG0 and as $ested e&clusi$ely on the (ational Go$ernment# 2herefore, only the (ational Go$ernment has the po er to issue Clicenses or permitsC for the operation of gam!ling# (ecessarily, the po er to demand or collect license fees hich is a conse8uence of the issuance of licenses or permitsC is no longer $ested in the City of "anila# DdE S/P-%"ACJ of (A2I'(AL G';2# Local go$ernments ha$e no po er to ta& instrumentalities of the (ational Go$ernment# PAGC'- is a go$ernment o ned or controlled corporation ith an original charter, PL 0*):# All of its shares of stoc<s are o ned !y the (ational Go$ernment#

PAGC'- has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gam!ling casinos# 2he latter role is go$ernmental, hich places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Go$ernment# 9eing an instrumentality of the Go$ernment, PAGC'- should !e and actually is e&empt from local ta&es# 'ther ise, its operation might !e !urdened, impeded or su!6ected to control !y a mere Local go$ernment# DeE Petitioners also argue that the Local Autonomy Clause of the Constitution ill !e $iolated !y P#L# 0*):# 2his is a pointless argument# Article B of the 0:*G Constitution Don Local AutonomyE pro$ides>Sec# A# %ach local go$ernment unit shall ha$e the po er to create its o n source of re$enue and to le$y ta&es, fees, and other charges su!6ect to such guidelines and limitation as the congress may pro$ide, consistent ith the !asic policy on local autonomy# Such ta&es, fees and charges shall accrue e&clusi$ely to the local go$ernment Demphasis suppliedE 2he po er of local go$ernment to Cimpose ta&es and feesC is al ays su!6ect to ClimitationsC hich Congress may pro$ide !y la # Since PL 0*): remains an Coperati$eC la until Camended, repealed or re$o<edC DSec# 3, Art# B;III, 0:*G ConstitutionE, its Ce&emption clauseC remains as an e&ception to the e&ercise of the po er of local go$ernments to impose ta&es and fees# It cannot therefore !e $iolati$e !ut rather is consistent ith the principle of local autonomy#

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-2662 March 26, 1949

SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner, vs. Ma or G!"!ra# RA$AEL %ALANDONI, &r'(a)'!r G!"!ra# CALI*TO DU+UE, Co#o"!# MARGARITO TORAL&A, Co#o"!# IRENEO &UENCONSE%O, Co#o"!# PEDRO TA&UENA, Ma or $EDERICO ARANAS, MEL,ILLE S. HUSSE- a") RO&ERT PORT, respondents. Pedro Serran, Jose G. Lukban, and Liberato B. Cinco for petitioner. Fred Ruiz Castro Federico Arenas Mariano Yen co, Jr., Ricardo A. Arci!!a and S. Me!"i!!e #usse$ for respondents. MORAN, C.J.. Shigenori Kuroda, for erl! a "ieutenant#$eneral of the %apanese & perial Ar ! and Co anding $eneral of the %apanese & perial 'orces in (he Philippines during a period covering )*+,, and )*+++ -ho is no- charged before a ilitar! Co ission convened b! the Chief of Staff of the Ar ed forces of the Philippines -ith having unla-full! disregarded and failed .to discharge his duties as such co and, per itting the to co it brutal atrocities and other high cri es against nonco batant civilians and prisoners of the & perial %apanese 'orces in violation of the la-s and custo s of -ar. / co es before this Court see0ing to establish the illegalit! of E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 of the President of the Philippines5 to en6oin and prohibit respondents Melville S. 7usse! and Robert Port fro participating in the prosecution of petitioner8s case before the Militar! Co ission and to per anentl! prohibit respondents fro proceeding -ith the case of petitioners. &n support of his case petitioner tenders the follo-ing principal argu ents. First. / .(hat E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 is illegal on the ground that it violates not onl! the provision of our constitutional la- but also our local la-s to sa! nothing of the fact 9that: the Philippines is not a signator! nor an adherent to the 7ague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering "and ;arfare and therefore petitioners is charged of 8cri es8 not based on la-, national and international.. 7ence petitioner argues / .(hat in vie- off the fact that this co ission has been e panelled b! virtue of an unconstitutional la- an illegal order this co ission is -ithout 6urisdiction to tr! herein petitioner..

Second. / (hat the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitioner before the Co ission in behalf of the <nited State of A erica of attorne!s Melville 7usse! and Robert Port -ho are not attorne!s authori=ed b! the Supre e Court to practice la- in the Philippines is a di inution of our personalit! as an independent state and their appoint ent as prosecutor are a violation of our Constitution for the reason that the! are not >ualified to practice la- in the Philippines. %&ird. / (hat Attorne!s 7usse! and Port have no personalit! as prosecution the <nited State not being a part! in interest in the case. E1ecutive 2rder No. 34, establishing a National ;ar Cri es 2ffice prescribing rule and regulation governing the trial of accused -ar cri inals, -as issued b! the President of the Philippines on the ?*th da!s of %ul!, )*+@ (his Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional. Article ? of our Constitution provides in its section ,, that / (he Philippines renounces -ar as an instru ent of national polic! and adopts the generall! accepted principles of international la- as part of the of the nation. &n accordance -ith the generall! accepted principle of international la- of the present da! including the 7ague Convention the $eneva Convention and significant precedents of international 6urisprudence established b! the <nited Nation all those person ilitar! or civilian -ho have been guilt! of planning preparing or -aging a -ar of aggression and of the co ission of cri es and offenses conse>uential and incidental thereto in violation of the la-s and custo s of -ar, of hu anit! and civili=ation are held accountable therefor. Conse>uentl! in the pro ulgation and enforce ent of E1ecution 2rder No. 34 the President of the Philippines has acted in confor it! -ith the generall! accepted and policies of international la- -hich are part of the our Constitution. (he pro ulgation of said e1ecutive order is an e1ercise b! the President of his po-er as Co ander in chief of all our ar ed forces as upheld b! this Court in the case of Aa ashita "s. St!er 9"#)?*, +? 2ff. $a=., 33+: 1 -hen -e said /

;ar is not ended si pl! because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of ar ed hostilities incident of -ar a! re ain pending -hich should be disposed of as in ti e of -ar. An i portance incident to a conduct of -ar is the adoption of easure b! the ilitar! co and not onl! to repel and defeat the ene ies but to sei=e and sub6ect to disciplinar! easure those ene ies -ho in their atte pt to th-art or i pede our ilitar! effort have violated the la- of -ar. 9'( parte Buirin ,)@ <.S., )C 3, Sup. Ct., ?.: &ndeed the po-er to create a ilitar! co ission for the trial and punish ent of -ar cri inals is an aspect of -aging -ar. And in the language of a -riter a ilitar! co ission has 6urisdiction so long as a technical state of -ar continues. (his includes the period of an ar istice or ilitar! occupation up to the effective of a treat! of peace and a! e1tend be!ond b! treat! agree ent. 9Co-les %ria! of )ar Cri inals b! Militar!

(ribunals, A erica Bar Association %ournal %une, )*++.: Conse>uentl!, the President as Co ander in Chief is full! e po-ered to consu ate this unfinished aspect of -ar na el! the trial and punish ent of -ar cri inal through the issuance and enforce ent of E1ecutive 2rder No. 34. Petitioner argues that respondent Militar! Co ission has no %urisdiction to tr! petitioner for acts co itted in violation of the 7ague Convention and the $eneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signator! to the first and signed the second onl! in )*+@. &t cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the 7ague and $eneva conventions for , part of and are -holl! based on the generall! accepted principals of international la-. &n facts these rules and principles -ere accepted b! the t-o belligerent nation the <nited State and %apan -ho -ere signatories to the t-o Convention, Such rule and principles therefore for part of the la- of our nation even if the Philippines -as not a signator! to the conventions e bod!ing the for our Constitution has been deliberatel! general and e1tensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international la- as continued inn treaties to -hich our govern ent a! have been or shall be a signator!. 'urther ore -hen the cri es charged against petitioner -ere allegedl! co itted the Philippines -as under the sovereignt! of <nited States and thus -e -ere e>uall! bound together -ith the <nited States and -ith %apan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties bet-een the belligerent countries. (hese rights and obligation -ere not erased b! our assu ption of full sovereignt!. &f at all our e ergenc! as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on our o-n of tr!ing and punishing those -ho co itted cri es against cri es against our people. &n this connection it is -ell to re e ber -hat -e have said in the case of Laure! "s. Misa 9@3 Phil., ,@?:5 . . . (he change of our for govern ent fro Co on-ealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of those charged -ith the cri e of treason co itted during then Co on-ealth because it is an offense against the sa e sovereign people. . . . B! the sa e to0en -ar cri es co itted against our people and our govern ent -hile -e -ere a Co on-ealth are triable and punishable b! our present Republic. Petitioner challenges the participation of t-o A erican attorne!s na el! Melville S. 7usse! and Robert Port in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorne!8s are not >ualified to practice la- in Philippines in accordance -ith our Rules of court and the appoint ent of said attorne!s as prosecutors is violative of our

national sovereignt!. &n the first place respondent Militar! Co ission is a special ilitar! tribunal governed b! a special la- and not b! the Rules of court -hich govern ordinar! civil court. &t has alread! been sho-n that E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 -hich provides for the organi=ation of such ilitar! co ission is a valid and constitutional la-. (here is nothing in said e1ecutive order -hich re>uires that counsel appearing before said co ission ust be attorne!s >ualified to practice la- in the Philippines in accordance -ith the Rules of Court. &n facts it is co on in ilitar! tribunals that counsel for the parties are usuall! ilitar! personnel -ho are neither attorne!s nor even possessed of legal training. Secondl! the appoint ent of the t-o A erican attorne!s is not violative of our nation sovereignt!. &t is onl! fair and proper that <nited States, -hich has sub itted the vindication of cri es against her govern ent and her people to a tribunal of our nation should be allo-ed representation in the trial of those ver! cri es. &f there has been an! relin>uish ent of sovereignt! it has not been b! our govern ent but b! the <nited State $overn ent -hich has !ielded to us the trial and punish ent of her ene ies. (he least that -e could do in the spirit of co it! is to allo- the representation in said trials. Alleging that the <nited State is not a part! in interest in the case petitioner challenges the personalit! of attorne!s 7usse! and Port as prosecutors. &t is of co on 0no-ledge that the <nited State and its people have been e>uall! if not ore greatl! aggrieved b! the cri es -ith -hich petitioner stands charged before the Militar! Co ission. &t can be considered a privilege for our Republic that a leader nation should sub it the vindication of the honor of its citi=ens and its govern ent to a ilitar! tribunal of our countr!. (he Militar! Co ission having been convened b! virtue of a valid la- -ith 6urisdiction over the cri es charged -hich fall under the provisions of E1ecutive 2rder No. 34, and having said petitioner in its custod!, this Court -ill not interfere -ith the due process of such Militar! co ission. 'or all the foregoing the petition is denied -ith costs de oficio. Paras, Feria, Pab!o, Ben zon, %uason, Monte*a$or and Re$es, JJ., concur.

S!/ara0! O/'"'o"1 PER$ECTO, J., dissenting5 A ilitar! co ission -as e panelled on Dece ber ), )*+4 to tr! "t. $en. Shigenori Kuroda for Eiolation of the la-s and custo s of land -arfare. Melville S. 7usse! and Robert Port, A erican citi=ens and not authori=ed b! the Supre e Court to practice la- -ere appointed prosecutor representing the A erican C&C in the trial of the case. (he co ission -as e panelled under the authorit! of E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 of the President of the Philippines the validit! of -hich is challenged b! petitioner on constitutional grounds. Petitioner has also challenged the personalit! of Attorne!s 7usse! and Port to appear as prosecutors before the co ission. (he charges against petitioner has been filed since %une ?3, )*+4 in the na e of the people of the Philippines as accusers. ;e -ill consideration briefl! the challenge against the appearance of Attorne!s 7usse! and Port. &t appearing that the! are aliens and have not been authori=ed b! the Supre e Court to practice la- there could not be an! >uestion that said person cannot appear as prosecutors in petitioner case as -ith such appearance the! -ould be practicing la- against the la-. Said violation vanishes ho-ever into insignificance at the side of the o entous >uestion involved in the challenge against the validit! of E1ecutive 2rder No. 34. Said order is challenged on several constitutional ground. (o get a clear idea of the >uestion raised it is necessar! to read the -hole conte1t of said order -hich is reproduced as follo-s5 EFEC<(&EE 2RDER N2. 34. ES(AB"&S7&N$ A NA(&2NA" ;AR CR&MES 2''&CE AND PRESCR&B&N$ R<"ES AND RE$<"A(&2N $2EERN&N$ (7E (R&A" 2' ACC<SED ;AR CR&M&NA". &, Manuel Ro1as president of the Philippines b! virtue of the po-er vested in e b! the Constitution and la-s of the Philippines do hereb! establish a National ;ar Cri es 2ffice

charged -ith the responsibilit! of acco plishing the speed! trial of all %apanese accused of -ar cri es co itted in the Philippines and prescribe the rules and regulation such trial. (he National ;ar cri es office is established -ithin the office of the %udge Advocate $eneral of the Ar ! of the Philippines and shall function under the direction supervision and control of the %udge Advocate $eneral. &t shall proceed to collect fro all available sources evidence of -ar cri es co itted in the Philippines fro the co ence ent of hostilities b! %apan in Dece ber )*+), aintain a record thereof and bring about the pro pt trial aintain a record thereof and bring about the pro pt trial of the accused. (he National ;ar Cri es 2ffice shall aintain direct liaison -ith the "egal Section $eneral 7ead>uarters, Supre e Co ander for the Allied po-er and shall e1change -ith the said 2ffice infor ation and evidence of -ar cri es. (he follo-ing rules and regulation shall govern the trial off person accused as -ar cri inals5 ES(AB"&S7MEN( 2' M&"&(ARA C2MM&SS&2NS 9a: Genera!. / person accused as -ar cri inal shall be tried b! convened b! or under the authorit! of the Philippines. &&. %<R&SD&C(&2N 9a: +"er Person. / (hee ilitar! co ission appointed hereunder shall have 6urisdiction over all persons charged -ith -ar cri es -ho are in the custod! of the convening authorit! at the ti e of the trial. 9b: +"er +ffenses. / (he ilitar! co ission established hereunder shall have 6urisdiction over all offenses including but not li ited to the follo-ing5 9): (he planning preparation initiation or -aging of a -ar of aggression or a -ar in violation of international treaties agree ent or assurance or participation in a co on plan or conspirac! for the acco plish ent of an! of the foregoing. ilitar! co ission to be

9?: Eiolation of the la-s or custo s of -ar. Such violation shall include but not be li ited to urder ill#treat ent or deportation to slave labor or for other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territor!C urder or ill#treat ent of prisoners of -ar or internees or person on the seas or else-hereC i proper treat ent of hostageC plunder of public or private propert! -anton destruction of cities to-ns or villageC or devastation not 6ustified b! ilitar! necessit!. 9,: Murder e1ter ination enslave ent deportation and other inhu an acts co itted against civilian population before or during the -ar or persecution on political racial or religion ground in e1ecutive of or in connection -ith an! cri e defined herein -hether or not in violation of the local la-s. &&&. MEMBERS7&P 2' C2MM&SS&2NS 9a: Appoint*ent. / (he e bers of each ilitar! co ission shall be appointed b! the President of the Philippines or under authorit! delegated b! hi . Alternates a! be appointed b! the convening authorit!. Such shall attend all session of the co ission, and in case of illness or other incapacit! of an! principal e ber, an alternate shall ta0e the place of that e ber. An! vacanc! a ong the e bers or alternates, occurring after a trial has begun, a! be filled b! the convening authorit! but the substance of all proceeding had evidence ta0en in that case shall be ade 0no-n to the said ne- e ber or alternate. (his facts shall be announced b! the president of the co ission in open court. 9b: ,u*ber of Me*bers. / Each co ission shall consist of not less than three 9,: e bers.

9c: -ua!ifications. / (he convening authorit! shall appoint to the co ission persons -ho he deter ines to be co petent to perfor the duties involved and not dis>ualified b! personal interest or pre6udice, provided that no person shall be appointed to hear a case in -hich he personall! investigated or -herein his presence as a -itness is re>uired. 2ne speciall! >ualified e ber -hose ruling is final in so far as concerns the co ission on an ob6ection to the ad issibilit! of evidence offered during the trial. 9d: .otin . / E1cept as to the ad issibilit! of evidence all rulings and finding of the Co ission shall be b! a6orit! vote e1cept that conviction and sentence shall be b! the affir ative vote of not less than conviction and sentence shall be b! the affir ative vote of not

less than t-o#thirds 9?G,: of the

e ber present.

9e: Presidin Me*ber. / &n the event that the convening authorit! does not na e one of the e ber as the presiding e ber, the senior officer a ong the e ber of the Co ission present shall preside. &E. PR2SEC<(2RS 9a: Appoint*ent. / (he convening authorit! shall designate one or prosecution before each co ission. 9b: /uties. / (he duties of the prosecutor are5 9): (o prepare and present charges and specifications for reference to a co 9?: (o prepare cases for trial and to conduct the prosecution before the co referred for trial. E. P2;ER AND PR2CED<RE 2' C2MM&SS&2N 9a: Conduct of t&e %ria!. / A Co ission shall5 ission. ission of all cases ore person to conduct the

9): Confine each trial strictl! to fair and e1peditious hearing on the issues raised b! the charges, e1cluding irrelevant issues or evidence and preventing an! unnecessar! dela! or interference. 9?: Deal su therefor. aril! -ith an! contu ac! or conte pt, i posing an! appropriate punish ent ission. a! be directed b! the

9,: 7old public session -hen other-ise decided b! the co

9+: 7old each session at such ti e and place as it shall deter ine, or as convening authorit!. 9b: Ri &ts of t&e Accused. / (he accused shall be entitled5

9): (o have in advance of the trial a cop! of the charges and specifications clearl! -orded so as to apprise the accused of each offense charged. 9?: (o be represented, prior to and during trial, b! counsel appointed b! the convening authorit! or counsel of his o-n choice, or to conduct his o-n defense. 9,: (o testif! in his o-n behalf and have his counsel present relevant evidence at the trial in support of his defense, and cross#e1a ine each adverse -itness -ho personall! appears before the co ission. 9+: (o have the substance of the charges and specifications, the proceedings and an! docu entar! evidence translated, -hen he is unable other-ise to understand the . 9c: )itnesses. / (he Co ission shall have po-er5

9): (o su on -itnesses and re>uire their attendance and testi on!C to ad inister oaths or affir ations to -itnesses and other persons and to >uestion -itnesses. 9?: (o re>uire the production of docu ents and other evidentiar! aterial.

9,: (o delegate the Prosecutors appointed b! the convening authorit! the po-ers and duties set forth in 9): and 9?: above. 9+: (o have evidence ta0en b! a special co 9d: '"idence. 9): (he co ission shall ad it such evidence as in its opinion shall be of assistance in proving or disproving the charge, or such as in the co ission8s opinion -ould have probative value in the ind of a reasonable an. (he co ission shall appl! the rules of evidence and pleading set forth herein -ith the greatest liberalit! to achieve e1peditious procedure. &n particular, and -ithout li iting in an! -a! the scope of the foregoing general rules, the follo-ing evidence a! be ad itted5 issioner appointed b! the co ission.

9a: An! docu ent, irrespective of its classification, -hich appears to the co ission to have been signed or issued b! an! officer, depart ent, agenc! or e ber of the ar ed forces of an! $overn ent -ithout proof of the signature or of the issuance of the docu ent. 9b: An! report -hich appears to the co ission to have been signed or issued b! the &nternational Red Cross or a e ber of an! edical service personnel, or b! an! investigator or intelligence officer, or b! an! other person -ho co ission considers as possessing 0no-ledge of the atters contained in the report. 9c: Affidavits, depositions or other signed state ents. 9d: An! diar!, letter to other docu ent, including s-orn state ents, appearing to the co to contain infor ation relating to the charge. ission

9e: A cop! of an! docu ent or other secondar! evidence of the contents, if the original is not i ediatel! available. 9?: (he co ission shall ta0e 6udicial notice of facts of co on 0no-ledge, official govern ent docu ents of an! nation, and the proceedings, records and findings of ilitar! or other agencies of an! of the <nited Nation. 9,: A co ission a! re>uire the prosecution and the defense to a0e a preli inar! offer of proof -hereupon the co ission a! rule in advance on the ad issibilit! of such evidence. 9+: (he official position of the accused shall not absolve hi fro responsibilit! nor be considered in itigation of punish ent. 'urther action pursuant to an order of the accused8s superior, or of his $overn ent, shall not constitute a defense, but a! be considered in itigation of punish ent if the co ission deter ines that 6ustice so re>uires. 9H: All purposed confessions or state ents of the accused shall bee ad issible in evidence -ithout an! sho-ing that the! -ere voluntaril! ade. &f it is sho-n that such confession or state ent -as procured b! ean -hich the co ission believe to have been of such a character that a! have caused the accused to a0e a false state ent the co ission a! stri0e out or

disregard an! such portion thereof as -as so procured. 9e: %ria! Procedure. / (he proceedings of each trial shall be conducted substantiall! as follo-s unless odified b! the co ission to suit the particular circu stances5 9): Each charge and specification shall be read or its substance stated in open court. 9?: (he presiding e ber shall as0 each accused -hether he pleads .$uilt!. or .Not guilt!..

9,: (he prosecution shall a0e its opening state ent..9+: (he presiding e ber a! at this or an! other ti e re>uire the prosecutor to state -hat evidence he proposes to sub it to the co ission and the co ission thereupon a! rule upon the ad issibilit! of such evidence. 9+: (he -itnesses and other evidence for the prosecution shall be heard or presented. At the close of the case for the prosecution, the co ission a!, on otion of the defense for a finding of not guilt!, consider and rule -hether he evidence before the co ission a! defer action on an! such otion and per it or re>uire the prosecution to reopen its case and produce an! further available evidence. 9H: (he defense a! a0e an opening state ent prior to presenting its case. (he presiding e ber a!, at this an! other ti e re>uire the defense to state -hat evidence it proposes to sub it to the co ission -here upon the co ission a! rule upon the ad issibilit! of such evidence. 93: (he -itnesses and other evidence for the defense shall be heard or presented. (hereafter, the prosecution and defense a! introduce such evidence in rebuttal as the co ission a! rule as being ad issible. 9@: (he defense and thereafter the prosecution shall address the co ission.

94: (he co ission thereafter shall consider the case in closed session and unless other-ise directed b! the convening authorit!, announce in open court its 6udg ent and sentence if an!. (he co ission a! state the reason on -hich 6udg ent is based.

9 f : Record of Proceedin s. / Each co ission shall a0e a separate record of its proceeding in the trial of each case brought before it. (he record shall be prepared b! the prosecutor under the direction of the co ission and sub itted to the defense counsel. (he co ission shall be responsible for its accurac!. Such record, certified b! the presiding e ber of the co ission or his successor, shall be delivered to the convening authorit! as soon as possible after the trial. 9 : Sentence. / (he co ission a! sentence an accused, upon conviction to death b! hanging or shooting, i prison ent for life or for an! less ter , fine or such other punish ent as the co ission shall deter ine to be proper. 9&: Appro"a! of Sentence. / No. sentence of a ilitar! co ission shall be carried into effect until approved b! the chief off Staff5 Provided, (hat no sentence of death or life i prison ent shall be carried into e1ecution until confir ed b! the President of the Philippines. 'or the purpose of his revie- the Chief of Staff shall create a Board of Revie- to be co posed of not ore than three officers none of -ho shall be on dut! -ith or assigned to the %udge Advocate $eneral8s 2ffice. (he Chief of Staff shall have authorit! to approve, itigate re it in -hole or in part, co ute, suspend, reduce or other-ise alter the sentence i posed, or 9-ithout pre6udice to the accused: re and the case for rehearing before a ne- ilitar! co issionC but he shall not have authorit! to increase the severit! of the sentence. E1cept as herein other-ise provided the 6udg ent and sentence of a co ission shall final and not sub6ect to revie- b! an! other tribunal. E&. R<"E#MAK&N$ P2;ER Supp!e*entar$ Ru!e and For*s. / Each co ission shall adopt rules and for s to govern its procedure, not inconsistent -ith the provision of this 2rder, or such rules and for s as a! be prescribed b! the convening authorit!Ior b! the President of the Philippines. E&&. (he a ount of a ount of seven hundred thousand pesos is hereb! set aside out of the appropriations for the Ar ! of the Philippines for use b! the National ;ar Cri es 2ffice in the acco plish ent of its ission as hereinabove set forth, and shall be e1pended in accordance -ith the reco endation of the %udge Advocate $eneral as approved b! the President. (he buildings, fi1tures, installations, essing, and billeting e>uip ent and other propert! herefore used b! then "egal Section, Manila Branch, of the $eneral 7ead>uarters, Supre e Co ander

for the Allied Po-er, -hich -ill be turned over b! the <nited States Ar ! to the Philippines $overn ent through the 'oreign "i>uidation Co ission and the Surplus Propert! Co ission are hereb! specification reserved for use off the National ;ar Cri es 2ffice. E1ecutive 2rder No. 3+, dated August )3, )*+H, is hereb! repealed. Done in the Cit! of Manila, this ?*th da! of %ul! in the !ear of 2ur "ord, nineteen hundred and fort!#seven, and of the &ndependence of the Philippines, the second.
MAN<E" R2FAS President of t&e P&i!ippines

B! the President5 EM&"&2 ABE""2 C&ief of t&e '(ecuti"e +ffice EFEC<(&EE "E$&S"A(&2N E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 is a veritable piece of "egislative enact ent. easure, -ithout the benefit of congressional

(he first >uestion that is trust at our face spearheading a group of other no less i portant >uestion, is -hether or not the President of the Philippines a! e1ercise the legislative po-er e1pressl! vested in Congress b! the Constitution. . (he Constitution provides5 (he "egislative po-ers shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines -hich shall consist of a Senate and 7ouse of Representatives. 9Section ), Article E&.: ;hile there is no e1press provision in the funda ental la- prohibiting the e1ercise of legislative po-er b! agencies other than Congress, a reading of the -hole conte1t of the Constitution -ould dispel an! doubt as to the constitutional intent that the legislative po-er is to be e1ercised e1clusivel! b! Congress, sub6ect onl! to

the veto po-er of the President of the President of the Philippines, to the specific provision -hich allo- the president of the Philippines to suspend the privileges of the -rit of habeas corpus and to place an! part of the Philippines under artial la-, and to the rule# a0ing po-er e1pressl! vested b! the Constitution in the Supre e Court. (here cannot be an! >uestion that the e ber of the Constitutional Convention -ere believers in the tripartite s!ste of govern ent as originall! enunciated b! Aristotle, further elaborated b! Monte>uieu and accepted and practiced b! odern de ocracies, especiall! the <nited State of A erica, -hose Constitution, after -hich ours has been patterned, has allocated the three po-er of govern ent / legislative, e1ecutive, 6udicial / to distinct and separate depart ent of govern ent. Because the po-er vested b! our Constitution to the several depart ent of the govern ent are in the nature of grants, not recognition of pre#e1isting po-er, no depart ent of govern ent a! e1ercise an! po-er or authorit! not e1pressl! granted b! the Constitution or b! la- b! virtue e1press authorit! of the Constitution. E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 establishes a National ;ar Cri es 2ffice and the po-er to establish govern ent office is essentiall! legislative. (he order provides that person accused as -ar cri inals shall be tried b! ilitar! co issions. ;hether such a provision is substantive or ad6ective, it is clearl! legislative in nature. &t confers upon ilitar! co issions 6urisdiction to tr! all persons charge -ith -ar cri es. (he po-er to define and allocate 6urisdiction for the prosecution of person accused of an! cri e is e1clusivel! vested b! the Constitution in Congress. . &t provides rules of procedure for the conduct of trial of trial. (his provision on procedural sub6ect constitutes a usurpation of the rule# a0ing po-er vested b! Constitution in the Supre e Court. &t authori=ed ilitar! co ission to adopt additional rule of procedure. &f the President of the Philippines cannot e1ercise the rule # a0ing po-er vested b! the Constitution in the Supre e Court, he cannot, -ith ore reason, delegate that po-er to ilitar! co ission. &t appropriates the su of P@JJJ,JJJ for the e1penses of the National ;ar Cri es office established b! the said E1ecutive 2rder No. 34. (his constitutes another usurpation of legislative po-er as the po-er to vote appropriations belongs to Congress.

E1ecutive 2rder No. 34., is, therefore, null and void, because, though it the President of the Philippines usurped po-er e1pressl! vested b! the Constitution in Congress and in the Supre e Court. Challenged to sho- the constitutional or legal authorit! under -hich the President issued E1ecutive 2rder No. 34, respondent could not give an! definite ans-er. (he! atte pted, ho-ever, to suggest that the President of the Philippines issued E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 under the e ergenc! po-er granted to hi b! Co on-ealth Act No. 3JJ, as a ended b! Co on-ealth Act No. 3?J, and Co on-ealth Act No. 3@), both of -hich are transcribed belo-5

C2MM2N;EA"(7 AC( N2. 3JJ. AN AC( DEC"AR&N$ A S(A(E 2' EMER$ENCA AND A<(72R&K&N$ (7E PRES&DEN( (2 PR2M<"$A(E R<"ES AND RE$<"A(&2N (2 SA'E$<ARD (7E &N(E$R&(A 2' (7E P7&"&PP&NES AND (2 &NS<RE (7E (RANB<&"&(A 2' &(S &N7AB&(AN(S. Be it enacted b$ t&e ,ationa! Asse*b!$ of t&e P&i!ippines0 SEC(&2N ). (he e1istence of -ar in an! parts of the -orld has created a national e ergenc! -hich a0es it necessar! to invest the President of the Philippines -ith e1traordinar! po-er in order to safeguard the integrit! of the Philippines and to insure the tran>uilit! of its inhabitants, b! suppressing espionage, la-lessness, and all subversive to the people ade>uate shelter and clothing and sufficient food suppl!, and b! providing eans for the speed! evacuation of the civilian population the establish ent of an air protective service and the organi=ation of volunteer guard units, and to adopt such other easures as he a! dee necessar! for the interest of the public. (o carr! out this polic! the President is authori=ed to pro ulgate rules and regulations -hich shall have the force and effect off la- until the date of ad6ourn ent of the ne1t regulation -hich shall have the force and effect of la- until the date of ad6ourn ent of the ne1t regular session of the 'irst Congress of the Philippines, unless sooner a ended or repealed b! the Congress of Philippines. Such rules and regulation a! e brace the follo-ing ob6ects5 9): to suppress espionage and other subversive activitiesC 9?: to re>uire all able#bodied citi=ens 9 a: -hen not engaged in an! la-ful occupation, to engage in far ing or other productive activities or

9b: to perfor such services as a! bee necessar! in the public interestC 9,: to ta0e over far lands in order to prevent or shortage of crops and hunger and destitutionC 9+: to ta0e over industrial establish ent in order to insure ade>uate production, controlling -ages and profits thereinC 9H: to prohibit loc0outs and stri0es -henever necessar! to prevent the un-arranted suspension of -or0 in productive enterprises or in the interest of national securit!C 93: to regulate the nor al hours of -or0 for -age#earning and salaried e plo!ees in industrial or business underta0ings of all 0indsC 9@: to insure an even distribution of labor a ong the productive enterprisesC 94: to co andership and other eans of transportation in order to aintain, as uch as possible, ade>uate and continued transportation facilitiesC 9*: to re>uisition and ta0e over an! public service or enterprise for use or operation b! the $overn entC9)J: to regulate rents and the prices of articles or co odities of pri e necessit!, both i ported and locall! produced or anufacturedC and 9)): to prevent, locall! or generall!, scarcit!, onopoli=ation, hoarding in6urious speculations, and private control affecting the suppl!, distribution and ove ent of foods, clothing, fuel, fertili=er, che ical, building, aterial, i ple ents, achiner!, and e>uip ent re>uired in agriculture and industr!, -ith po-er to re>uisition these co odities sub6ect to the pa! ent of 6ust co pensation. 9As a ended b! Co . Act No. 3?J.: SEC. ?. 'or the purpose of ad inistering this Act and carr!ing out its ob6ective, the President a! designate an! officer, -ithout additional co pensation, or an! depart ent, bureau, office, or instru entalit! of the National $overn ent. SEC. ,. An! person, fir , or corporation found guilt! of the violation of an! provision of this Act or of this Act or an! of the rules or regulations pro ulgated b! the President under the authorit! of section one of this Act shall be punished b! i prison ent of not ore than ten !ears or b! a fine of not ore than ten thousand pesos, or b! both. &f such violation is co itted b! a fir or corporation, the anager, anaging director, or person charge -ith the anage ent of the business of such fir , or corporation shall be cri inall! responsible therefor. SEC. +. (he President shall report to the national Asse bl! -ithin the first ten da!s fro the date of the opening of its ne1t regular session -hatever action has been ta0en b! hi under the authorit! herein granted. SEC. H. (o carr! out the purposed of this Act, the President is authori=ed to spend such a ounts as a! be necessar! fro the su appropriated under section five Co on-ealth Act

Nu bered four hundred and ninet!#eight. SEC. 3. &f an! province of this Act shall be declared b! an! court of co petent 6urisdiction to be unconstitutional and void, such declaration shall not invalidate the re ainder of this Act. SEC. @. (his Act shall ta0e upon its approval. Approved, August )*, )*+J.

C2MM2N;EA"(7 AC( N2. 3@) AN AC( DEC"AR&N$ A S(A(E 2' (2(A" EMER$ENCA AS A RES<"( 2' ;AR &NE2"E&N$ (7E P7&"&PP&NES AND A<(72R&K&N$ (7E PRES&DEN( (2 PR2M<"$A(E R<"E AND RE$<"A(&2NS (2 MEE( S<C7 EMER$ENCA. Be it enacted t&e ,ationa! Asse*b!$ of t&e P&i!ippines C SEC(&2N ). (he e1isted of -ar bet-een the <nited State and other countries of Europe and Asia, -hich involves the Philippines, a0es it necessar! to invest the President -ith e1traordinar! po-ers in order to eet the resulting e ergenc!. SEC. ?. Pursuant to the provision of Article E&, section )3, of the Constitution, the President is hereb! authori=ed, during the e1istence of the e ergenc!, to pro ulgate such rules and regulation as he a! dee necessar! to carr! out the national polic! declared in section ) hereof. Accordingl!, he is, a ong other things, e po-ered 9 a: to transfer the seat of the $overn ent or an! of its subdivisions, branches, depart ent, offices, agencies or instru entalitiesC 9 b: to reorgani=e the $overn ent of the Co on-ealth including the deter ination of the order of precedence of the heads of the E1ecutive Depart entC 9 c: to create ne- subdivision, branches, depart ents, offices, agenc! or instru entalities of govern ent and to abolish an! of those alread! e1istingC 9d: to continue in force la-s and appropriation -hich -ould lapse or other-ise beca e inoperative, and to odif! or suspend the operation or application of those of an ad inistrative characterC 9e: to i posed ne- ta1es or to increase, reduce, suspend, or abolish

those in e1istenceC 9f: to raise funds through the issuance of bonds or other-ise, and to authori=e the e1pensive of the proceeds thereofC 9 : to authori=e the National, provincial, cit! or unicipal govern ents to incur in overdrafts for purposes that he a! approveC 9 &: to declare the suspension of the collection of credits or the pa! ent of debtsC and 9 i: to e1ercise such other po-er as he a! dee necessar! to enable the $overn ent to fulfill its responsibilities and to aintain and enforce its authorit!. SEC. ,. (he President of the Philippines report thereto all the rules and regulation pro ulgated b! hi under the po-er herein granted. SEC. +. (his Act shall ta0e effect upon its approval and the rules and regulations. pro ulgated hereunder shall be in force and effect until the Congress of the Philippines shall other-ise provide. Approved Dece ber )3, )*+). (he above Acts cannot validl! be invo0ed, E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 -as issued on %ul! ?*, )*+@. Said Acts had elapsed upon the liberation of the Philippines for the %apanese forces or, at the latest, -hen the surrender of %apan -as signed in (o0!o on Septe ber ?, )*+H. ;hen both Acts -ere enacted b! the Second National Asse bl!, -e happened to have ta0en direct part in their consideration and passage, not onl! as one of the e bers of said legislative bod! as chair an of the Co ittee on (hird Reading population Kno-n as the ."ittle Senate.. ;e are, therefore in a position to state that said easures -ere enacted b! the second national Asse bl! for the purpose of facing the e ergenc! of i pending -ar and of the Pacific ;ar that finall! bro0e out -ith the attac0 of Pearl 7arbor on Dece ber @, )*+). ;e approved said e1traordinar! easures, b! -hich under the e1ceptional circu stances then prevailing legislative po-er -ere delegated to the President of the Philippines, b! virtue of the follo-ing provisions of the Constitution5 &n ti e of -ar or other national e ergenc!, the Congress a! b! la- authori=e the President, for a li ited period and sub6ect to such restrictions as it a! prescribe to pro ulgate rules and regulations to carr! out declared national polic!. 9Article E&, section ?3.: &t has never been the purpose of the National Asse bl! to e1tend the delegation be!ond the e ergenc!

created b! the -ar as to e1tend it farther -ould be violative of the e1press provision of the Constitution. ;e are of the opinion that there is no doubt on this >uestion.C but if there could still be an! the sa e should be resolved in favor of the presu ption that the National Asse bl! did not intend to violate the funda ental la-. (he absurdit! of the contention that the e ergenc! Acts continued in effect even after the surrender of %apan can not be gainsaid. 2nl! a fe- onths after liberation and even before the surrender of %apan, or since the iddle of )*+H, the Congress started to function nor all!. &n the h!pothesis that the contention can prevail, then, since )*+H, that is, four !ears ago, even after the Co on-ealth -as alread! replaced b! the Republic of the Philippines -ith the procla ation of our &ndependence, t-o district, separate and independence legislative organs, / Congress and the President of the Philippines / -ould have been and -ould continue enacting la-s, the for er to enact la-s of ever! nature including those of e ergenc! character, and the latter to enact la-s, in the for of e1ecutive orders, under the so#called e ergenc! po-ers. (he situation -ould be pregnant -ith dangers to peace and order to the rights and liberties of the people and to Philippines de ocrac!. Should there be an! disagree ent bet-een Congress and the President of the Philippines, a possibilit! that no one can dispute the President of the Philippines a! ta0e advantage of he long recess of Congress 9t-o#thirds of ever! !ear : to repeal and overrule legislative enact ents of Congress, and a! set up a veritable s!ste of dictatorship, absolutel! repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 is e>uall! offensive to the Constitution because it violates the funda ental guarantees of the due process and e>ual protection of the la-. &t is especiall! so, because it per it the ad ission of an! 0inds evidence b! -hich no innocent person can afford to get ac>uittal and b! -hich it is i possible to deter ine -hether an accused is guilt! or not be!ond all reasonable doubt. (he rules of evidence adopted in E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 are a reproduction of the regulation governing the trial of t-elve cri inal, issued b! $eneral Douglas Mac Arthur, Co ander in Chief of the <nited State Ar ed 'orces in ;estern Pacific, for the purpose of tr!ing a ong other, $eneral Aa ashita and 7o a. ;hat -e said in our concurring and dissenting opinion to the decision pro ulgated on Dece ber )*, )*+H, in the Aa ashita case, "#)?*, and in our concurring and dissenting opinion to the resolution of %anuar! ?,, )*+3 in disposing the 7o a case, "#?++, are perfectl! applicable to the offensive rules of evidence in E1ecutive 2rder No. 34. Said rules of evidence are repugnant to conscience as under the no 6ustice can e1pected. 'or all the foregoing, confor abl! -ith our position in the Aa ashita and 7o a cases, -e vote to declare

E1ecutive 2rder No. 34 null and void and to grant petition. (he "a-phil Pro6ect # Arellano "a- 'oundation