human rights chap 2

8/13/2019 Human Rights Chap 2

1/9

The Canticle of Mary, also called The Magnificat

My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.

For He has regarded the low estate o f His handmaiden,For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And Hismercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.

He has shown strength with His arm:He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

He has put down the mighty from their thrones,and exalted those of low degree.

He has filled the hungry with good things;and the rich He has sent empty away.

He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magnficat nima mea Dminum ,et exsultvit spritus meus

in Deo salvatre meo,quia respxit humilittem

ancll su.

Ecce enim ex hoc betamme dicent omnes generatines,

quia fecit mihi magna,qui potens est,

et sanctum nomen eius,et misericrdia eius in prognies

et prognies timntibus eum.Fecit potntiam in brchio suo,

disprsit suprbos mente cordis sui;depsuit potntes de sede

et exaltvit hmiles.Esurintes implvit boniset dvites dimsit innes.

Suscpit srael perum suum,recordtus misericrdi,

sicut loctus est ad patres nostros,braham et smini eius in scula.

Glria Patri et Flioet Spirtui Sancto.Sicut erat in princpio,

et nunc et semper,et in scula sculrum.

Amen.

Scripture text: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition

About the Canticle of Mary,

The Magnificat [Latin: magnifies], also calledThe Canticle of Mary , is recorded inthe Gospel of Luke (1:46-55). It is the Virgin Mary's joyous prayer in response to hercousin Elizabeth's greeting (Luke 1: 41-45). This great hymn forms part of theChurch's prayer in the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours). When it is recited as partof the Divine Office, it is followed by the Gloria Patri ("Glory be"). The traditionalsung Magnificat is Latin plainchant. One of the hymn's most glorious musicalrenditions is the version of the Magnificat by J.S. Bach.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the Magnificat as "the song both ofthe Mother of God and of the Church" [CCC 2619], and explains this prayer'ssignificance:

Mary's prayer is revealed to us at the dawning of the fullness of time. Before theIncarnation of the Son of God, and before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, herprayer cooperates in a unique way with the Father's plan of loving kindness: atthe Annunciation, for Christ's conception; at Pentecost, for the formation of theChurch, His Body. In the faith of His humble handmaid, the Gift of God found theacceptance He had awaited from the beginning of time. She whom the Almightymade "full of grace" responds by offering her whole being: "Behold I am thehandmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to Thy word". "Fiat": this isChristian prayer: to be wholly Gods' because He is wholly ours. [CCC 2617]
http://www.wf-f.org/Annunciation.htmlhttp://www.wf-f.org/Pentecost.htmlhttp://www.wf-f.org/Pentecost.htmlhttp://www.wf-f.org/Annunciation.html


2/9

The above is taken from: http://www.wf-f.org/Magnifi.html

The icon is The Madonna of The Magnificat, 1480-81, by Sandro Botticelli

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rightsof all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peacein the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous actswhich have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world inwhich human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom fromfear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the commonpeople,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a lastresort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should beprotected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations betweennations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed theirfaith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human personand in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote socialprogress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation withthe United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatestimportance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for allpeoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society,keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education

to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition andobservance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among thepeoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

^ Top

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They areendowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in aspirit of brotherhood.

^ Top

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or otherstatus. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which aperson belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or underany other limitation of sovereignty.

^ Top

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. ^ Top

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shallbe prohibited in all their forms.

^ Top
http://www.wf-f.org/Magnifi.htmlhttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.wf-f.org/Magnifi.html


3/9

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment.

^ Top

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.^ Top

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination toequal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against anydiscrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement tosuch discrimination.

^ Top

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent nationaltribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by theconstitution or by law.

^ Top

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.^ Top

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by anindependent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights andobligations and of any criminal charge against him.

^ Top

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumedinnocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he hashad all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held gu ilty of any penal offence on account of any act oromission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national orinternational law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavierpenalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penaloffence was committed.

^ Top

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference

or attacks. ^ Top

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within theborders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and toreturn to his country.

^ Top

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum frompersecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely ar isingfrom non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principlesof the United Nations.

^ Top
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop


4/9

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right

to change his nationality.

^ Top

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationalityor religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled toequal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of theintending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and isentitled to protection by society and the State.

^ Top

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association withothers.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.^ Top

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; thisright includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, eitheralone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest hisreligion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

^ Top

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this rightincludes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receiveand impart information and ideas through any media and regardless offrontiers.

^ Top

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. ^ Top

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country,directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority o f government;

this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be byuniversal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalentfree voting procedures.

^ Top

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and isentitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operationand in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of theeconomic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the freedevelopment of his personality.

^ Top

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just andfavourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equalwork.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remunerationensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, andsupplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protectionof his interests.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop


5/9

^ Top

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of

working hours and periodic holidays with pay. ^ Top

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health andwell-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing andmedical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in theevent of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lackof livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. Allchildren, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social

protection. ^ Top

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in theelementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall becompulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generallyavailable and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis ofmerit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the humanpersonality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and

fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance andfriendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further theactivities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall begiven to their children.

^ Top

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of thecommunity, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and itsbenefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and materialinterests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production o f whichhe is the author.

^ Top

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights andfreedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

^ Top

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and fulldevelopment of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only tosuch limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securingdue recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and ofmeeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the generalwelfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to thepurposes and principles of the United Nations.

^ Top

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State,group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any actaimed at the destruction of any o f the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atophttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop


6/9

BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner,vs.DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Lucas Lacson forrespondent.

BENGZON, J. :

The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian descent who was brought to thiscountry from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese forces during thelatters regime in these Islands. Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy,by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. Later he was handed to theCommonwealth Government for disposition in accordance with CommonwealthAct No. 682. Thereafter the Peoples Court ordered his release. But the deportationboard taking his case up, found that having no travel documents Mejoff wasillegally in this country, and consequently referred the matter to the immigrationauthorities. After the corresponding investigation, the Board oF Commissioners of

Immigration on April 5, 1948, declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippinesillegally in 1944, without inspection and admission by the immigration officials at adesignated port of entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported on the firstavailable transportation to Russia. The petitioner was then under custody, hehaving been arrested on March 18, 1948. In May, 1948, he was transferred to theCebu Provincial Jail together with three other Russians to await the arrival of someRussian vessels. In July and in August of that year two boats of Russian nationalitycalled at the Cebu Port. But their masters refused to take petitioner and hiscompanions alleging lack of authority to do so. In October, 1948, after repeatedfailures to ship this deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to Bilibid Prisonat Muntinglupa where he has been confined up to the present time, inasmuch asthe Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the best interest of the countryto keep him under detention while arrangements for his deportation are beingmade.

It is contended on behalf of petitioner that having been brought to thePhilippineslegally by the Japanese forces, he may not now be deported. It isenough to say that the argument would deny to this Government the power andthe authority to eject from the Islands any and all of that members of theNipponese Army of occupation who may still be found hiding in remote places.Which is absurd. Petitioner likewise contends that he may not be deported becausethe statutory period to do that under the laws has long expired. The propositionhas no basis. Under section 37 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 any alienwho enters this country without inspection and admission by the immigration

authorities at a designated point of entry is subject to deportation within fiveyears. In a recent decision of a similar litigation (Borovsky vs. Commissioner ofImmigration) we denied the request for habeas corpus, saying:

It must be admitted that temporary detention is a necessary step in the process ofexclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens and that pending arrangements for hisdeportation, the Government has the right to hold the undesirable alien underconfinement for a reasonable length of time. However, under establishedprecedents, too long a detention may justify the issuance of a writ of habeascorpus.1

The meaning of reasonable time depends upon the circumstances, specially thedifficulties of obtaining a passport, the availability of t ransportation, the diplomaticarrangements concerned and the efforts displayed to send the deporteeaway.2 Considering that this Government desires to expel the alien, and does notrelish keeping him at the peoples expense, we must presume it is making efforts tocarry out the decree of exclusion by the highest officer of the land. On top of thispresumption assurances were made during the oral argument that the

Government is really trying to expedite the expulsion of this petitioner. On theother hand, the record fails to show how long he has been under confinementsince the last time he was apprehended. Neither does he indicate neglectedopportunities to send him abroad. And unless it is shown that the deportee is beingindefinitely imprisoned under the pretense of awaiting a chance fo r deportation 3 orunless the Government admits that itcan not deport him 4 or unless the detainee isbeing held for too long a period our courts will not interfere.

In the United States there were at least two instances in which courts fixed a timelimit within which the imprisoned aliens should be deported 5 otherwise theirrelease would be ordered by writ of habeas corpus. Nevertheless, supposing suchprecedents apply in this jurisdiction, still we have no sufficient data fairly to fix adefinite deadline.

The difference between this and the Borovsky case lies in the fact that the recordshows this petitioner has been detained since March, 1948. However, consideringthat in the United States (where transportation facilities are much greater anddiplomatic arrangements are easier to make) a delay of twenty months in carryingout an order of deportation has not been held sufficient to justify the issuance ofthe writ of habeas corpus ,6 this petition must be, and it is hereby denied. Soordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Padilla, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.Paras, J., I dissent for the same reasons sta ted in my dissenting opinion in case No. L-2852.Feria, J., I dissent on the same ground stat ed in my dissent in case G. R. No. L-2852.


7/9

Separate Opinions

PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

To continue keeping petitioner under confinement is a thing that shocksconscience. Under the circumstances, petitioner is entitled to be released fromconfinement. He has not been convicted for any offense for which he may beimprisoned. Governments inability to deport him no pretext to keep hi mimprisoned for an indefinite length of time. The constitutional guarantee that noperson shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law has been intended toprotect all inhabitants or residents who may happen to be under the shadows ofPhilippine flag.

Our vote is the same as one we cast when the case of Borovsky vs. Commissioner ofImmigration , L-2852, was submitted for decision although, for somemisunderstanding, our vote was overlooked at the time of the decision waspromulgated. Our vote is to grant the petition and to order the immediate releaseof petitioner, without prejudice for the government to deport him as soon as the

government could have the means to do so. In the meantime, petitioner is entitledto live a normal life in a peaceful country, ruled by the principles of law and justice.

Tuason, J., I dissent on the same ground stated in my dissent in case No. L-2852.

SHIGENORI KURODA, petitioner,vs.Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI, Brigadier General CALIXTO DUQUE, ColonelMARGARITO TORALBA, Colonel IRENEO BUENCONSEJO, Colonel PEDROTABUENA, Major FEDERICO ARANAS, MELVILLE S. HUSSEY and ROBERTPORT, 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 Armyand Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines duringa period covering 19433 and 19444 who is now charged before a militaryCommission convened by the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces of the Philippineswith having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such

command, permitting them to commit brutal at rocities and other high crimesagainst noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces inviolation of the laws and customs of war" comes before this Court seeking toestablish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines:to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port fromparticipating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commissionand to permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case ofpetitioners.

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 notonly the provision of our constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing ofthe fact (that) the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the HagueConvention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and thereforepetitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international."Hence petitioner argues "That in view off the fact that this commission has beenempanelled by virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal order this commission iswithout jurisdiction to try herein petitioner."

Second . That the participation in the prosecution of the case against petitionerbefore the Commission in behalf of the United State of America of attorneysMelville Hussey and Robert Port who are not attorneys authorized by the SupremeCourt to practice law in the Philippines is a diminution of our personality as anindependent state and their appointment as prosecutor are a violation of ourConstitution for the reason that they are not qualified to practice law in thePhilippines.

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

Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War Crimes Office prescribing ruleand regulation governing the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by thePresident of the Philippines on the 29th days of July, 1947 This Court holds that thisorder is valid and constitutional. Article 2 o f our Constitution provides in its section3, that

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy andadopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part ofthe of the nation.


8/9

In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of thepresent day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significantprecedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation allthose person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing orwaging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offensesconsequential and incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, ofhumanity and civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in thepromulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of thePhilippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted and policies ofinternational law which are part of the our Constitution.

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

War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessationof armed hostilities incident of war may remain pending which should bedisposed of as in time of war. An importance incident to a conduct of waris the adoption of measure by the military command not only to repeland defeat the enemies but to seize and subject to disciplinary measurethose enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our militaryeffort 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 andpunishment of war criminals is an aspect of waging war. And in thelanguage of a writer a military commission has jurisdiction so long as atechnical state of war continues. This includes the period of an armisticeor military occupation up to the effective of a treaty of peace and mayextend beyond by treaty agreement. (Cowles Trial of War Criminals byMilitary Tribunals, America Bar Association Journal June, 1944.)

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

Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no Jurisdiction to trypetitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the GenevaConvention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed thesecond only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hagueand Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generallyaccepted principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles wereaccepted by the two belligerent nation the United State and Japan who were

signatories to the two Convention, Such rule and principles therefore form part ofthe law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventionsembodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensivein its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle ofinternational law as continued inn treaties to which our government may havebeen or shall be a signatory.

Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committedthe Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we wereequally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the right andobligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. These rightsand obligation were not erased by our assumption of full sovereignty. If at all ouremergency as a free state entitles us to enforce the right on our own of trying andpunishing those who committed crimes against crimes against our people. In thisconnection 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 Republicdoes not affect the prosecution of those charged with the crime oftreason committed during then Commonwealth because it is an o ffenseagainst the same sovereign people. . . .

By the same token war crimes committed against our people and our governmentwhile we were a Commonwealth are triable and punishable by our presentRepublic.

Petitioner challenges the participation of two American attorneys namely MelvilleS. Hussey and Robert Port in the prosecution of his case on the ground that saidattorney's are not qualified to practice law in Philippines in accordance with ourRules of court and the appointment o f said attorneys as prosecutors is violative ofour national sovereignty.

In the first place respondent Military Commission is a special military tribunalgoverned by a special law and not by the Rules of court which govern ordinary civilcourt. It has already been shown that Executive Order No. 68 which provides forthe organization of such military commission is a valid and constitutional law. Thereis nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel appearing before saidcommission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines inaccordance with the Rules of Court. In facts it is common in military tribunals thatcounsel for the parties are usually military personnel who are neither attorneys noreven possessed of legal training.


9/9

Secondly the appointment of the two American attorneys is not violative of ournation sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that United States, which hassubmitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to atribunal of our nation should be allowed representation in the trial of those verycrimes. If there has been any relinquishment of sovereignty it has not been by ourgovernment but by the United State Government which has yielded to us the trialand punishment of her enemies. The least that we could do in the spirit of comity isto allow them representation in said trials.

Alleging that the United State is not a party in interest in the case petitionerchallenges the personality of attorneys Hussey and Port as prosecutors. It is ofcommon knowledge that the United State and its people have been equally if notmore greatly aggrieved by the crimes with which petitioner stands charged beforethe Military Commission. It can be considered a privilege for our Republic that aleader nation should submit the vindication of the honor of its citizens and itsgovernment 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 ExecutiveOrder No. 68, and having said petitioner in its custody, this Court will not interferewith 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.

human rights chap 2

Documents