Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Yamashita Vs Styer - Docx CD 2

    Uploaded by

    noaimah

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Yamashita Vs Styer - Docx CD 2

    Uploaded by

    noaimah
    27 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Yamashita vs Styer.docx cd 2.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views2 pages

    Yamashita Vs Styer - Docx CD 2

    Uploaded by

    noaimah

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    amashita v.

    Styer Digest
    Yamashita vs. Styer
    G.R. L-129 December 19, 1945
    Ponente: Moran, C.J.

    Facts:
    1. Yamashita was the Commanding General of the Japanese army in the
    Philippines during World War 2. He was charged before the American
    military commission for war crimes.

    2. He filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition against Gen. Styer to
    reinstate his status as prisoner of war from being accused as a war
    criminal. Petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the military tribunal.

    Issue: Whether or not the military tribunal has jurisdiction

    Held:

    YES.
    1. The military commission was lawfully created in conformity with an act of
    Congress sanctioning the creation of such tribunals.

    2. The laws of war imposes upon a commander the duty to take any
    appropriate measures within his powers to control the troops under his
    command to prevent acts which constitute violation of the laws of war.
    Hence, petitioner could be legitimately charged with personal responsibility
    arising from his failure to take such measure. In this regard the SC invoked
    Art. 1 of the Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, as well as Art. 19 of Hague
    Convention No. X, Art. 26 of 1929 Geneva Convention among others.

    3. Habeas corpus is untenable since the petitioner merely sought for


    restoration to his former status as prisoner of war and not a discharge from
    confinement. This is a matter of military measure and not within the
    jurisdiction of the courts.

    4. The petition for prohibition against the respondent will also not life since
    the military commission is not made a party respondent in the case. As such,
    no order may be issued requiring it to refrain from trying the petitioner.

    You might also like