In support of his case petitioner tenders the

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 not only the provision of our
constitutional law but also our local laws to say nothing of
the fact (that) the Philippines is not a signatory nor an
adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and
Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore
petitioners is charged of 'crimes' not based on law,
national and international." Hence petitioner argues —
"That in view off the fact that this commission has been
empanelled by virtue of an unconstitutional law an illegal
order this commission is without jurisdiction to try herein
petitioner."
Second . — That the participation in the prosecution of the
case against petitioner before the Commission in behalf
of the United State of America of attorneys Melville
Hussey and Robert Port who are not attorneys authorized
by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines is
a diminution of our personality as an independent state
and their appointment as prosecutor are a violation of our
Constitution for the reason that they are not qualified to
practice law in the Philippines.
Third . — That Attorneys Hussey and Port have no
personality as prosecution the United State not being a
party in interest in the case.
Executive Order No. 68, establishing a National War
Crimes Office prescribing rule and regulation governing
the trial of accused war criminals, was issued by the
President of the Philippines on the 29th days of July, 1947
This Court holds that this order is valid and constitutional.
Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that
—
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy and adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the of the
nation.

In accordance with the generally accepted principle of
international law of the present day including the Hague
Convention the Geneva Convention and significant
precedents of international jurisprudence established by
the United Nation all those person military or civilian who
have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war
of aggression and of the commission of crimes and
offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation
of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and
civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in
the promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order
No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in
conformity with the generally accepted and policies of
international law which are part of the our Constitution.
The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise
by the President of his power as Commander in chief of
all our armed forces as upheld by this Court in the case of
Yamashita vs. Styer (L-129, 42 Off. Gaz., 664)
1
when
we said —
War is not ended simply because hostilities have
ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities
incident of war may remain pending which should
be disposed of as in time of war. An importance