FACTS:

August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law wife, Sherly RATIONALE:
Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing and Export
Forwarders carrying Four (4) wrapped packages. The appellant Article III, Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution
informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in
Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could examine and
inspect the packages. She refused and assures her that the packages
simply contained books, cigars, and gloves.
Mapp vs Ohio, exclusionary rule

Before the delivery of appellants box to the Bureau of Customs and

Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (Proprietor), following the standard Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible any evidence
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A obtained by virtue of a defective search warrant, abandoning in the
peculiar odor emitted from the box and that the gloves contain dried process the ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs Peoples Court.
leaves. He prepared a letter and reported to the NBI and requesting a
laboratory examinations. The dried marijuana leaves were found to
have contained inside the cellophane wrappers.
The case at the bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence
sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a
private person, acting in a private capacity and without the
The accused appellant assigns the following errors: The lower court intervention and participation of state authorities. Under the
erred in admitting in evidence the illegality of search and seized circumstances, can accused / appellant validly claim that his
objects contained in the four (4) parcels. constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the
government without the latter transgressing appellants rights against
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason
ISSUE:
whty the same should not be admitted.

Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legal?

HELD:
FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS Readily foreclose the
proportion that NBI agents conducted an illegal search and seizure of
Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. the prohibited merchandise, clearly that the NBI agents made no

1
search and seizure much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the court a
of accused / appellant. quo. Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his
constitutional right of privacy was violated and that the evidence
acquired from his package was inadmissible as evidence against
him.
CHADWICK vs STATE, having observed that which is open,
where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof Issue:

Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private

individuals?

Ruling:

BILL OF RIGHTS The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner
Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the
The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of individual and the state.
constitutional democracy, protection against whom, protection
against the STATE. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and
seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.
It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. It will
be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI (193 SCRA 57) the presence of the NBI agents in his place of business. The mere
Case Digest
presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search
effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and siezure
proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observe and look at that
Facts: which is in plain sight is not a search.
On August 14, 1987, the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond
Reyes went to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.
packages to Zurich, Switzerland. It was received by Anita Reyes and
ask if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused and eventually
convinced Anita to seal the package making it ready for shipment.
Before being sent out for delivery, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and Nicaragua v. United States
proprietor of the courier company, conducted an inspection of the
package as part of standard operating procedures. Upon opening the Brief Fact Summary. Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the
package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him took sample United States (D) on the ground that the United States (D) was
of the substance he found inside. He reported this to the NBI and responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and
invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of against Nicaragua. The jurisdiction of the International Court of
the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and Justice to entertain the case as well as the admissibility of
found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre

2
Nicaraguas (P) application to the I.C.J. was challenged by the Issue. (1) Is the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between two
United States (D). states, if they both accept the Courts jurisdiction, within the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?
(2) Where no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, is
the application of such a state to the International Court of Justice
admissible?
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the
United States (D) on the ground that the United States (D) was
responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and Held. (1) Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a dispute
against Nicaragua. The jurisdiction of the International Court of between two states if each of the States accepted the Courts
Justice to entertain the case as well as the admissibility of jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Nicaraguas (P) application to the I.C.J. was challenged by the Justice. Even though Nicaragua (P) declaration of 1929 was not
United States (D). deposited with the Permanent Court, because of the potential effect
it had that it would last for many years, it was valid.
Thus, it maintained its effect when Nicaragua became a party to the
Facts. The United States (D) challenged the jurisdiction of the I.C.J Statute of the I.C.J because the declaration was made
when it was held responsible for illegal military and paramilitary unconditionally and was valid for an unlimited period. The intention of
activities in and against Nicaragua (P) in the suit the plaintiff brought the current drafters of the current Statute was to maintain the
against the defendant in 1984. Though a declaration accepting the greatest possible continuity between it and the Permanent Court.
mandatory jurisdiction of the Court was deposited by the United Thus, when Nicaragua (P) accepted the Statute, this would have
States (D) in a 1946, it tried to justify the declaration in a 1984 been deemed that the plaintiff had given its consent to the transfer of
notification by referring to the 1946 declaration and stating in part its declaration to the I.C.J.
that the declaration shall not apply to disputes with any Central (2) Yes. When no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state,
American State. the application of such a state to the International Court of Justice is
Apart from maintaining the ground that the I.C.J lacked jurisdiction, admissible. The five grounds upon which the United States (D)
the States (D) also argued that Nicaragua (P) failed to deposit a challenged the admissibility of Nicaraguas (P) application were that
similar declaration to the Court. On the other hand, Nicaragua (P) the plaintiff failed because there is no indispensable parties rule
based its argument on its reliance on the 1946 declaration made by when it could not bring forth necessary parties, Nicaraguas (P)
the United states (D) due to the fact that it was a state accepting the request of the Court to consider the possibility of a threat to peace
same obligation as the United States (D) when it filed charges in the which is the exclusive province of the Security Council, failed due to
I.C.J. against the United States (D). the fact that I.C.J. can exercise jurisdiction which is concurrent with
Also, the plaintiff intent to submit to the compulsory jurisdiction of the that of the Security Council, that the I.C.J. is unable to deal with
I.C.J. was pointed out by the valid declaration it made in 1929 with situations involving ongoing armed conflict and that there is nothing
the I.C.Js predecessor, which was the Permanent Court of compelling the I.C.J. to decline to consider one aspect of a dispute
International Justice, even though Nicaragua had failed to deposit it just because the dispute has other aspects due to the fact that the
with that court. The admissibility of Nicaraguas (P) application to the case is incompatible with the Contadora process to which Nicaragua
I.C.J. was also challenged by the United States (D). (P) is a party.

Discussion. Although the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility

are primarily based on the principle that the I.C.J. has only as much
power as that agreed to by the parties, these can be quite

3
complicated. The 1946 declaration of the United States and the 1929 - The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit and alleges
declaration of Nicaragua was the main focus of the case on that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the
declaration and each of these declarations pointed out the respective Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and
parties intent as it related to the I.C.Js jurisdiction.
enjoyment of the natural resource treasure that is the country's
virgin tropical forests."
OPOSA VS FACTORAN, JR.
- The same was filed for themselves and others who are equally
224 SCRA 792
concerned about the preservation of said resource but are "so
Date of Promulgation: July 30, 1993
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the
Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Court."

Keywords: taxpayers class suit; intergenerational responsibility; right to a

- The minors further asseverate that they "represent their
balanced and healthful ecology; timber license agreements
generation as well as generations yet unborn."

QuickGuide: Petitioners personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding

- It is prayed for that judgment be rendered
generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other persons
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful environment is concerned.
acting in his behalf to:
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements (TLAs) in the
Facts:
country;
- The controversy begun as Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed
(2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
before the RTC of Makati City Branch 66.
renewing or approving new TLAs.
and
- The principal petitioners, are all minors duly represented and
(3) granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable
joined by their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional
under the premises.
plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a
domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the
- The complaint starts off with the general averments that the
purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the
Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty
protection of our environment and natural resources.
million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with rich, lush and
verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique species of
- The original defendant was the Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran,
flora and fauna may be found.
Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new
- These rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool
Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently
which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of indigenous
ordered upon proper motion by the petitioners.
Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished
since time immemorial.

4
 the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts
- Scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced which is prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized
on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover - Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari
and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural, residential, industrial, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court and asked the Court
commercial and other uses. to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that
the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing
- The distortion and disturbance of this balance as a consequence the action.
of deforestation have resulted in a host of environmental
tragedies. - Petitioners:
o Contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably
- Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental states a cause of action as it contains sufficient
consequences of continued and deforestation are so capable of allegations concerning their right to a sound
unquestionable demonstration that the same may be submitted environment, the right of the people to a balanced and
as a matter of judicial notice. healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide
and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-
- On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., preservation and self-perpetuation.
filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, o Rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per
namely: (1) the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right
(2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political question which to a healthful environment.
properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of o It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent
Government. Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting
Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas
- In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners for logging than what is available involves a judicial
maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable question.
cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action o Non-impairment clause does not apply in this case
presents a justiciable question as it involves the defendant's because TLAs are not contracts.
abuse of discretion. o Even if TLAs may be considered protected by the said
clause, it is well settled that they may still be revoked by
- On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the the State when the public interest so requires.
aforementioned motion to dismiss. In the said order, not only was
the defendant's claim that the complaint states no cause of - Respondents:
action against him and that it raises a political question o Aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their
sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of complaint a specific legal right violated by the

5
 respondent Secretary for which any relief is provided by Ruling:
law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and - The instant Petition is granted, and the challenged Order of
nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental respondent Judge is set aside. The petitioners may therefore
right" which supposedly entitles the petitioners to the amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or
"protection by the state in its capacity as parens patriae." grantees of the questioned timber license agreements.
Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid
cause of action. Ratio:
o They then reiterate the theory that the question of LOCUS STANDI:
whether logging should be permitted in the country is a - The said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the
political question which should be properly addressed to complaint is of common and general interest not just to several,
the executive or legislative branches of Government. but to all citizens of the Philippines.
They therefore assert that the petitioners' resources is
not to file an action to court, but to lobby before - Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes
Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before
totally. the court. The SC likewise declares that the plaintiffs therein are
o As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, numerous and representative enough to ensure the full
respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for
State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the
remains effective for a certain period of time usually Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and
for twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the
can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder former.
has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have
violated the terms of the agreement or other forestry - This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners
laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite generations yet unborn. The SC finds no difficulty in ruling that
hearing would be violative of the requirements of due they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for
process. the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to
sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on
Issue/s: the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
- Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of action to prevent to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right
the misappropriation or impairment of Philippine rainforests and considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature."
arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support
systems and continued rape of Mother Earth. - Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and
(YES.) harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of

6
 the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-
shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their - If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the
to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are
every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby
rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the
healthful ecology. state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and
advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else
- The minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for
constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come. parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY: - The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the
- The complaint focuses on the right to a balanced and healthful correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
ecology which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional
history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law (Section - The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious
16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution). management and conservation of the country's forests.

- This right unites with the right to health which is provided for in - Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance
the Section 15 of the same article. would be irreversiby disrupted.

- While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found - Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and
under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not healthful ecology and the right to health, then President Corazon
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, Section 4
than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. of which expressly mandates that the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency
- Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for responsible for the conservation, management, development and
it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self- proper use of the country's environment and natural resources,
perpetuation the advancement of which may even be said to specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including
predate all governments and constitutions. those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public
domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural
- As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure
the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the
of humankind. welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos."

7
 plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, and act or
- This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. It stresses "the necessity of
maintaining a sound ecological balance and protecting and - The question submitted to the court for resolution involves the
enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint itself.
Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the
DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the - Falsity of the said allegations is beside the point for the truth
agency's being subject to law and higher authority. thereof is deemed hypothetically admitted.

- Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set - It bears stressing, however, that insofar as the cancellation of the
the objectives which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, TLAs is concerned, there is the need to implead, as party
and have defined the powers and functions of the DENR. defendants, the grantees thereof for they are indispensable
parties.
- On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy)
and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. As POLITICAL QUESTION:
its goal, it speaks of the "responsibilities of each generation as - The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a
trustee and guardian of the environment for succeeding political question. Policy formulation or determination by the
generations." The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh to executive or legislative branches of Government is not squarely
the said policy. put in issue. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a
right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed in
- Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to legislation.
a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty
under its mandate and by virtue of its powers and functions under - It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question
E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 to protect doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise
and advance the said right. of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects
executive and legislative actions from judicial inquiry or review.
- A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS:
correlative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same gives
- The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the
rise to a cause of action.
complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found in the
CAUSE OF ACTION: Constitution.
- A cause of action is defined as:
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or - The court declared that to cancel all existing timber license
rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal right of the agreements in the country and to cease and desist from receiving,
accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber license

8
 agreements amount to impairment of contracts abhorred by the licenses. Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be
fundamental law. invoked.

- The respondent Secretary did not even invoke in his motion to - Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp.: The freedom of contract, under our
dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had done so, he would system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is
have acted with utmost infidelity to the Government by providing understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation
undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the timber aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and
license holders because he would have forever bound the welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-
Government to strictly respect the said licenses according to their impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of
terms and conditions regardless of changes in policy and the the police power of the State, in the interest of public health,
demands of public interest and welfare. safety, moral and general welfare.

- Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which - In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police
provides: power of the state.
. . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the
President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract,
concession, permit, licenses or any other form of privilege granted
herein . . .

- Tan vs. Director of Forestry: . . . A timber license is an instrument

by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of
forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. A
timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due
process clause; it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly
withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare
as in this case.
In re Yamashita Facts: General Tomoyuki Yamashita is the
- Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Army. When he
clause cannot be invoked. surrendered in 1945, an American military commission tried him on
charges that he permitted atrocities against both civilians and
- Even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant prisoners of war, in violation of the law of war. The bills of particulars,
case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance filed by the prosecution by order of the commission, allege a series
declaring the cancellation or modification of existing timber of 123 acts, committed by members of the forces under petitioner's
command. The first item specifies the execution of a 'a deliberate
plan and purpose to massacre and exterminate a large part of the

9
civilian population of Batangas Province, and to devastate and law of war. It is evident that the conduct of military operations by
destroy public, private and religious property therein, as a result of troops whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of
which more than 25,000 men, women and children, all unarmed their commander would almost certainly result in violations which it is
noncombatant civilians, were brutally mistreated and killed, without the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its purpose to protect
cause or trial, and entire settlements were devastated and destroyed civilian populations and prisoners of war from brutality would largely
wantonly and without military necessity.' Other items specify acts of be defeated if the commander of an invading army could with
violence, cruelty and homicide inflicted upon the civilian population impunity neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection.
and prisoners of war, acts of wholesale pillage and the wanton Hence the law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided
destruction of religious monuments. It is not denied that such acts through the control of the operations of war by commanders who are
directed against the civilian population of an occupied country and to some extent responsible for their subordinates. Command
against prisoners of war are recognized in international law as responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or
violations of the law of war under Fourth Hague Convention. But it is the Medina standard, is the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in
urged t at the charge does not allege that petitioner has either cases of war crimes. The doctrine was established by the Hague
committed or directed the commission of such acts, and Conventions IV (1907) and X (1907). The "Yamashita standard" is
consequently that no violation is charged as against him. But this based upon the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court
overlooks the fact that the gist of the charge is an unlawful breach of in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was
duty by petitioner as an army commander to control the operations of prosecuted, in a still controversial trial, for atrocities committed by
the members of his command by 'permitting them to commit' the troops under his command in the Philippines. Yamashita was
extensive and widespread atrocities specified. The question then is charged with "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his
whether the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his
take such appropriate measures as are within his power to control command by permitting them to commit war crimes." The "Medina
the troops under his command for the prevention of the specified standard" is based upon the prosecution of US Army Captain Ernest
acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely to Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam
attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, War. It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human
and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for his rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he
failure to take such measures when violations result. That this was does not take action. (Medina was, however, acquitted of all
the precise issue to be tried was made clear by the statement of the charges.)
prosecution at the opening of the trial.

Issue: Yamashita s counsel applied leave to file petitions for writs

of habeas corpus and prohibition, challenging the jurisdiction and
legal authority of the commission.

Held: The writs were DENIED. The court found that Congress had
legally authorized the commission's establishment under the war
powers, and that the charge was adequate to state a violation of the

10