Parties: Yamashita, Petitioner/Styer, Respondent.
Case Summary
The events of the Second World War in September 1945 made General Tomoyuki Yamashita control a significant fraction of Japanese army that combated the Philippines, who resided within the US-controlled Islands. The subordinates of Yamashita tormented, raped, abducted and murdered thousands of Filipino citizens. Prior to the end of the war, the United States implicated Yamashita for his involvement in the atrocities and sued him under the military commission. The military commission was a novice to evidentiary and routines necessary for civil criminal cases.
The Supreme Court of the United States cited that the military commission had powers to prosecute Yamashita for gross misconduct against the laws of war that condemned hostilities. Although the case seemed insignificant as a referral case in court proceedings after the end of the Second World War, it gained significance in 1990s. Yamashita became the first ever army commander to be held accountable for the atrocities that his subordinates committed under the stipulations of the laws of wars. The case prompted the development of command responsibility in the army.
Procedural History
The United States sued Yamashita for disregarding summons to discharge his commandeer duty and control the operations of his army subordinates, who committed unlawful atrocities against the Filipino people. Banking on the argument that the United States had prosecuted him through a legally unstable military commission that lacked court procedural knowledge, Yamashita sneeringly filed a petition under habeas corpus and prohibition norms. Yamashita claimed that the military commission lacked lawful authority to prosecute him. In a split decision among the jury, the Commonwealth Supreme Court of Philippine refuted the petition.
Yamashita was still unsatisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Philippine and sought a different approach. Subsequently, Yamashita sought a different review against the denied petition in the Supreme Court of the United States that was responsible for a final verdict. In February of 1946, the United States’ Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the earlier decision of the military commission to prosecute and sentence Yamashita to death. The jury decisions resulted in direct execution of the Commander, Yamashita.
Case Facts
During the Second World War period, army commanders and army generals had extreme sovereignty and commanding power over subordinate soldiers working under a military program. All army commanders under the laws of war were answerable to the military commission that oversaw the commanding behaviors of army commanders. Prior to the end of the Second World War, the conditions to end the war required commanders to secede from any form of hostilities and command soldiers in accordance with the laws of war.
Erroneously, Yamashita commanded his army personnel to conduct illegal atrocities such as murder, rape, and torture of the Filipino civilians contrary to the laws of war. The deliberate plans against laws were to massacre and eliminate the Filipinos dwelling around Batangas province, devastate people, and destroy religious, private, and public assets. Evidence revealed that serious atrocities occurred during the postwar era when the armies had agreed to secede from hostilities. There was enough testimony from over 286 witnesses, who testified against Yamashita.
Main Case Issues
The case seemed complicated with the judges expected to unravel the reality behind several issues following a huge quandary concerning the case. The first issue: Was Yamashita ignorant and personally culpable for the atrocities that the subordinate soldiers conducted against the innocent Filipino population? The second issue: Could the court assumed that the subordinates of the Imperial army of Japanese were ignorant of the cessation advice that Yamashita provided, and thus held responsible for culpable ignorance?
The third issue: could the court imagine that the evidence that the American-based Philippine witnesses presented was of great contemplation or merely a plot to have Yamashita wrongly convicted by Americans? The fourth issue: Were the subordinate soldiers legally acceptable to attest for or against the allegations brought against their leader for conviction? The fifth issue: Was there enough ground evidence to implicate the Japanese subordinate soldiers on the killings, rapes, and torments made against the Filipino?
Case Holdings
The jury contemplated the issues pertaining to the case and Chief Justice, Stone, came up with two questions that the court sought to answer in its investigations and verdict. Stone questioned whether the military commission alleged to have convicted Yamashita was legally established in the American laws and whether it had the jurisdiction and expected lawful authority to prosecute Yamashita during the postwar regime. The court unraveled that the United States president and the Congress had lawfully established the military commission as a tribunal.
The president had the power to command and assign, while congress had authority to define and punish in accordance to rule of law. The approval of the president and the intervention of the Congress made the commission eligible to prosecute and convict Yamashita under the American federal laws. The president lawfully instructed the commanders to commence with the trial against Yamashita. The court also holds that Yamashita was culpable given that the atrocities occurred after the ceasefire.
Case Reasoning
The two quandaries from the questions of the Chief Justice were answerable from a legal point of view based on the stipulations of the American military laws. The American constitution recognized the sovereignty that the president and the Congress possessed on the actions of soldiers in warfare. Whether implicitly or explicitly conscious about the atrocities that the subordinate soldiers carried out against Filipino civilians, Yamashita was culpable for the wrongs of his soldiers against the innocent civilians.
Concerning whether the military tribunal was legible to prosecute and convict Yamashita for his commandeer malpractices, the president had to commission the formulation of the military commission. The military commission, therefore, had the jurisdiction and lawful authority to prosecute and convict Yamashita. Concerning whether the commission was in order to prosecute Yamashita after ceasefire, it was within the power of the Congress. The power of the Congress was unlimited to war victories in battlefields, but it had the mandate to counter any attempts to renewed war.
Case Decisions
The jury verdict through the majority members concluded that the military commission permitted by the president, had the legal mandate to prosecute Yamashita for his commandeer failures to halt his subordinates from violating the stipulations of the laws of war. The congress and the president had the legal sovereignty to prosecute commanders or soldiers, who violated the provisions of the laws of war by allowing the formation of a military tribunal in duration until when combatants agree to make peace.
Case Comments
The Supreme Court ruled on the basis that Yamashita failed to command his soldiers against carrying out atrocities on innocent civilians during postwar. The jury claimed that the law of war assumes that commanders should not make any violations by commanding their subordinates responsibly. Nonetheless, the ruling of the jury failed to decide whether the commission justifiably found Yamashita culpable.