VINUYA VS.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with
the SEC for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the
Philippines during the WWII. They claim that they were “comfort women” at that time and have greatly
suffered because of that. In 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA,
and OSG and requested assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who
ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the Philippines. However, the officials
declined on that ground that the individual claims had already been satisfied by Japan’s compliance with
the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956 between Japan
and the Philippines. The petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine
government in the Treaty of Peace with Japan is void because the comfort women system constituted a
crime against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. The same was prohibited under the jus cogens norms
from which no derogation is possible. Thus, such waiver was a breach against the government’s obligation
not to afford impunity for crimes against humanity. In addition, they claim that the Philippine government’s
acceptance of the apologies made by Japan as well as funds for the AWF were contrary to international
law.

ISSUES
Was the refusal of the Executive Department to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan valid?

RULING
Yes, it was valid. It has the exclusive prerogative for such determination. So much so, the Philippines is not
under any international obligation to espouse petitioner’s claim. Given the extraordinary length of time that
has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion, the Executive Department had the ample time to assess the
foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against Japan, from the standpoint of both the interests
of the petitioners and those of the Republic, and decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient, and whether
further steps are appropriate or necessary.

Under international law, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the international
legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the
individual’s behalf. When this happens, in the eye of the international tribunal, the State is the sole
claimant.

Therefore, the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection in favor of those petitioners will be
granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. It is a discretionary power and the exercise of
which may be determined by consideration of a political or other nature.

Moreover, in the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligation of the Philippines, the
petitioners failed to show that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jis cogens prohibitions
at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes
in an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.

DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed.