ISABELITA C. VINUYA et. al. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARYALBERTO G.

ROMULO
G.R. No. 162230
APRIL 28, 2010

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction against the Office of the Executive Secretary, Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
and the Secretaries of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

Herein petitioners are all members of MALAYA LOLAS which is a non-stock, non profit
organization established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese
Military Forces in the Philippines during the World War II (WWII). The petitioners narrate that
during WWII, the Japanese forces attacked villages and systematically raped women as part of the
destruction of villages. In effect, the said women endured physical injuries, pain and disability,
and mental and emotional suffering.

According to the petitioners, since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through
the DFA, DOJ, and OSG requesting from them the assistance that they need in filing a claim
against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of Comfort
Women stations in the Philippines. However, the officials of the Executive Department declined
to assist the petitioners and took the position that individual claims of the women had already been
fully satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.

Petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine Government in the
Treaty of Peace with Japan is void. They claim that the comfort women system constituted a
crime against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. The petitioners allege that the prohibition
against these international crimes is jus cogens norms from which derogation is possible and
therefore the Philippine Government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for
crimes against humanity. Also, the petitioners assert that the Philippine Governments acceptance
of the said apologies made by Japan as well as the funds from the Asian Womens Fund (AWF)
were contrary to international law.

On the other hand, the respondents contend that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals
relative to war were already dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the Bilateral
Reparations Agreement of 1956. Also, respondents argue that apologies made by Japan were
already satisfactory and that individual claims of the victims were already addressed of through
the atonement money paid by the AWF.

Historical Background:
The comfort women system was a tragic legacy of the rape of Nanking. In December 1937,
Japanese military forces captured the city of Nanking in China and commenced the Rape of
Nanking which included rape and murder of Chinese women. The Japanese government thought
of a way to end this international condemnation by the establishment of the comfort women
system in which the military could appease the soldiers sexual appetites and contain their
activities in a regulated environment. This is also in keeping with the prevention of the spread of
diseases. Women were forced to have sec with as many as 30 soldiers a day. Fewer than 30% of
the women survived the war. Some were able to return home and were ostracized by their families.
Some committed suicide and other never returned home.

Law suits were filed against the Japanese government in which the said government in turn
responded through a series of public apologies and the creation of AWF. Law suits were filed in
Japan and in the United States but then, all were dismissed. Actions were also taken by the United
Nations and the Womens International War Crimes Tribunal with regard to the said issue.
Likewise the European Union, Canadian Parliament, Dutch Parliament, and United Kingdoms
Parliament also involved themselves in the said issue that the Japanese Government should
acknowledge and accept responsibility of the unfortunate event.

In reply, the representatives of the Japanese Government made statements of remorse and they are
the following: (1) Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono in 1993; (2) Prime Minister Tomiichi
Murayama in 1994; (3) Prime Minister of Japan to the comfort women; (4) The Diet of the
Japanese Parliament; and (5) Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Also, in 1995, the AWF was
established to address the moral responsibility of the Japanese government by offering monetary
compensation to the victims of the comfort women system.

ISSUES:

1. WON the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in refusing to espouse the claims of the petitioners for the crimes against humanity and
war crimes.

2. WON the petitioners may compel the respondents to espouse their claims for official apology
and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and
other international tribunals.

RULING:

1. No, the respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to espouse the claims
of the petitioners. The Executive Department has the sole prerogative whether or not to espouse
the claims of the petitioners. The issue involved is a foreign relations matter and is therefore a
political question. In the case of Tanada vs. Cuenco, a political question refers to those questions
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which the full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent on the wisdom, and not the
legality of measures. In relation to the said case being a foreign relations matter, the Executive
Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of
its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace in 1951. Also, it would be inimical
to the countrys foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan creating serious
implications for stability in this region. This only proves that international settlements generally
wipe out the underlying private claims.

This authority of the Legislative or Executive Department to decide on cases involving foreign
relations is incorporated in Philippine Jurisprudence through Bayan vs. Executive Secretary and
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary. Based from the aforementioned rulings, the President is the one
who possesses the most comprehensive and most confidential information about foreign countries
for our diplomatic and consular officials. He has also unlimited access to ultra-sensitive military
intelligence data. In fine, the presidential role in foreign affairs is dominant and the President is
traditionally accorded a wider degree of discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs. Also according
to American Jurisprudence, nations have often entered into agreements in settling their claims of
their respective nationals. The President may waive or settle a claim against a foreign state without
the consent of the injured national.

2. No, the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners claim. In the
international sphere, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the
international legal system has been the individual is able to persuade the government to bring a
claim on the individuals behalf. It is not the individuals rights that are being asserted, but rather,
the states own rights. Once a state has taken up a case on behalf of one of its subjects before an
international tribunal, in the eyes of the latter the State is sole claimnant. According to the
Barcelona Traction case, The state is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted,
to what extent it is to be granted, and when it will cease. Also, according to the International Law
Commissions Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, they state that: (1) the right of diplomatic
protection belongs to or vests in the State; (2) diplomatic relations is a sovereign prerogative of
the state; and (3) the state has the right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a national. It
is under no duty or obligation to do so.

At present, there is no sufficient evidence to establish a general international obligation for States
to exercise diplomatic protection of their own nationals abroad. Also, the invocation of jus cogens1
norms and erga omnes2 obligations cannot be appreciated.

1
Jus cogens literall means compelling law. This refers to norms which that command peremptory authority,
superseding conflicting treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in the same sense that they
are mandatory, do not admit derogation, and can be modified by general international norms of equivalent authority.
2
Erga omnes literally means in relation to everyone. This has been used in describing ibliugations owed by States
towards the community of States as a whole.
The crimes of rape, sexual slavery, torture, and secual violence are morally reprehensible as well
as legally prohibited under contemporary international law. But then, the practice of states does
not yet support the present existence of an obligation to prosecute international crimes; there is
still not enough evidence to assert its existence.

In conclusion, the respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to espouse the
claims of the petitioners for the crimes against humanity and war crimes. The respondents cannot
also compel the respondents to espouse the claims for official apology and other forms of
reparations against Japan before the International Courts of Justice and other international
tribunals. It is not within the right of the court to the Executive Department to take up the
petitioners cause; it only has the power to urge and exhort the said Department to take up the
petitioners cause.