VINUYA VS. SEC.

ROMULO
MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEA,

HERMINIHILDA, MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG,
CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG, MARIA L.
MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. NAVARO,
FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M.
SAMPANG, ESTER M. PALACIO MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN
A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PEA,
FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M.
DELA CRUZ, PETRONILA O. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA
CRUZ, CORAZON M. SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A.
SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M.BUCO, PATRICIA A. ERNARDO, LUCILA
H. PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA
A. DAVID, EMILIA C. MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT,
GUILLERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C.
PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA,
MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M.
CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T. SAGUM, CARIDAD
L. TURLA, et al.
In their capacity and as members of the Malaya Lolas
Organization,
versus
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G.
ROMULO, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS
DELIA DOMINGO-ALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, and THE HONORABLE
SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO

G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

FACTS:
This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction against the Office of the Executive Secretary,
the Secretary of the DFA, the Secretary of the DOJ, and the OSG.
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, nonprofit organization registered with the SEC, established for the
purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military
forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.
Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the
Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting
assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military
officers who ordered the establishment of the comfort women
stations in the Philippines. But officials of the Executive Department
declined to assist the petitioners, and took the position that the
individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had
already been fully satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace
Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a)
declare that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing to espouse their
claims for the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed
against them; and (b) 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.

Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its

nationals relative to the war were dealt with in the San Francisco
Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of
1956.
On January 15, 1997, the Asian Womens Fund and the Philippine
government signed a Memorandum of Understanding for medical
and welfare support programs for former comfort women. Over the
next five years, these were implemented by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.
ISSUE:
WON the Executive Department committed grave abuse of
discretion in not espousing petitioners claims for official apology
and other forms of reparations against Japan.
RULING:
Petition lacks merit. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive
Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to
espouse petitioners claims against Japan.
Political questions refer to those questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality
of a particular measure.
One type of case of political questions involves questions of foreign
relations. It is well-established that the conduct of the foreign
relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the

executive and legislativethe politicaldepartments of the

government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise
of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.
are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They
are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to
the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.
But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political
questions, and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or
invalidate treaties and executive agreements. However, the
question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims
of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations
matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our
Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In this
case, 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 of 1951. The
wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.
The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing
the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is
this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of
information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular
and other officials.
The Executive Department has determined that taking up
petitioners cause would be inimical to our countrys foreign policy
interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby
creating serious implications for stability in this region. For the to
overturn the Executive Departments determination would mean an
assessment of the foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political

branch to which authority to make that judgment has been

constitutionally committed.
From a municipal law perspective, certiorari will not lie. As a general
principle, where such an extraordinary length of time has lapsed
between the treatys conclusion and our consideration the
Executive must be given ample discretion 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.
In the international sphere, traditionally, 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 individuals behalf. By taking up the case of one
of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international
judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its
own right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the
rules of international law.
Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may
exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever
extent it thinks fit, for it is its own right that the State is asserting.
Should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting
consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have no
remedy in international law. All they can do is resort to national law,
if means are available, with a view to furthering their cause or
obtaining redress. All these questions remain within the province of
municipal law and do not affect the position internationally.

Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations
will not alter this analysis. Petitioners have not shown that the
crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens
prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the
duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga
omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.
The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international
law has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by
States towards the community of states as a whole. Essential
distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State
towards the international community as a whole, and those arising
vis--vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their
very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In view of the
importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a
legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes.
The term jus cogens (literally, compelling law) refers to norms
that command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting
treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in
the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation, and
can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent
authority
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.