8/12/2019 Isabelita c

1/4

ISABELITA C. VINUYA VS. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET. AL, 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 ofthe 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, non-profit organizationregistered with the SEC, established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape byJapanese military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.

Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Departmentthrough the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japaneseofficials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the comfort women stationsin 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 hadalready been fully satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty between thePhilippines and Japan.

Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that respondentscommitted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing toespouse 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 ofreparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other internationaltribunals.

Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to thewar were dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral ReparationsAgreement of 1956.

On January 15, 1997, the Asian Womens Fund and the Philippine government signed aMemorandum of Understanding for medical and welfare support programs for former comfortwomen. Over the next five years, these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfareand Development.

Issue:

Whether or Not the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in notespousing petitioners claims for official apology and othe r forms of reparations against Japan?

8/12/2019 Isabelita c

2/4

Held:

Petition lacks merit. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department hasthe exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners claims against Japan.

Political questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to bedecided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionaryauthority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It isconcerned 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 theConstitution to the executive and legislative the political departments 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 i nvolve large elements of prophecy.They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whosewelfare they advance or imperil.

But not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courtscertainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements.However, the question whether the Philippine government should espouse claims of itsnationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which isdemonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. Inthis case, the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of thecountry to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peaceof 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.

The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditionswhich prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has hisconfidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular andother officials.

The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would beinimical to our countrys for eign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan,thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region. For the to overturn theExecutive Departments determination would mean an assessment of the foreign policy

judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to make that judgment has beenconstitutionally committed.

From a municipal law perspective, certiorari will not lie. As a general principle, wheresuch an extraordinary length of time has lapsed between th e treatys conclusion and ourconsideration the Executive must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policyconsiderations of espousing a claim against Japan, from the standpoint of both the interests of

8/12/2019 Isabelita c

3/4

8/12/2019 Isabelita c

4/4

The term jus cogens (literally, compelling law) refers to norms that command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms areconsidered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation, and canbe modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.