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 Japans 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 governments obligation not to afford impunity for crimes against humanity. In addition, they claim that the Philippine governments 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 petitioners claim. Given the extraordinary length of time that has lapsed between the treatys 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 individuals 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.