CASE DIGEST

Vinuya v. Romulo
Constitutional Law

Date April 28, 2010

Plaintiff-Appellee Vinuya & Members of the “Malaya Lolas Organization”
Accused-Appellants Honorable Executive Sec. Alberto G. Romulo
Ponente Del Castillo, J.
Overview A case regarding claims by victims of Japanese military war crimes during WW2
Relevant topic Justiciable and Political Questions

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:
 Treaty of Peace w/ Japan, though barred future claims such as the subject of this case, exchanged full
compensation for a future peace
 Petitioners are members of MALAYA LOLAS, an organization that provides aid to victims of rape by Japanese
military forces in the PH during WW2.
 Since 1998, petitioners claim they have approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and
OSG, requesting assistance in filing claims against Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the
establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the PH. Said Executive departments declined to assist
 Petitioners’ arguments
- Japanese military war crimes constituted crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture
- Prohibition against these international crimes is jus cogens norms from which no derogation is possible
- PH government’s acceptance of apologies from Japan as well as funds from the Asian Women’s Fund
(AWF) were contrary to international law
 Respondents’ arguments
- All claims by PH and its nationals relative to WW2 were dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of
1951
- Japan’s apologies were satisfactory and Japan addressed individual claims of women through AWF

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON the issue in the present case presents a political question that is YES
not subject to the judicial power of the Court

RATIO:
The Executive must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign policy considerations of espousing
claims against Japan, considering both the interests of the petitioners and those of the Republic
 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 which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the political
branches of government (Tanada v. Cuenco)
- Concerned with issues on wisdom rather than legality
- Well established that the conduct of foreign relations is committed by the Constitution to the political
departments and the propriety of the exercise of this power is not subject to judicial inquiry
- Not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions; courts may have the authority to
construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements
- In the case at hand, the PH gov’t has already decided that it is to the best interest of the PH to waive all its
claims against Japan
1. taking up petitioners’ cause could be inimical to PH foreign policy interests
2. Could disrupt relations with Japan, affecting stability in this region
- The wisdom of this decision is not for the courts to question
 In Bayan v. Executive Sec., Pimentel v. Executive Sec., and Puno’s dissent in Sec. of Justice v. Lantion
- Conduct of foreign relations is full of complexities and consequences, sometimes with life and death
significance
- Can only be entrusted to that department of government which can act on the basis of the best available
information and can decide with decisiveness
- President has access to most comprehensive and confidential information relevant to foreign relations as
well as military intelligence data
Page 1 of 2
CASE DIGEST
Vinuya v. Romulo
Constitutional Law

- President is dominant player in foreign relations

- Otherwise, wrong or untimely decisions may lead to breach of international obligation, rupture of state
relations, forfeiture of confidence, national embarrassment, etc.
 It is common practice in international relations that claims are settled through peace treaties
 US courts have also ruled similarly in a case involving American victims of Japanese slave labor
- The Treaty with Japan was not for the complete atonement of suffering cause by JP but for security
purposes, to prevent the spread of communism in Japan; thus, it was for the collective interest of the free
world
- Insistence on the payment of reparations could create misery and chaos in JP in which the seeds of
discontent and communism would flourish

The Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners’ claims
 The exercise of “diplomatic protection is the right of the State
- Only available means for an individual to bring his claim to the international legal system is to convince
the government to bring the claim on his behalf
- By taking up its subject’s claim and resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on
his behalf, the State is actually asserting its own right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for
the rules of international law
- In the eyes of the international tribunal, the State is the sole claimant
- Since it the right of the State, it is within the absolute discretion of the State whether exercise this right;
this decision may be influenced by political considerations other than the merits of the claim
- According to the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection:
1. The right of diplomatic protection belongs or vests in the State
2. Diplomatic protection is a sovereign prerogative of the State, with discretionary nature
3. State has the right to exercise DP 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 DP; no means of enforcing its fulfilment
- If there is a duty, it is only a moral one and not legal
 In the absence of the consent of states, an applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security Council,
there is no non-derogable (considered of utmost importance) duty to institute proceedings against Japan
- No evidence whether JP war crimes violated jus cogens (“compelling law”; fundamentally accepted
principles of international law) prohibitions at the time Treaty was signed
- Jus cogens principles were not yet well established in international law
- also no evidence that duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation
(obligation owed towards everyone)

Asian Women’s Fund

 Established by JP government in 1995
 Attempt to address its moral responsibility by offering monetary compensation of victims of the comfort
women system
 Had 3 programs for former comfort women:
1. Atonement fund to each woman
2. Medical an welfare support programs
3. Letter of apology

RULING:
The Court does not have the power to order, but only the power to urge and exhort, the Executive Department to take
up the petitioners’ cause.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Page 2 of 2