Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 162230 April 28, 2010
VINUYA v. ROMULO
FACTS:
The petitioners in this case are members of MALAYA LOLAS, non-stock, non-profit organization that
provides aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the World War II.
The petitioners claimed that the ‘comfort women system’ established by Japan, and the brutal rape and
enslavement of the ‘comfort women’ constituted a crime against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. They
alleged that the Philippine government breached its obligation not to afford impunity for crimes against
humanity by waiving the claims of Filipina comfort women and failing to espouse their complaints against
Japan.

The petition on behalf of the group of ‘comfort women’ sought to compel the Philippine government to demand
an official apology and seek reparations from the Japanese government, in particular before the International
Court of Justice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing
petitioners’ claim for official apology and other forms of reparation against Japan.
HELD:
No. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Certain types of cases often have been found to present political questions. 41 One such category
involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-established that "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our
government is committed by the Constitution 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."42 The US Supreme Court has further cautioned that decisions relating to foreign
policy 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. They are decisions of a kind
for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility.43
To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly
possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements. 44 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. Neither could petitioners herein
assail the said determination by the Executive Department via the instant petition for certiorari.