VINUYA V.

ROMULO
G.R. NO. 162230; APRIL 28, 2010

FACTS:
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization
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 narrate that during the Second
World War, the Japanese army attacked villages and systematically raped the women as part
of the destruction of the village. Their communities were bombed, houses were looted and
burned, and civilians were publicly tortured, mutilated, and slaughtered. Japanese soldiers
forcibly seized the women and held them in houses or cells, where they were repeatedly raped,
beaten, and abused by Japanese soldiers. As a result of the actions of their Japanese
tormentors, the petitioners have spent their lives in misery, having endured physical injuries,
pain and disability, and mental and emotional suffering. 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. However,
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.

ISSUE:

Did respondents commit 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?

HELD:

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." Certain types of cases
often have been found to present political questions.One such category 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 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."

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.Neither could petitioners herein
assail the said determination by the Executive Department via the instant petition for
certiorari.

The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would be inimical
to our country's foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations withJapan, thereby
creating serious implications for stability in this region.For the Court 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. DISMISSED.
 In Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring
Integrity: A statement by the Faculty of the University of the
Philippines College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,”

A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, 8 March 2011

FACTS:

▪ Works were allegedly plagiarized from the Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No.
162230)
▪ According to Attys. Roque and Bagares, works plagiarized in the Vinuya decision include
the ff:
o Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s article “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens”
o Christian J. Tams’ book “Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law”
o Mark Ellis’ article “Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime”
▪ The decision reportedly plagiarized the above mentioned articles. Furthermore, what
made the plagiarism even more vague is the fact that materials directly lifted from the
above mentioned articles were used to convey points that were the complete opposite of
what they were truly meant to be. This makes the misrepresentation and the plagiarism
even more unforgiveable.
▪ The argument that the ponente cannot be expected to have been thorough in citing
sources is a weak one as this is a matter of discipline that is expected of the Supreme Court
of the Philippines.
▪ It is then the opinion of the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law
that Plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v Executive Secretary is unacceptable. It
endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire Supreme Court and undermines the
foundations of the Philippine judicial system. It does damage to the primordial function
of the SC as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all.
▪ To save the honor and dignity of the SC as an institution, the ponente of the Vinuya case
 must resign, without prejudice to any other sanctions that the court may consider
appropriate
▪ SC must take this opportunity to review the manner by which it conducts research,
prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes decisions in order to prevent a recurrence of similar
act

ISSUE: Whether or not the 37 respondent law professors should be disciplined as members of
the Bar for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

RULING: Yes. They violated the following provisions of CPR:

Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper,
the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the test of a decision or authority, or
knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not be proved.
Rule 10.03 – A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.05 – A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety
which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

▪ Freedom of expression is not a defense in administrative cases against lawyers for

using intemperate speech in open court or in court submissions. The same applies to the
respondents' invocation of academic freedom. The right to criticize, which is guaranteed
by the freedom of speech and of expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must
 be exercised responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding obligation.
Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility.
▪ A lawyer, just like any citizen, has the right to criticize and comment upon actuations of
public officers, including judicial authority. However, such criticism of the courts,
whether done in court or outside of it, must conform to standards of fairness and
propriety.
▪ The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the
orderly administration of justice. In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide
his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus,
statements made by an attorney in private conversations or communications or in the
course of a political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn and
disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.
▪ The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a pending cause, respecting the
same, has always been considered as misbehavior, tending to obstruct the administration
of justice, and subjects such persons to contempt proceedings.
▪ No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply
no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the
courts and the legal profession into disrepute.