Vinuya Vs Romulo

VINUYA VS ROMULO
GR NO. 162230, APRIL 28, 2010
Presented by: Analyn E. Carmen

FACTS
• Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with
the securities and exchange commission, 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.
• 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.
• Said officials contended that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already
been fully satisfied by Japan's compliance with the peace treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
• The comfort women system was the tragic legacy of the rape of nanking. In december 1937, japanese military forces captured the city of
nanking in china and began a “barbaric campaign of terror” known as the rape of nanking, which included the rapes and murders of an
estimated 20,000 to 80,000 chinese women, including young girls, pregnant mothers, and elderly women. 9
• In reaction to international outcry over the incident, the japanese government sought ways to end international condemnation 10 by
establishing the “comfort women” system.
ISSUE
• Whether or not the executive department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing
petitioners’ claims for:
(a) the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them;
(b) for official apology; and,
(c) other forms of reparations against Japan before the international court of justice (ICJ) and other
international tribunals
RULING
• No. The petition lacks merit.
• From a domestic law perspective, the executive department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse
petitioners' claims against Japan.
• 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 executive department has determined that taking up petitioners' cause would be inimical to the country's foreign policy
interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region.
• The executive must be given ample discretion 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.
• The Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners' claims.
• The supreme court agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as
legally prohibited under contemporary international law. However, petitioners take quite a theoretical leap in claiming
that these proscriptions automatically imply that that the Philippines is under a non-derogable obligation to prosecute
international crimes, particularly since petitioners do not demand the imputation of individual criminal liability but
seek to recover monetary reparations from the state of Japan. Absent the consent of states, an applicable treaty regime,
or a directive by the security council, there is no non-derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan.
• Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. The
question of whether jus cogens norms existed in 1951, petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the
japanese army violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time the treaty of peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute
perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.
• In apparent contravention of fundamental principles of law, the petitioners appear to be without a remedy to challenge
those that have offended them before appropriate fora.
• WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

Principles of International Law
• TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN, 1951

⮚ TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN, SEPT. 8, 1951, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, USA
⮚ The allied powers and Japan are resolved that their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain
international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a treaty of peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them.
• ERGA OMNES
⮚ THE TERM ERGA OMNES (LATIN: IN RELATION TO EVERYONE) IN INTERNATIONAL LAW HAS BEEN USED AS A LEGAL TERM DESCRIBING OBLIGATIONS OWED BY STATES
TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY OF STATES AS A WHOLE. THE CONCEPT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE ICJ IN BARCELONA TRACTION:
X X X AN ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION SHOULD BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE OBLIGATIONS OF A STATE TOWARDS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, AND THOSE ARISING VIS-À-VIS
ANOTHER STATE IN THE FIELD OF DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION. BY THEIR VERY NATURE, THE FORMER ARE THE CONCERN OF ALL STATES. IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHTS INVOLVED,
ALL STATES CAN BE HELD TO HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN THEIR PROTECTION; THEY ARE OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES.
THE TERM IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCEPT OF JUS COGENS.
• JUS COGENS
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE TERM “JUS COGENS” (LITERALLY, “COMPELLING LAW”) REFERS TO NORMS THAT COMMAND PEREMPTORY AUTHORITY, SUPERSEDING CONFLICTING TREATIES AND
CUSTOM. JUS COGENS NORMS ARE CONSIDERED PEREMPTORY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE MANDATORY, DO NOT ADMIT DEROGATION, AND CAN BE MODIFIED ONLY BY GENERAL
INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF EQUIVALENT AUTHORITY
⮚ (LITERALLY, "COMPELLING LAW") IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, THIS TERM REFERS TO NORMS THAT COMMAND PEREMPTORY AUTHORITY, SUPERSEDING
CONFLICTING TREATIES AND CUSTOM.
⮚ JUS COGENS NORMS ARE CONSIDERED PEREMPTORY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE MANDATORY, DO NOT ADMIT DEROGATION, AND CAN BE MODIFIED ONLY
BY GENERAL INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF EQUIVALENT AUTHORITY.

Vinuya Vs Romulo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinuya Vs Romulo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinuya Vs Romulo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VINUYA VS ROMULO

GR NO. 162230, APRIL 28, 2010

Presented by: Analyn E. Carmen

• However, officials of the executive department declined to assist the petitioners.

• No. The petition lacks merit.

• WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

• TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN, 1951

You might also like