Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Consti Digest - Vinuya Vs Romulo

    Uploaded by

    Cistron Exon
    The petitioners, members of an organization representing "comfort women" from World War II, sought a writ compelling the Philippine government to espouse their claims for an official apology and reparations from Japan. The Court denied the petition, finding that the decision to espouse claims is a political question committed to the executive branch under the Constitution. While courts can interpret treaties, deciding whether to espouse claims involves foreign policy judgments reserved for the political branches. The executive had reasonably determined that pursuing reparations could disrupt relations with Japan and harm regional stability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Consti Digest - Vinuya Vs Romulo

    Uploaded by

    Cistron Exon
    99 views4 pages
    The petitioners, members of an organization representing "comfort women" from World War II, sought a writ compelling the Philippine government to espouse their claims for an official apology and reparations from Japan. The Court denied the petition, finding that the decision to espouse claims is a political question committed to the executive branch under the Constitution. While courts can interpret treaties, deciding whether to espouse claims involves foreign policy judgments reserved for the political branches. The executive had reasonably determined that pursuing reparations could disrupt relations with Japan and harm regional stability.

    Original Description:

    vinuya v romulo

    Original Title

    Consti Digest - Vinuya vs Romulo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners, members of an organization representing "comfort women" from World War II, sought a writ compelling the Philippine government to espouse their claims for an official apology and reparations from Japan. The Court denied the petition, finding that the decision to espouse claims is a political question committed to the executive branch under the Constitution. While courts can interpret treaties, deciding whether to espouse claims involves foreign policy judgments reserved for the political branches. The executive had reasonably determined that pursuing reparations could disrupt relations with Japan and harm regional stability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views4 pages

    Consti Digest - Vinuya Vs Romulo

    Uploaded by

    Cistron Exon
    The petitioners, members of an organization representing "comfort women" from World War II, sought a writ compelling the Philippine government to espouse their claims for an official apology and reparations from Japan. The Court denied the petition, finding that the decision to espouse claims is a political question committed to the executive branch under the Constitution. While courts can interpret treaties, deciding whether to espouse claims involves foreign policy judgments reserved for the political branches. The executive had reasonably determined that pursuing reparations could disrupt relations with Japan and harm regional stability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    VINUYA VS. SEC.

    ROMULO

    SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO

    G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

    FACTS:

    This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application for the

    issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Office of the Executive Secretary, the

    Secretary of the DFA, the Secretary of the DOJ, and the OSG.

    Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with

    the SEC, 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 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. But 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 Japan’s compliance with the

    Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.

    Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that respondents committed 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; and (b) compel the respondents to

    espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the

    International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals.

    Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to the war were dealt

    with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956.
    On January 15, 1997, the Asian Women’s Fund and the Philippine government signed a Memorandum of

    Understanding for medical and welfare support programs for former comfort women. Over the next five

    years, these were implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

    ISSUE:

    WON the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners’ claims

    for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan.

    RULING:

    Petition lacks merit. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the 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 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.”

    One type of case of political questions 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.” 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.

    But 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.
    The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign

    countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has

    his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.

    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 with Japan, thereby creating serious

    implications for stability in this region. For the to overturn the Executive Department’s 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.

    From a municipal law perspective, certiorari will not lie. As a general principle, where such an

    extraordinary length of time has lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion and our consideration – 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.

    In the international sphere, traditionally, 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 individual’s behalf. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action

    or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own right to ensure, in

    the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law.

    Within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever

    means and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for it is its own right that the State is asserting. Should the

    natural or legal person on whose behalf it is acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected,

    they have no remedy in international law. All they can do is resort to national law, if means are available,

    with a view to furthering their cause or obtaining redress. All these questions remain within the province of

    municipal law and do not affect the position internationally.


    Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis.

    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.

    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. 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 “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

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

    You might also like