Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Vinuya v. Romulo

    Uploaded by

    seguradabline
    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive department did not commit abuse of discretion by declining to espouse the petitioners' claims against Japan. [1] Questions of foreign relations are committed to the political branches of government, not the courts. [2] The executive department has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims of citizens against foreign governments. [3] The executive department determined that taking up the petitioners' claims could disrupt relations with Japan and harm the country's foreign policy interests.

    Copyright:

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

    Vinuya v. Romulo

    Uploaded by

    seguradabline
    5 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive department did not commit abuse of discretion by declining to espouse the petitioners' claims against Japan. [1] Questions of foreign relations are committed to the political branches of government, not the courts. [2] The executive department has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims of citizens against foreign governments. [3] The executive department determined that taking up the petitioners' claims could disrupt relations with Japan and harm the country's foreign policy interests.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive department did not commit abuse of discretion by declining to espouse the petitioners' claims against Japan. [1] Questions of foreign relations are committed to the political branches of government, not the courts. [2] The executive department has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims of citizens against foreign governments. [3] The executive department determined that taking up the petitioners' claims could disrupt relations with Japan and harm the country's foreign policy interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    5 views2 pages

    Vinuya v. Romulo

    Uploaded by

    seguradabline
    The Supreme Court ruled that the executive department did not commit abuse of discretion by declining to espouse the petitioners' claims against Japan. [1] Questions of foreign relations are committed to the political branches of government, not the courts. [2] The executive department has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims of citizens against foreign governments. [3] The executive department determined that taking up the petitioners' claims could disrupt relations with Japan and harm the country's foreign policy interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    VINUYA V.

    ROMULO RULING:
    [G.R. No. 162230. April 28, 2010]
    Petition lacks merit. From a Domestic Law
    Perspective, the Executive Department has the
    FACTS: exclusive prerogative to determine whether to
    This is an original Petition for Certiorari espouse petitioners‟ claims against Japan. Political
    with an application for the issuance of a writ of questions refer “to those questions which, under the
    preliminary mandatory injunction against the Office Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
    of the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of DFA sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
    and the OSG. Petitioners are all members of the discretionary authority has been delegated to the
    legislative or executive branch of the government. It
    MALAYA LOLAS, an organization established for
    is concerned with issues dependent upon the
    the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape wisdom, not legality of a particular measure.”
    by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during
    the Second World War.
    One type of case of political questions
    Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-
    approached the Executive Department through the established that “the conduct of the foreign relations
    DOJ, DA and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a of our government is committed by the Constitution
    claim against the Japanese officials and military to the executive and legislative–„the political‟–
    officers who ordered the establishment of the departments of the government, and the propriety of
    "comfort women" stations in the Philippines. what may be done in the exercise of this political
    power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”
    However, officials of the Executive Department
    are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of
    declined to assist them and took the position that the prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only
    individual claims of the comfort women for by those directly responsible to the people whose
    compensation had already been fully satisfied by welfare they advance or imperil.
    Japan's compliance with the Peace Treaty between
    the Philippines and Japan. But not all cases implicating foreign
    Hence, this petition where petitioners pray relations present political questions, and courts
    for this court to (a) declare that respondents certainly possess the authority to construe or
    committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to invalidate treaties and executive agreements.
    lack or excess of discretion in refusing to espouse However, the question whether the Philippine
    government should espouse claims of its nationals
    their claims for the crimes against humanity and
    against a foreign government is a foreign relations
    war crimes committed against them and (b) compel matter, the authority for which is demonstrably
    the respondents to espouse their claims for official committed by our Constitution not to the courts but
    apology and other forms of reparations against to the political branches. In this case, the Executive
    Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Department has already decided that it is to the best
    and other international tribunals. Respondents interest of the country to waive all claims of its
    nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty
    maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its
    of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is
    nationals relative to the war were dealt with in the not for the courts to question. The President, not
    San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the
    bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956. conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and
    especially is this true in time of war. He has his
    ISSUE: confidential sources of information. He has his
    WON, the executive department committed agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other
    officials.
    grave abuse discretion in not espousing petitioners‟
    claims for official apology and other forms of
    reparations against Japan.
    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.
    Wherefore, the Petition is hereby
    DISMISSED.

    You might also like