Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Vinuya VS Exec Sec

    Uploaded by

    Alicia Jane Navarro
    The petitioners, members of MALAYA LOLAS, sought assistance from the Executive Department to file claims against Japanese officials for establishing "comfort women" stations during WWII. However, the Executive Department declined, asserting individual claims were satisfied by a peace treaty. The petition argued the Executive abused its discretion. The Supreme Court ruled the petition lacked merit, as the Executive has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims against foreign nations, which involves political questions of foreign relations under the Constitution. Individuals must rely on their government to bring international claims on their behalf. The Executive acted within its discretion under international law.

    Copyright:

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

    Vinuya VS Exec Sec

    Uploaded by

    Alicia Jane Navarro
    26 views3 pages
    The petitioners, members of MALAYA LOLAS, sought assistance from the Executive Department to file claims against Japanese officials for establishing "comfort women" stations during WWII. However, the Executive Department declined, asserting individual claims were satisfied by a peace treaty. The petition argued the Executive abused its discretion. The Supreme Court ruled the petition lacked merit, as the Executive has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims against foreign nations, which involves political questions of foreign relations under the Constitution. Individuals must rely on their government to bring international claims on their behalf. The Executive acted within its discretion under international law.

    Original Title

    VINUYA VS EXEC SEC..pptx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners, members of MALAYA LOLAS, sought assistance from the Executive Department to file claims against Japanese officials for establishing "comfort women" stations during WWII. However, the Executive Department declined, asserting individual claims were satisfied by a peace treaty. The petition argued the Executive abused its discretion. The Supreme Court ruled the petition lacked merit, as the Executive has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims against foreign nations, which involves political questions of foreign relations under the Constitution. Individuals must rely on their government to bring international claims on their behalf. The Executive acted within its discretion under international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    26 views3 pages

    Vinuya VS Exec Sec

    Uploaded by

    Alicia Jane Navarro
    The petitioners, members of MALAYA LOLAS, sought assistance from the Executive Department to file claims against Japanese officials for establishing "comfort women" stations during WWII. However, the Executive Department declined, asserting individual claims were satisfied by a peace treaty. The petition argued the Executive abused its discretion. The Supreme Court ruled the petition lacked merit, as the Executive has exclusive authority to determine whether to espouse claims against foreign nations, which involves political questions of foreign relations under the Constitution. Individuals must rely on their government to bring international claims on their behalf. The Executive acted within its discretion under international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Vinuya vs Executive Secretary

    FACTS:

    Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS 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
    Vinuya vs Executive Secretary

    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.
    Vinuya vs Executive Secretary
    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. 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’.

    They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose
    welfare they advance or imperil. 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.

    You might also like