VINUYA VS.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS:

Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock,
non-profit organization registered with the SEC for the purpose of
providing aid to the victims of rape by J apanese military forces in the
Philippines during the WWII. They claim that they were comfort
women at that time and have greatly suffered because of that. In
1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the
DOJ , DFA, and OSG and requested assistance in filing a claim
against the J apanese officials and military officers who ordered the
establishment of the comfort women stations in the Philippines.
However, the officials declined on that ground that the individual
claims had already been satisfied by J apans compliance with the
San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations
Agreement of 1956 between J apan and the Philippines. The
petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the
Philippine government in the Treaty of Peace with J apan is void
because the comfort women system constituted a crime against
humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. The same was prohibited
under the jus cogens norms from which no derogation is possible.
Thus, such waiver was a breach against the governments obligation
not to afford impunity for crimes against humanity. In addition, they
claim that the Philippine governments acceptance of the apologies
made by J apan as well as funds for the AWF were contrary to
international law.

ISSUES:

Was the refusal of the Executive Department to espouse petitioners
claims against J apan valid?


RULING:

Yes, it was valid. It has the exclusive prerogative for such
determination. So much so, the Philippines is not under any
international obligation to espouse petitioners claim. Given the
extraordinary length of time that has lapsed between the treatys
conclusion, the Executive Department had the ample time to assess
the foreign policy considerations of espousing a claim against J apan,
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.

Under international law, 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
individuals behalf. When this happens, in the eye of the
international tribunal, the State is the sole claimant.

Therefore, the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection
in favor of those petitioners will be granted, to what extent it is
granted, and when will it cease. It is a discretionary power and the
exercise of which may be determined by consideration of a political
or other nature.

Moreover, in the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes
obligation of the Philippines, the petitioners failed to show that the
crimes committed by the J apanese army violated jis cogens
prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the
duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes in an erga
omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.

DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed.