Malaya Lolas: Isabelita Vinuya vs.

Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 162230 April 28, 2010

Ponente: Del Castillo

Procedure: 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 Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Secretary of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

Facts:

- Petitioners are 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 during the Japanese occupation of WW2

- The Japanese soldiers performed acts of atrocities during the 2nd world war.
Japanese soldiers forcibly seized the women and raped and abused them
repeatedly. As a result, the women were traumatized and spent their lives in
misery due to the emotional, mental, and physical suffering.

- Since 1998, the petitioners requested assistance from DOJ ,DFA, and OSG in
order to file claims against the Japanese officials and military officers who
ordered the atrocities.

- 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.

Issues:

1,) WON Executive Secretary 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

2.) WON respondents can be compelled to espouse the petitioner’s claims for official
apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals.
Arguments:
Petitioners Respondents
- waiver of claims made by - All claims of the Philippines and its
Philippine government in the nationals relative to the war were
treaty of peace with Japan is void dealt with in the san Francisco
and in breach of its legal peace treaty of 1951 and bilateral
obligation not to afford impunity reparations agreement of 1956
for crimes against humanity - Article 14 of the peace treaty
 - actions against petitioners were
crimes against humanity
- prohibition against the crimes
against the comfort women is jus
cogens norms from which no
derogation is possible
- Philippine government’s
acceptance of apology from Japan
and acceptance of funds from the
Asian Women’s Fund were
contrary to international law.
provides that japan should pay
repartitions but it is recognized
that they are not able to make
complete reparations in order to
maintain a viable economy
- It is also stated that the allied
powers waive all reparation claims
of the allied powers and nationals
arising out of the actions of japan
and its nationals m except if
otherwise provided in the treaty.
- Apologies made by japan and the
AWF funds are satisfactory

Held:

1. Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to

espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan.

It is well-established that "[t]he 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." (Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.,
246 U.S. 297, 302 (1918).)

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. Neither could petitioners herein assail the
said determination by the Executive Department via the instant petition for
certiorari.

Bayan vs, Executive Secretary:

By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head
of State, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. In
many ways, the President is the chief architect of the nation's foreign policy; his
"dominance in the field of foreign relations is (then) conceded." Wielding vast
powers and influence, his conduct in the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson
describes, is "executive altogether".

2.) The Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners’
claims.

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. Even
then, it is not the individual’s rights that are being asserted, but rather, the state’s
own rights.

Since the exercise of diplomatic protection is the right of the State, reliance on the
right is within the absolute discretion of states, and the decision whether to exercise
the discretion may invariably be influenced by political considerations other than
the legal merits of the particular claim.

It has been argued, as petitioners argue now, that the State has a duty to protect its
nationals and act on his/her behalf when rights are injured. However, at present, there
is no sufficient evidence to establish a general international obligation for States to
exercise diplomatic protection of their own nationals abroad. Though, perhaps
desirable, neither state practice nor opinio juris has evolved in such a direction. If it is a
duty internationally, it is only a moral and not a legal duty, and there is no means of
enforcing its fulfilment