Isabelita Vinuya, et al. v. The Hon. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, et. al.
G.R. No. 162230| April 28, 2010
Petitioners Vinuya, et. al. filed a 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 (Alberto Romulo), 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 all members of MALAYA LOLAS.
- MALAYA LOLAS is a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
- However, officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners.
- Said officials contended 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.
ISSUE/S
- WON the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners’ claims for: (a) the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them; (b) for official apology; and, (c) other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals
RULING
- NO
- The petition lacks merit.
- From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan.
- 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.
- 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 us 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.
- 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.
- The Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners' claims.
- We fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law. However, petitioners take quite a theoretical leap in claiming that these proscriptions automatically imply that that the Philippines is under a non-derogable obligation to prosecute international crimes, particularly since petitioners do not demand the imputation of individual criminal liability, but seek to recover monetary reparations from the state of Japan. Absent the consent of states, an applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security Council, there is no non-derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan. Indeed, precisely because of states' reluctance to directly prosecute claims against another state, recent developments support the modern trend to empower individuals to directly participate in suits against perpetrators of international crimes. Nonetheless, notwithstanding an array of General Assembly resolutions calling for the prosecution of crimes against humanity and the strong policy arguments warranting such a rule, the practice of states does not yet support the present existence of an obligation to prosecute international crimes. Of course a customary duty of prosecution is ideal, but we cannot find enough evidence to reasonably assert its existence. To the extent that any state practice in this area is widespread, it is in the practice of granting amnesties, immunity, selective prosecution, or de facto impunity to those who commit crimes against humanity.
- Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. Even if we sidestep the question of whether jus cogens norms existed in 1951, petitioners have not deigned to show 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.
- Of course, we greatly sympathize with the cause of petitioners, and we cannot begin to comprehend the unimaginable horror they underwent at the hands of the Japanese soldiers. We are also deeply concerned that, in apparent contravention of fundamental principles of law, the petitioners appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them before appropriate fora. Needless to say, our government should take the lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human rights.
- Regrettably, it is not within our power to order the Executive Department to take up the petitioners' cause. Ours is only the power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up petitioners' cause.
- WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
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."
Foreign Relations
- The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign relations.
Jus Cogens
- (Literally, "compelling law") in international law, this term 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.
Erga Omnes
- (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law, it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole.
References/Citations:
·
Comments
Post a Comment