Mishel Francheska Y. EscaoBA Political Science III

Case Summary: VINUYA vs Executive Secretary RomuloFacts: Petitioners are all 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 by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the Second World War.Petitioners claim that during the Second World War, the Japanese army attacked villages, systematically raping the women as part of it. Their communities were bombed, houses were looted and burned, and civilians were publicly tortured, mutilated, and slaughtered. Japanese soldiers harassed women, and this led not only to physical injury on the part of the petitioners, but this was paired with mental and emotional suffering as well.Thereafter, the petitioners claim that since 1998, they have been constantly approaching the Executive Department through the DOJ, FDA, and OSG so as to request assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials who had ordered the establishment of comfort women stations in the country.Officials of the Executive Department, however, had declined this grant, positing that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been satisfied in the compliance of Japan with the Peace Treaty between both countries.Issues: Should respondents be compelled to espouse their claims for formal apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the ICJ and other international tribunals?Ruling: The petition regarding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department lacks merit; from a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners claims against Japan the authority for foreign relations matters is vested by the constitution not to the courts, but in the political (legislative and executive) branches of government; therefore, petitioners cannot assail the determination by the Executive Department via instant petition for certiorari.The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would be detrimental to our countrys foreign policy interests, and could possibly disrupt our countrys relations with Japan, creating implications for stability in this region. For the to overturn the Executive Departments 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.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 with the decision of the Executive Department that it is in the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its citizens for indemnities against Japan in the Peace Treaty of 1951, and with wisdom of such decision not subject to judicial question, the Petition was consequently dismissed.