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.