VINUYA VS.

ROMULO
Facts:
Petitioners are all members of MALAYA LOLAS which is an organization 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 narrated that the Japanese soldiers seized the women
and held them in houses or cell, where they were repeatedly raped, beaten and abused which led
the petitioners to spend their lives in misery.
Moreover, the petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive
Department through the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to request 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, the said offices declined to assist the petitioners, and took the position
that their individual claims for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japans
compliance with the Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
Issue:
WON the respondents refusal to espouse petitioners claims for official apology and other forms
of reparations against Japan before International Court of Justice and other tribunals amounted to
lack or excess of discretion.
Held:
From a domestic law perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to
determine whether to espouse petitioners claims against Japan. However, the Executive
Department has determined that taking up petitioners cause would be inimical to our countrys
foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious
implications for stability in this region. Respondents explain that the Allied powers concluded
the Peace of Treaty with Japan not necessarily for the complete atonement of the suffering
caused by Japanese aggression during the war, not for the payment of adequate reparations but
for security purposes.
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 individuals behalf. The International Law Commissions
(ILCs) Draft Article in Diplomatic fully support this traditional view which states that (1) the
right of diplomatic protection belongs to or vests in the State, (2) affirm its discretionary nature
by clarifying that diplomatic protection is a sovereign prerogative of the State, and (3) stress
that the State has the right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a national. It is under
no duty or obligation to do so.
The 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. Even the
invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter. Petitioners have not
deigned to show that the crimes are committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens
prohibitions at the time of Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute the

perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus
cogens.
Jus cogens (compelling law) refers to norms that command peremptory authority,
superseding conflicting treaties and custom while erga omnes (in relation to everyone) refers to
the obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. As such, there is not
as yet any generally accepted criterion by which to identify a general rule of international law as
having the character of jus cogens.
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 petitioners cause.