[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
4K views2 pages

Vinuya Vs Romula G.R. No. 162230: Facts

This case involves a petition filed by former "comfort women" against Japanese officials for crimes against humanity during WWII. The petitioners requested the Philippine government to espouse their claims for an official apology and reparations from Japan. However, the Executive Department declined, arguing that all claims had already been settled by Japan in prior treaties. The Supreme Court ruled that the case involved a non-justiciable political question that is the domain of the executive and legislative branches, and upheld the Executive Department's decision not to espouse the petitioners' claims.

Uploaded by

A M I R A
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4K views2 pages

Vinuya Vs Romula G.R. No. 162230: Facts

This case involves a petition filed by former "comfort women" against Japanese officials for crimes against humanity during WWII. The petitioners requested the Philippine government to espouse their claims for an official apology and reparations from Japan. However, the Executive Department declined, arguing that all claims had already been settled by Japan in prior treaties. The Supreme Court ruled that the case involved a non-justiciable political question that is the domain of the executive and legislative branches, and upheld the Executive Department's decision not to espouse the petitioners' claims.

Uploaded by

A M I R A
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VINUYA vs ROMULA

G.R. No. 162230

FACTS:

 Petitioners claim that since 1998 they 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 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.

Petitioners’ Argument

 General waiver of claims made by PH in the Treaty of Peace with Japan is void.
 Comfort women constituted a crime against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture.
 PH Government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for crimes against
humanity.
 PH acceptance of apologies made by Japan as well as funds from Asian Women’s Fund was
contrary to International Law.

Respondents’ Argument

 All claims of PH and nationals relative to war are already dealt in the San Francisco Peace
Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of 1956.
 Apologies made by Japan have been satisfactory, and that Japan had addressed the
individual claims of the women through the atonement money paid by the Asian Women’s
Fund

ISSUE: (Topic: Political Question)

Whether or Not the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing
petitioners’ claims official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan

HELD:

No. The petition lacks merit.

Definition of Political Question (Court cited Tanada vs Cueco)

“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 the legality of a particular measure."
Cases that involve political question is like this case which involves foreign relations. The conduct of
political question is given to the executive and legislative branch.

To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts certainly
possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive agreements.

However, 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.

You might also like