The Supreme Court affirmed the Executive Branch’s discretion in foreign policy, specifically regarding the decision not to pursue claims against Japan for atrocities committed against Filipina comfort women during World War II. The Court held that while the Philippines acknowledges the suffering endured, the decision to waive claims falls within the Executive’s purview in conducting foreign relations. This ruling underscores the balance between advocating for citizens’ rights and maintaining international relations, leaving the redress of historical injustices largely dependent on executive action.

Seeking Justice Across Borders: Can Courts Compel Diplomatic Action for Wartime Atrocities?

This case, Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, et al., revolves around the plight of Filipina comfort women seeking justice for the sexual slavery and violence they endured during the Japanese occupation. The petitioners, members of the “Malaya Lolas Organizations,” sought to compel the Executive Branch to espouse their claims against Japan for an official apology, legal compensation, and other forms of reparation. Their petition for certiorari argued that the Executive Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, along with the Solicitor General, committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to support their claims.

The petitioners based their arguments on the principles of international law, specifically the incorporation clause of the Philippine Constitution (Section 2, Article II), which states that the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. They contended that the crimes committed against them were violations of jus cogens norms, meaning peremptory principles of international law that cannot be violated. They cited previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Yamashita v. Styer and Kuroda v. Jalandoni, to support their claim that the Philippines is bound to observe the laws of war and humanity. They asserted that the need to punish crimes against the laws of humanity has become a jus cogens norm, and that international legal obligations prevail over national legal norms.

The respondents, representing the Executive Branch, countered that the decision to espouse the claims of the comfort women was a foreign policy prerogative within the Executive’s discretion. They argued that the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, to which the Philippines is a signatory, waived all reparation claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of actions taken by Japan during the war. They maintained that the formal apology by the Government of Japan and the reparations provided through the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) were sufficient to recompense the petitioners’ claims, citing the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which means agreements must be kept.

In its resolution, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, upholding its original decision. The Court cited procedural lapses, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their resort to a special civil action for certiorari was timely, as required by the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized the importance of stating the dates of receipt of the assailed judgment and denial of any motion for reconsideration to establish timeliness. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the petitioners did not show that the assailed act was either judicial or quasi-judicial on the part of the respondents, a prerequisite for a petition for certiorari.

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, which would have compelled the respondents to espouse their claims. The Court emphasized that preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy ancillary to the main case and dependent on its outcome. Given the dismissal of the petition for certiorari, there was no legal basis to issue the injunction. Moreover, the Court stated that a mandatory injunction requires a clear and unmistakable right, a material and substantial invasion of that right, and an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury.

The Court ultimately deferred to the Executive Branch’s authority in conducting foreign relations. The Court explicitly stated:

Here, the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners’ claim against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with Japan in a certain manner.

Chief Justice Sereno, in her concurring opinion, added a crucial qualification to the Court’s decision. While agreeing that the Executive Branch has discretion in foreign policy matters, she argued that this discretion is limited by international law, particularly the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Sereno pointed out that Article 148 of the Geneva Convention IV prohibits High Contracting Parties from absolving themselves or any other High Contracting Party of liability for grave breaches of the Convention, such as wilful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment. This responsibility is further explained by Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV:

A belligerent Party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

While recognizing the complexities of the historical context surrounding the Treaty of Peace with Japan and the Reparations Agreement, Chief Justice Sereno emphasized that the Philippines’ obligations under international law cannot be entirely disregarded. She stated that reliance on these treaties as a basis for declining to espouse the petitioners’ claims was not entirely without reason, given the events leading to their conclusion. However, she stressed that the dismissal of the petition should not be taken as a definitive ruling on the merits of the claims of petitioners, in the event that they bring the same to an appropriate forum or through a proper recourse. The Chief Justice concludes that while the decision stands, the suffering must not be forgotten and our people must be protected in the name of justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Philippine Supreme Court could compel the Executive Branch to advocate for the claims of Filipina comfort women against Japan for wartime atrocities. The petitioners argued that the Executive Branch had a duty to seek redress for these human rights violations under international law.
What is the incorporation clause in the Philippine Constitution?	The incorporation clause (Section 2, Article II) states that the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. The petitioners argued that this clause obligates the Philippines to pursue claims for violations of jus cogens norms.
What is jus cogens?	Jus cogens refers to peremptory principles of international law that are considered fundamental and cannot be violated by any state. The petitioners argued that the acts committed against them constituted violations of these fundamental principles.
What is pacta sunt servanda?	Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of international law that means agreements must be kept. The respondents argued that the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, which waived reparation claims, was binding under this principle.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the petition?	The Supreme Court denied the petition primarily on procedural grounds, citing the petitioners’ failure to demonstrate the timeliness of their petition and to show that the respondents’ actions were judicial or quasi-judicial.
What was the significance of Chief Justice Sereno’s concurring opinion?	Chief Justice Sereno emphasized that the Executive Branch’s discretion in foreign policy is limited by international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit absolving states of liability for grave breaches of the conventions.
Did the Court address the merits of the comfort women’s claims?	While the Court acknowledged the suffering of the comfort women, it ultimately deferred to the Executive Branch’s authority in conducting foreign relations and did not make a definitive ruling on the merits of their claims.
What is diplomatic protection?	Diplomatic protection refers to the right of a state to take diplomatic action, or other means of peaceful redress, on behalf of its nationals who have suffered injuries as a result of wrongful acts by another state. The decision to exercise diplomatic protection is generally considered discretionary.
What are grave breaches?	Grave breaches of international law as defined by Geneva Convention IV includes wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person.

This case underscores the complexities of balancing a nation’s foreign policy prerogatives with its obligations to protect the human rights of its citizens. While the Court upheld the Executive Branch’s discretion in this instance, the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Sereno highlights the importance of considering international law and the Philippines’ commitments to upholding human rights in its foreign relations decisions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 162230, August 12, 2014