G.R. No. 162230 August 12, 2014
Vinuya v. Malaya Lolas Organization
Lessons Applicable: foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive Branch, Incorporation Clause
Laws Applicable: Constitution
Facts:
The Court in its April 28, 2010 decision held that:
(1) Plagiarism were then already lodged with the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards of the Court
(2) A writ of certiorari did not lie in the absence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
(3) Waiver Clause in the Treaty of Peace with Japan is valid pursuant to the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda
(4) Formal apology by the Government of Japan and the reparation the Government of Japan has provided through the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) are sufficient to recompense petitioners on their claims
Petitioners Vinuya et al. filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, praying that the Court reverse its decision of April 28, 2010, and grant their petition for certiorari.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners contended that our constitutional and jurisprudential histories have rejected the Court’s ruling that the foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive Branch are unlimited and that the court has erred in holding that the Chief Executive has the prerogative whether to bring their claims against Japan because the foreign policy prerogatives are subject to obligations to promote international humanitarian law as incorporated into the laws of the land through the Incorporation Clause enshrined in Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution as cited in the cases of Yamashita v. Styer and Kuroda v. Jalandoni.
They added that the status and applicability of the generally accepted principles of international law within the Philippine jurisdiction would be uncertain without the Incorporation Clause as it implied that the general international law forms part of Philippine law only insofar as they are expressly adopted. They further cited The Holy See, v. Rosario, Jr. and U.S. v. Guinto where international law is deemed part of the Philippine law and Agustin v. Edu, where the Court declared that a treaty, though not yet ratified by the Philippines, was part of the law of the land through the Incorporation Clause. Moreover, they argue that the Philippines is bound to abide by the erga omnes obligations arising from the jus cogens norms embodied in the laws of war and humanity that include the principle of the imprescriptibility of war crimes and that international legal obligations prevail over national legal norms. Thus, the Chief Executive has the constitutional duty to afford redress and to give justice to the victims of the comfort women system in the Philippines.
They further argue that the crimes of rapes, sexual slavery, torture and other forms of sexual violence committed against the Filipina comfort women are not simple private claims that are the usual subject of diplomatic protection but are crimes that are shocking to the conscience of humanity. Thus, they pray that the Court reconsider and declare: (1) The crimes are against humanity and war crimes under customary international law. (2) The Philippines is not bound by the Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as the waiver of the claims of the Filipina comfort women against Japan is concerned; (3) The Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women; (4) Petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents; (5) Order the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary to espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women for an official apology, legal compensation and other forms of reparation from Japan and (6) It is improper to lift orders based on statements on plagiarism.
ISSUE: W/N the Executive Department has exclusive determination and judgment regarding the petitioners claim as part of their foreign policy prerogative.
HELD: YES. Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration for their lack of merit.
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.
NOTE: The Court did not directly address the issue of incoporation clause but it is implied that the foreign policy prerogatives are NOT subject to obligations to promote international humanitarian law through the Incorporation Clause.
