Vinuya vs.

Executive Secretary
FAC
Petitioners are members of the MALAYA LOLAS, an organization 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,
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 Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty between
the Philippines and Japan.
Petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine government in
the Treaty of Peace with Japan is void.
o They claim that the comfort women system established by Japan, and the brutal
rape of petitioners constituted a crime against humanity. They allege that the
prohibition against these international crimes is jus cogens norms from which no
derogation is possible.
o They assert that the Philippine governments acceptance of the apologies made by
Japan as well as funds from the Asian Womens Fund (AWF) were contrary to
international law.
ISSUE:
Whether the Philippines is under any international obligation to espouse petitioners
claims.
RULING:
NO. There is no sufficient evidence to establish a general international obligation for
States to exercise diplomatic protection of their own nationals abroad. If it is a duty
internationally, it is only a moral and not a legal duty, and there is no means of enforcing
its fulfillment.
Rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as
legally prohibited under contemporary international law. However, absent the consent of
states, an applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security Council, there is no non-
derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan.

ISSUE
Whether the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing
petitioners claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan.

RULING:
NO. 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. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.
The President, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail
in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of
information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials.

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. 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.
Even the invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis.
Petitioners have not shown that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens
prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute perpetrators
of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the status of jus cogens.
The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law has been used as a legal
term describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole.
Essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international
community as a whole, and those arising vis--vis another State in the field of diplomatic
protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In view of the
importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their
protection; they are obligations erga omnes.
The term jus cogens (literally, compelling law) refers to norms that command peremptory
authority, superseding conflicting treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are considered
peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not admit derogation, and can be modified
only by general international norms of equivalent authority