G.R. No. 162230, August 13, 2014
Isabelita Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, et al.

FACTS

Petitioners, members of the “Malaya Lolas Organization” who are Filipina “comfort women” from World War II, filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision dated April 28, 2010. They argued that the Executive Branch’s foreign policy prerogatives are not unlimited and are constrained by international human rights law and conventions, particularly the jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations related to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are incorporated into Philippine law via the Constitution. They contended that the crimes committed against them (rape, sexual slavery, torture) are imprescriptible under international law and are not mere private claims subject to diplomatic protection. They prayed for the Court to declare these acts as crimes against humanity, to rule that the Philippines is not bound by the waiver in the Treaty of Peace with Japan regarding their claims, to find grave abuse of discretion by the Executive Secretary and Secretary of Foreign Affairs for refusing to espouse their claims, and to order these officials to espouse their claims for an official apology and compensation from Japan. In their Supplemental Motion, they also raised an issue of plagiarism in the Court’s 2010 decision. Respondents maintained that the petition for certiorari was improper due to lack of grave abuse of discretion, that the Treaty of Peace (including its waiver clause) is valid and binding under pacta sunt servanda, that individuals lack direct international remedies absent a specific agreement, and that Japan’s apology and provision of assistance through the Asian Women’s Fund constituted sufficient reparation.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, thereby reversing the April 28, 2010 decision which dismissed the petition for certiorari seeking to compel the Executive Department to espouse the petitioners’ claims for reparations from Japan.

RULING

The Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration for being devoid of merit.
1. The petition for certiorari was not shown to be timely filed within the 60-day period required under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as the petitioners did not state the date of receipt of the assailed resolution or order from the Executive Department, which is fatal to the petition.
2. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion. The conduct of foreign relations, including the decision whether or not to espouse the claims of citizens against another state, is a matter exclusively within the wisdom and prerogative of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or direct the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy.
3. The remedy of injunction is not available. The petitioners did not establish a clear and unmistakable right to the relief sought, as the Executive’s power to espouse claims is discretionary. Furthermore, an injunction would not be proper as it would involve controlling executive discretion in foreign affairs and could lead to a multiplicity of suits.