Case Digest (G.R. No. 162230)
Facts:
Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, August 12, 2014, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., delivered the Resolution denying the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration. Petitioners are a large group of former Filipino “comfort women” who brought a special civil action for certiorari asking the Court to compel high Executive officials to espouse their claims against Japan for wartime sexual slavery; respondents are Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Delia Domingo-Albert, Secretary of Justice Merceditas N. Gutierrez, and Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo.The petitioners originally sought assistance from the Executive beginning in 1998 to file claims against Japanese officials; they alleged repeated refusals by the Executive departments and thereafter filed a petition for certiorari (filed March 8, 2004, as alleged in the petition) to compel respondents to espouse their claims. The petition argued that the acts complained of were violations of jus cogens, that international humanitarian law and the Incorporation Clause rendered such claims justiciable and imprescriptible, and that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in declining to espouse the claims; petitioners also sought a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering respondents to act.
The Supreme Court issued a decision on April 28, 2010 dismissing the petition for certiorari. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration reiterating international-law arguments (citing Yamashita v. Styer, Kuroda v. Jalandoni, The Holy See v. Rosario, Jr., U.S. v. Guinto, Agustin v. Edu), asserting the imprescriptibility of war crimes, and accusing the ponencia of lifting material from several academic sources without attribution. Respondents filed a Comment opposing reconsideration, contending petitioners’ arguments merely rehashed earlier submissions, asserting procedural defects (timeliness and failure to show a judicial or quasi-judicial act), and defending the Executive’s reliance on the Treaty of Peace with Japan (1951) and the Reparations Agreement (1956), as well as the Asian Women’s Fund reparative measures, as grounds for declining to espouse the claims.
The Court considered the motions by Resolution (the present ruling). It denied the motions for reconsideration and the supplemental motion, primarily on procedural grounds—untimeliness under Rule 65, Section 4, failure to allege a judicial or quasi‑judicial act under Rule 65, Section 1, and because the remedy of a preliminary mandatory injunction...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari timely filed under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court?
- Did petitioners sufficiently allege that the acts of the respondents were judicial or quasi‑judicial so as to give rise to a petition for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65?
- Were petitioners entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction compelling respondents to es...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)