Case Digest (G.R. No. 162230) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Vinuya v. Romulo (G.R. No. 162230, August 12, 2014), a group of former “comfort women” petitioners led by Isabelita C. Vinuya et al. sought to compel the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Solicitor General to espouse their claims against Japan for war-time atrocities. Since 1998, petitioners had repeatedly requested that the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs file claims against Japanese officials responsible for sexual slavery, rape, torture, and other human rights violations committed during World War II. Their appeals were refused, prompting them to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court. They alleged that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion by declining to pursue their claims, and prayed for injunctive relief, an official apology, and material compensation from Japan. The Supreme Court, in an April 28, 2010 decision, dism Case Digest (G.R. No. 162230) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners: Over one hundred former Filipina “comfort women” organized as Malaya Lolas, alleging rape, sexual slavery, torture and other crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Japanese forces during World War II.
- Respondents: The Executive Secretary, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Justice, and the Solicitor General, who declined to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan.
- Procedural History
- Petition for Certiorari filed on March 8, 2004 under Rule 65, alleging respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to take up petitioners’ claims.
- April 28, 2010 Decision by the Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that:
- The petition was not timely filed;
- Respondents’ acts were political and not judicial or quasi-judicial; and
- The conduct of foreign relations fell within executive discretion.
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion, raising:
- Obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law via the Incorporation Clause;
- Jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations;
- Allegations of plagiarism in the April 2010 decision.
- Respondents filed comments opposing reconsideration, reiterating:
- Validity and binding effect of the Treaty of Peace with Japan;
- Lack of a direct remedy for individuals under international law outside treaty provisions;
- Sufficiency of Japan’s apology and the Asian Women’s Fund.
- En Banc Resolution promulgated on August 12, 2014, denying both reconsideration motions for lack of merit.
Issues:
- Whether petitioners’ certiorari petition and motions for reconsideration were timely filed under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether respondents’ refusal to espouse petitioners’ claims constituted an act of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature subject to certiorari.
- Whether petitioners were entitled to a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without a principal action.
- Whether the Court may review or direct the executive’s exercise of foreign policy prerogatives.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)