Case Summary (G.R. No. 162230)
Petitioners
Isabelita C. Vinuya and dozens of other Filipino women, in their capacity and as members of the Malaya Lolas Organizations, alleging rape, sexual slavery, torture, and other wartime atrocities.
Respondents
- Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo
- Secretary of Foreign Affairs Delia Domingo-Albert
- Secretary of Justice Merceditas N. Gutierrez
- Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo
Key Dates
– Petition for certiorari filed March 8, 2004
– Decision dismissing petition issued April 28, 2010
– Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion filed thereafter
– Resolution denying reconsideration issued August 12, 2014
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2 (Incorporation Clause)
– Rule 65, Sections 1 & 4 of the Rules of Court (special civil action for certiorari)
– Rule 58 of the Rules of Court (preliminary injunction)
Procedural History
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to review the Executive’s refusal to press their claims against Japan. The Court’s April 28, 2010 decision dismissed the petition on procedural and substantive grounds. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion, which respondents opposed in their Comment.
Petitioners’ Arguments
– Executive foreign-policy prerogatives are limited by international human rights and humanitarian-law obligations incorporated via the 1987 Constitution.
– The acts complained of constitute jus cogens violations—crimes against humanity and war crimes—and are imprescriptible.
– The Executive’s refusal to espouse their claims violates its constitutional duty to protect human rights and seek redress for grave breaches.
– Reliance on diplomatic-protection doctrine mischaracterizes obligations erga omnes.
– The Court’s 2010 decision improperly borrowed uncredited commentary, undermining its reasoning.
Respondents’ Arguments
– Allegations of plagiarism are for the Committee on Ethics to resolve, not the Court in this proceeding.
– No grave abuse of discretion or lack/excess of jurisdiction warrants certiorari relief.
– The 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, validly ratified, waives claims under pacta sunt servanda.
– International law affords no direct remedy for individuals absent a treaty provision; Japan’s formal apology and Asian Women’s Fund measures suffice.
Timeliness under Rule 65
Section 4 requires a certiorari petition to be filed within 60 days of notice of the challenged act or its denial on reconsideration. Petitioners failed to state when they received the denial of their request for assistance, a fatal omission. Even if denial occurred in 1998, filing in 2004 exceeds the 60-day rule without any showing of compelling reason to relax procedural strictures.
Absence of Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Act
Rule 65, Section 1 limits certiorari to review of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Petitioners did not demonstrate that respondents acted in such capacity when declining to espouse their claims.
Inapplicability of Mandatory Injuncti
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 162230)
Facts
- Petitioners are more than a hundred Filipina “comfort women” represented by the Malaya Lolas Organization, who since 1998 sought executive assistance to file claims against Japanese officials and military officers responsible for their sexual enslavement during World War II.
- They approached the Department of Justice, Department of Foreign Affairs, Office of the Solicitor General, and the Executive Secretary, but their requests for espousal of claims were denied or ignored.
- On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed their petition for certiorari, prompting petitioners to file a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
Procedural History
- June 7, 2005: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by respondents in refusing to espouse their claims.
- April 28, 2010: The Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion and upholding the executive’s exclusive foreign-policy prerogative.
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Rollo pp. 419–429) and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (Rollo pp. 435–529), raising constitutional, international-law, and ethical (plagiarism) arguments.
- Respondents filed a Comment (Rollo pp. 665–709) re-asserting prior defenses and urging dismissal.
- August 12, 2014: The Court rendered its En Banc Resolution denying both motions for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Issues
- Whether petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari was timely filed within the 60-day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the acts of the Executive Secretary, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of Justice, and Solicitor General are judicial or quasi-judicial, thereby amenable to certiorari.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the executive to espouse their claims.
- Whether the foreign-policy prerogatives of the Executive Branch are subject to constitutional and international-law limitations, including jus cogens and erga omnes obligations.
- Allegations of plagiarism in the April 28, 2010 decision and their bea