THE CASE OF VINUYA V. ROMULO - 17 PJP 21 (2024)

Date Published:

RECOMMENDED CITATION: DELA PEÑA, Mark Angelo S. (2024), “The Case of Vinuya v. Romulo,” 17 PJP 21, available at <insert link> (last accessed on <date>).

LAST REVISION: [None].

---

The case of Vinuya v. Romulo (2010)[1]

The case of Vinuya v. Romulo is about the tragic comfort women system, a legacy of the Rape of Nanking. In December 1937, Japanese military forces captured the City of Nanking in China and began a “barbaric campaign of terror” known as the “Rape of Nanking,” which included the rapes and murders of an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women, including young girls, pregnant mothers, and elderly women. Later, this barbaric campaign reached the Philippines during the Japanese occupation.

Petitioners in this case wanted the Executive Department to espouse their claims for an official apology from the Japanese Government and other forms of reparations against Japan.

According to the Supreme Court, from a domestic law perspective, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan. In fact, the Executive Department had determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests and could disrupt relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in the region. This determination, the Supreme Court said it could not overturn.

Also, the Supreme Court said that, from an international law perspective, the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners’ claims. 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 individual’s behalf. Even then, it is not the individual’s rights that are being asserted, but rather, the state’s own rights.

Even petitioners’ invocation of jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations did not alter the Supreme Court’s analysis. Petitioners failed to show 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 foregoing discussions regarding the case of Vinuya v. Romulo show that public international law principles are not as grounded or as stable as domestic laws. While private international law principles also evolve, they are nevertheless based on some domestic law understanding of or anchored on codified rules on private transactions such as contracts and not on some esoteric principles that states happen to agree on.

While public international law rules heavily rely on the consent of states for compliance therewith, private international law rules are enforceable by local forums through their coercive powers. All things being equal and all requirements being complied with, the consent of parties in a conflicts case is of no moment.

[1] VINUYA V. ROMULO, 633 Phil. 538 (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]