11/17/2015

G.R.No.162230

TodayisTuesday,November17,2015

IsabelitaVinuya,etal.v.ExecutiveSecretaryAlbertoG.Romulo,etal.,G.R.No.162230,August13,2014
Resolution,Bersamin[J]
ConcurringOpinion,Sereno[J]

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.162230August13,2014
ISABELITA C. VINUY A, VICTORIA C. DELA PENA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMA WANG,
CANDELARIAL.SOLIMAN,MARIAL.QUILANTANG,MARIAL.MAGISA,NATALIAM.ALONZO,LOURDES
M. NAVARO, FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. SAMPANG, ESTER M.
PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PENA,
EUGENIA M. LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA ALONZO, RUFINA P. MALLARI,
ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B. MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A.
GULAPA,TEODORAM.HERNANDEZ,FERMINB.DELAPENA,MARIADELAPAZB.CULALA,ESPERANZA
MANAPOL,JUANITAM.BRIONES,VERGINIAM.GUEVARRA,MAXIMAANGULO,EMILIASANGIL,TEOFILA
R. PUNZALAN, JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q. GALANG,
ROSARIOC.BUCO,GAUDENCIAC.DELAPENA,RUFINAQ.CATACUTAN,FRANCIAA.BUCO,PASTORA
C.GUEVARRA,VICTORIAM.DELACRUZ,PETRONILA0.DELACRUZ,ZENAIDAP.DELACRUZ,CORAZON
M.SUBA,EMERINCIANAA.VINUYA,LYDIAA.SANCHEZ,ROSALINAM.BUCO,PATRICIAA.BERNARDO,
LUCILAH.PAYAWAL,MAGDALENALIWAG,ESTERC.BALINGIT,JOVITAA.DAVID,EMILIAC.MANGILIT,
VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO,
CRISENCIANAC.GULAPA,SEFERINAS.TURLA,MAXIMAB.TURLA,LEONICIAG.GUEVARRA,ROSALINA
M.CULALA,CATALINAY.MANIO,MAMERTAT.SAGUM,CARIDADL.TURLA,etal.intheircapacityand
asmembersofthe"MalayaLolasOrganizations,"Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGOALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS
N.GUTIERREZ,andTHEHONORABLESOLICITORGENERALALFREDOL.BENIPAYO,Respondents.
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN,J.:
PetitionersfiledaMotionforReconsideration1andaSupplementalMotionforReconsideration,2prayingthatthe
CourtreverseitsdecisionofApril28,2010,andgranttheirpetitionforcertiorari.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners argue that our constitutional and jurisprudential histories have
rejectedtheCourtsrulingthattheforeignpolicyprerogativesoftheExecutiveBranchareunlimitedthatunderthe
relevant jurisprudence and constitutional provisions, such prerogatives are proscribed by international human
rights and international conventions of which the Philippines is a party that the Court, in holding that the Chief
Executive has the prerogative whether to bring petitioners claims against Japan, has read the foreign policy
powers of the Office of the President in isolation from the rest of the constitutional protections that expressly
textualize international human rights that the foreign policy prerogatives are subject to obligations to promote
internationalhumanitarianlawasincorporatedintothelawsofthelandthroughtheIncorporationClausethatthe
CourtmustrevisititsdecisionsinYamashitav.Styer3andKurodav.Jalandoni4whichhavebeennotedfortheir
prescient articulation of the import of laws of humanity that in said decision, the Court ruled that the State was
bound to observe the laws of war and humanity that in Yamashita, the Court expressly recognized rape as an
international crime under international humanitarian law, and in Jalandoni, the Court declared that even if the
PhilippineshadnotaccededorsignedtheHagueConventiononRulesandRegulationscoveringLandWarfare,
the Rules and Regulations formed part of the law of the nation by virtue of the Incorporation Clause that such
commitmenttothelawsofwarandhumanityhasbeenenshrinedinSection2,ArticleIIofthe1987Constitution,
whichprovides"thatthePhilippinesadoptsthegenerallyacceptedprinciplesofinternationallawaspartofthe
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
nations."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_162230_2014.html

1/6

11/17/2015

G.R.No.162230

The petitioners added that the statusand applicability of the generally accepted principles of international law
withinthePhilippinejurisdictionwouldbeuncertainwithouttheIncorporationClause,andthattheclauseimplied
thatthegeneralinternationallawformspartofPhilippinelawonlyinsofarastheyareexpresslyadoptedthatinits
rulingsinTheHolySee,v.Rosario,Jr.5andU.S.v.Guinto6theCourthassaidthatinternationallawisdeemed
partofthePhilippinelawasaconsequenceofStatehoodthatinAgustinv.Edu,7theCourthasdeclaredthata
treaty,thoughnotyetratifiedbythePhilippines,waspartofthelawofthelandthroughtheIncorporationClause
thatbyvirtueoftheIncorporationClause,thePhilippinesisboundtoabidebytheergaomnesobligationsarising
from the jus cogensnorms embodied in the laws of war and humanity that include the principle of the
imprescriptibility of war crimes that the crimes committed against petitioners are proscribed under international
humanrightslawastherewereundeniableviolationsofjuscogensnormsthattheneedtopunishcrimesagainst
the laws of humanity has long become jus cogensnorms, and that international legal obligations prevail over
nationallegalnormsthattheCourtsinvocationofthepoliticaldoctrineintheinstantcaseismisplacedandthat
the Chief Executive has the constitutional duty to afford redress and to give justice to the victims ofthe comfort
womensysteminthePhilippines.8
PetitionersfurtherarguethattheCourthasconfuseddiplomaticprotectionwiththebroaderresponsibilityofstates
to protect the human rights of their citizens, especially where the rights asserted are subject of erga
omnesobligations and pertain to jus cogensnorms that the claims raised by petitioners are not simple private
claims that are the usual subject of diplomatic protection that the crimes committed against petitioners are
shocking to the conscience of humanity and that the atrocities committed by the Japanese soldiers against
petitionersarenotsubjecttothestatuteoflimitationsunderinternationallaw.9
Petitioners pray that the Court reconsider its April 28, 2010 decision, and declare: (1) that the rapes, sexual
slavery, torture and other forms of sexual violence committed against the Filipina comfort women are crimes
againsthumanityandwarcrimesundercustomaryinternationallaw(2)thatthePhilippinesisnotboundbythe
Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as the waiver of the claims of the Filipina comfort women against Japan is
concerned (3) that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary committed grave abuse of
discretioninrefusingtoespousetheclaimsofFilipinacomfortwomenand(4)thatpetitionersareentitledtothe
issuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionagainsttherespondents.
PetitionersalsopraythattheCourtordertheSecretaryofForeignAffairsandtheExecutiveSecretarytoespouse
theclaimsofFilipinacomfortwomenforanofficialapology,legalcompensationandotherformsofreparationfrom
Japan.10
In their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners stress that it was highly improper for the April 28,
2010decisiontoliftcommentariesfromatleastthreesourceswithoutproperattributionanarticlepublishedin
2009intheYaleLawJournalofInternationalLawabookpublishedbytheCambridgeUniversityPressin2005
andanarticlepublishedin2006intheWesternReserveJournalofInternationalLawandmakeitappearthat
such commentaries supported its arguments for dismissing the petition, when in truth the plagiarized sources
evenmadeastrongcaseinfavourofpetitionersclaims.11
In their Comment,12 respondents disagree withpetitioners, maintaining that aside from the statements on
plagiarism,theargumentsraisedbypetitionersmerelyrehashedthosemadeintheirJune7,2005Memorandum
thattheyalreadyrefutedsuchargumentsintheirMemorandumofJune6,2005thattheCourtresolvedthrough
itsApril28,2010decision,specificallyasfollows:
1. The contentions pertaining tothe alleged plagiarism were then already lodged withthe Committee on
EthicsandEthicalStandardsoftheCourthence,thematterofallegedplagiarismshouldnotbediscussed
orresolvedherein.13
2.Awritofcertiorarididnotlieintheabsenceofgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof
jurisdiction. Hence, in view of the failureof petitioners to show any arbitrary or despotic act on the part of
respondents,thereliefofthewritofcertiorariwasnotwarranted.14
3. Respondents hold that the Waiver Clause in the Treaty of Peace with Japan, being valid, bound the
RepublicofthePhilippinespursuanttotheinternationallawprincipleofpactasuntservanda.Thevalidityof
theTreatyofPeacewastheresultoftheratificationbytwomutuallyconsentingparties.Consequently,the
obligationsembodiedintheTreatyofPeacemustbecarriedoutinaccordancewiththecommonandreal
intentionofthepartiesatthetimethetreatywasconcluded.15
4. Respondents assert that individuals did not have direct international remedies against any State that
violated their human rights except where such remedies are provided by an international agreement.
Herein, neither of the Treaty of Peace and the Reparations Agreement,the relevant agreements affecting
herein petitioners, provided for the reparation of petitioners claims. Respondents aver that the formal
apologybytheGovernmentofJapanandthereparationtheGovernmentofJapanhasprovidedthrough
theAsianWomensFund(AWF)aresufficienttorecompensepetitionersontheirclaims,specifically:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_162230_2014.html

2/6

11/17/2015

G.R.No.162230

a. About 700 million yen would be paid from the national treasury over the next 10 years as welfare and
medicalservices
b. Instead of paying the money directly to the former comfort women, the services would be provided
throughorganizationsdelegatedbygovernmentalbodiesintherecipientcountries(i.e.,thePhilippines,the
RepublicofKorea,andTaiwan)and
c. Compensation would consist of assistance for nursing services (like home helpers), housing,
environmentaldevelopment,medicalexpenses,andmedicalgoods.16
Ruling
TheCourtDENIEStheMotionforReconsiderationandSupplementalMotionforReconsiderationforbeingdevoid
ofmerit.
1.PetitionersdidnotshowthattheirresortwastimelyundertheRulesofCourt.
Petitionersdidnotshowthattheirbringingofthespecialcivilactionforcertiorariwastimely,i.e.,withinthe60day
periodprovidedinSection4,Rule65oftheRulesofCourt,towit:
Section4.Whenandwherepositionfiled.Thepetitionshallbefilednotlaterthansixty(60)daysfromnoticeof
judgment,orderorresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialistimelyfiled,whethersuchmotion
isrequiredornot,thesixty(60)dayperiodshallbecountedfromnoticeofthedenialofsaidmotion.
Astheruleindicates,the60dayperiodstartstorunfromthedatepetitionerreceivestheassailedjudgment,final
orderorresolution,orthedenialofthemotionforreconsiderationornewtrialtimelyfiled,whethersuchmotionis
required or not. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt of the assailed
judgment,finalorderorresolutionorthedenialofthemotionforreconsiderationornewtrialmustbestatedinthe
petitionotherwise, the petition for certiorarimust be dismissed. The importance of the dates cannot be
understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition for certiorari. As the Court has
emphasizedinTambongv.R.JorgeDevelopmentCorporation:17
There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the
datewhennoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorderorresolutionwasreceivedsecond,whenamotionfornewtrialor
reconsiderationwasfiledandthird,whennoticeofthedenialthereofwasreceived.Failureofpetitionertocomply
with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance will not
sufficeinamatterinvolvingstrictobservancewiththeRules.(Emphasissupplied)
TheCourthasfurthersaidinSantosv.CourtofAppeals:18
Therequirementofsettingforththethree(3)datesinapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65isforthepurposeof
determiningitstimeliness.Suchapetitionisrequiredtobefilednotlaterthansixty(60)daysfromnoticeofthe
judgment,orderorResolutionsoughttobeassailed.Therefore,thatthepetitionforcertiorariwasfiledfortyone
(41)daysfromreceiptofthedenialofthemotionforreconsiderationishardlyrelevant.TheCourtofAppealswas
notinanypositiontodeterminewhenthisperiodcommencedtorunandwhetherthemotionforreconsideration
itselfwasfiledontimesincethematerialdateswerenotstated.Itshouldnotbeassumedthatinnoeventwould
themotionbefiledlaterthanfifteen(15)days.Technicalrulesofprocedurearenotdesignedtofrustratetheends
ofjustice.Theseareprovidedtoeffecttheproperandorderlydispositionofcasesandthuseffectivelypreventthe
clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of the Rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy
ofliberalconstruction.19
Thepetitionforcertioraricontainsthefollowingaverments,viz:
82. Since 1998, petitioners and other victims of the "comfort women system," approached the Executive
DepartmentthroughtheDepartmentofJusticeinordertorequestforassistancetofileaclaimagainstthe
Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the "comfort women" stations in
thePhilippines
83.OfficialsoftheExecutiveDepartmentignoredtheirrequestandrefusedtofileaclaimagainstthesaid
Japaneseofficialsandmilitaryofficers
84.Undaunted,thePetitionersinturnapproachedtheDepartmentofForeignAffairs,DepartmentofJustice
and Office of the of the Solicitor General to file their claim against the responsible Japanese officials and
militaryofficers,buttheireffortsweresimilarlyandcarelesslydisregarded20
Thepetitionthusmentionstheyear1998onlyasthetimewhenpetitionersapproachedtheDepartmentofJustice
forassistance,butdoesnotspecificallystatewhentheyreceivedthedenialoftheirrequestforassistancebythe
ExecutiveDepartmentoftheGovernment.Thisalonewarrantedtheoutrightdismissalofthepetition.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_162230_2014.html

3/6

11/17/2015

G.R.No.162230

Evenassumingthatpetitionersreceivedthenoticeofthedenialoftheirrequestforassistancein1998,theirfiling
ofthepetitiononlyonMarch8,2004wasstillwaybeyondthe60dayperiod.Onlythemostcompellingreasons
couldjustifytheCourtsactsofdisregardingandliftingthestricturesoftheruleontheperiod.Aswepointedout
inMTMGarmentMfg.Inc.v.CourtofAppeals:21
All these do not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the
convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely: to
ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness,
caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that
substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of
proceduralrulesshouldneverbepermittedifitwouldresultinprejudicetothesubstantiverightsofthelitigants.
Aswehaverepeatedlystressed,therighttofileaspecialcivilactionofcertiorariisneitheranaturalrightnoran
essentialelementofdueprocessawritofcertiorariisaprerogativewrit,neverdemandableasamatterofright,
andneverissuedexceptintheexerciseofjudicialdiscretion.Hence,hewhoseeksawritofcertiorarimustapply
foritonlyinthemannerandstrictlyinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthelawandtheRules.
Herein petitioners have not shown any compelling reason for us to relax the rule and the requirements under
currentjurisprudence.xxx.(Emphasissupplied)
2.Petitionersdidnotshowthattheassailedactwaseitherjudicialorquasijudicialonthepartofrespondents.
Petitioners were required to show in their petition for certiorarithat the assailed act was either judicial or quasi
judicialincharacter.Section1,Rule65oftheRulesofCourtrequiressuchshowing,towit:
Section1.Petitionforcertiorari.Whenanytribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicialorquasijudicialfunctions
has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excessofjurisdiction,andthereisnoappeal,noranyplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourse
oflaw,apersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetitioninthepropercourt,allegingthefactswithcertainty
andprayingthatjudgmentberenderedannullingormodifyingtheproceedingsofsuchtribunal,boardorofficer,
andgrantingsuchincidentalreliefsaslawandjusticemayrequire.
Thepetitionshallbeaccompaniedbyacertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,order,orresolutionsubjectthereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of nonforum
shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. However, petitioners did notmake such a
showing.
3.Petitionerswerenotentitledtotheinjunction.
TheCourtcannotgrantpetitionersprayerforthewritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction.Preliminaryinjunctionis
merely a provisional remedy that is adjunct to the main case, and is subject to the latters outcome. It is not a
cause of action itself.22 It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the
pendencyoftheactionanditisancillarybecauseitisamereincidentinandisdependentupontheresultofthe
mainaction.23Followingthedismissalofthepetitionforcertiorari,thereisnomorelegalbasistoissuethewritof
injunction sought. As an auxiliary remedy, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction cannot be issued
independentlyoftheprincipalaction.24
In any event, a mandatory injunction requires the performance of a particular act. Hence, it is an extreme
remedy,25tobegrantedonlyifthefollowingrequisitesareattendant,namely:
1 w p h i1

(a)Theapplicanthasaclearandunmistakableright,thatis,arightinesse
(b)Thereisamaterialandsubstantialinvasionofsuchrightand
(c)Thereisanurgentneedforthewrittopreventirreparableinjurytotheapplicantandnootherordinary,
speedy,andadequateremedyexiststopreventtheinflictionofirreparableinjury.26
In Marquez v. The Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC Br. 58, Lucena City,27 we expounded as
follows:
Itisbasicthattheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunctionisaddressedtothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,
conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an
extraordinary,peremptoryremedyavailableonlyonthegroundsexpresslyprovidedbylaw,specificallySection3,
Rule58oftheRulesofCourt.Moreover,extremecautionmustbeobservedintheexerciseofsuchdiscretion.It
shouldbegrantedonlywhenthecourtisfullysatisfiedthatthelawpermitsitandtheemergencydemandsit.The
veryfoundationofthejurisdictiontoissueawritofinjunctionrestsintheexistenceofacauseofactionandinthe
probabilityofirreparableinjury,inadequacyofpecuniarycompensation,andthepreventionofmultiplicityofsuits.
Wherefactsarenotshowntobringthecasewithintheseconditions,thereliefofinjunctionshouldberefused.28
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_162230_2014.html

4/6

11/17/2015

G.R.No.162230

Here, the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations for the
Philippines.Whetherornottoespousepetitioners'claimagainsttheGovernmentofJapanislefttotheexclusive
determinationandjudgmentoftheExecutiveDepartment.TheCourtcannotinterferewithorquestionthewisdom
of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive
Department, either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with Japan in a certain
manner.
WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIEStheMotionforReconsiderationandSupplementalMotionforReconsideration
fortheirlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

(nopart)
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

Nopart
MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveResolutionhad
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1

Rollo,pp.419429.

Id.at435529.

75Phil.563(1945).

83Phil.171(1949).

G.R.No.101949,December1,1994,238SCRA524.

G.R.No.76607,February26,1990,182SCRA644.

No.L49112,February2,1979,88SCRA195.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_162230_2014.html

5/6

11/17/2015

G.R.No.162230
8

Supranote1.

Id.at426427.

10

Id.at427428.

11

Id.at436.

12

Id.at665709.

13

Id.at684685.

14

Id.at686690.

15

Id.at690702.

16

Id.at703706.

17

G.R.No.146068,August31,2006,500SCRA399,403404.

18

G.R.No.141947,July5,2001,360SCRA521,527528.

19

Id.at527528.

20

Rollo,p.18.

21

G.R.No.152336,June9,2005,460SCRA55,66.

22

Buycov.Baraquia,G.R.No.177486,December21,2009,608SCRA699,703704.

23

Id.at704.

24

BangkoSentralngPilipinasMonetaryBoardv.AntonioValenzuela,G.R.No.184778,October2,2009,
602SCRA698,715,citingLimv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.134617,February13,2006,482SCRA326,
331.
25

IRegalado,RemedialLawCompendium,SeventhRevisedEdition,p.638.

26

PhilippineLeisureandRetirementAuthorityv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.156303,December19,2007,
541SCRA85,99100.
27

G.R.No.141849,February13,2007,515SCRA577.

28

At589.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_162230_2014.html

6/6