Isabelita Vinuya Et Al Vs The Executive Secretary, Secretary of Foreign Affairs... GR 162230

4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
ENBANC
ISABELITAC.VINUYA,VICTORIA
C.DELAPEA,HERMINIHILDA
MANIMBO,LEONORH.SUMAWANG,
CANDELARIAL.SOLIMAN,MARIA
L.QUILANTANG,MARIAL.MAGISA,
NATALIAM.ALONZO,LOURDESM.
NAVARO,FRANCISCAM.ATENCIO,
ERLINDAMANALASTAS,TARCILA
M.SAMPANG,ESTERM.PALACIO,
MAXIMAR.DELACRUZ,BELENA.
SAGUM,FELICIDADTURLA,
FLORENCIAM.DELAPEA,
EUGENIAM.LALU,JULIANAG.
MAGAT,CECILIASANGUYO,ANA
ALONZO,RUFINAP.MALLARI,
ROSARIOM.ALARCON,RUFINAC.
GULAPA,ZOILAB.MANALUS,
CORAZONC.CALMA,MARTAA.
GULAPA,TEODORAM.HERNANDEZ,
FERMINB.DELAPEA,MARIADELA
PAZB.CULALA,ESPERANZA
MANAPOL,JUANITAM.BRIONES,
VERGINIAM.GUEVARRA,MAXIMA
ANGULO,EMILIASANGIL,TEOFILA
R.PUNZALAN,JANUARIAG.GARCIA,
PERLAB.BALINGIT,BELENA.
CULALA,PILARQ.GALANG,
ROSARIOC.BUCO,GAUDENCIAC.
DELAPEA,RUFINAQ.CATACUTAN,
FRANCIAA.BUCO,PASTORAC.
GUEVARRA,VICTORIAM.DELA
CRUZ,PETRONILAO.DELACRUZ,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm
G.R.No.162230
Present:
PUNO,C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIOMORALES,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and
MENDOZA,JJ.
1/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
ZENAIDAP.DELACRUZ,CORAZON

M.SUBA,EMERINCIANAA.VINUYA,

LYDIAA.SANCHEZ,ROSALINAM.

BUCO,PATRICIAA.BERNARDO,

LUCILAH.PAYAWAL,MAGDALENA

LIWAG,ESTERC.BALINGIT,JOVITA

A.DAVID,EMILIAC.MANGILIT,

VERGINIAM.BANGIT,GUILLERMA

S.BALINGIT,TERECITAPANGILINAN,

MAMERTAC.PUNO,CRISENCIANA

C.GULAPA,SEFERINAS.TURLA,
Promulgated:
MAXIMAB.TURLA,LEONICIAG.
April28,2010
GUEVARRA,ROSALINAM.CULALA,

CATALINAY.MANIO,MAMERTAT.

SAGUM,CARIDADL.TURLA,etal.

Intheircapacityandasmembersofthe

MalayaLolasOrganization,

Petitioners,

versus

THEHONORABLEEXECUTIVE

SECRETARYALBERTOG.

ROMULO,THEHONORABLE

SECRETARYOFFOREIGN

AFFAIRSDELIADOMINGO

ALBERT,THEHONORABLE

SECRETARYOFJUSTICE

MERCEDITASN.GUTIERREZ,

andTHEHONORABLESOLICITOR

GENERALALFREDOL.BENIPAYO,

Respondents.

xx
DECISION
DELCASTILLO,J.:
The Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as it barred future claims such as those asserted by
plaintiffsintheseactions,exchangedfullcompensationofplaintiffsforafuturepeace.Historyhas
vindicatedthewisdomofthatbargain.Andwhilefullcompensationforplaintiffs'hardships,inthe
2/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
purelyeconomicsense,hasbeendeniedtheseformerprisonersandcountlessothersurvivorsof
thewar,theimmeasurablebountyoflifeforthemselvesandtheirposterityinafreesocietyandin
[1]
amorepeacefulworldservicesthedebt.
ThereisabroadrangeofvitallyimportantareasthatmustberegularlydecidedbytheExecutive
DepartmentwithouteitherchallengeorinterferencebytheJudiciary.Onesuchareainvolvesthe
delicate arena of foreign relations. It would be strange indeed if the courts and the executive
spokewithdifferentvoicesintherealmofforeignpolicy.Preciselybecauseofthenatureofthe
questionspresented,andthelapseofmorethan60yearssincetheconductcomplainedof,we
makenoattempttolaydowngeneralguidelinescoveringothersituationsnotinvolvedhere,and
confinetheopiniononlytotheveryquestionsnecessarytoreachadecisiononthismatter.
FactualAntecedents
ThisisanoriginalPetitionforCertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtwithan
applicationfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminarymandatoryinjunctionagainsttheOfficeof
theExecutiveSecretary,theSecretaryoftheDepartmentofForeignAffairs(DFA),theSecretary
oftheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ),andtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG).
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a nonstock, nonprofit

organizationregisteredwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommission,establishedforthe
purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the
PhilippinesduringtheSecondWorldWar.
PetitionersnarratethatduringtheSecondWorldWar,theJapanesearmyattackedvillages
andsystematicallyrapedthewomenaspartofthedestructionofthevillage.Theircommunities
werebombed,houseswerelootedandburned,andcivilianswerepubliclytortured,mutilated,
andslaughtered.Japanesesoldiersforciblyseizedthewomenandheldtheminhousesorcells,
wheretheywererepeatedlyraped,beaten,andabusedbyJapanesesoldiers.Asaresultofthe
actions of their Japanese tormentors, the petitioners have spent their lives in misery, having
[2]
enduredphysicalinjuries,painanddisability,andmentalandemotionalsuffering.
Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department
3/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
throughtheDOJ,DFA,andOSG,requestingassistanceinfilingaclaimagainsttheJapanese
officialsandmilitaryofficerswhoorderedtheestablishmentofthecomfortwomenstationsin
thePhilippines.However,officialsoftheExecutiveDepartmentdeclinedtoassistthepetitioners,
and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had
alreadybeenfullysatisfiedbyJapanscompliancewiththePeaceTreatybetweenthePhilippines
andJapan.
Issues
Hence,thispetitionwherepetitionersprayforthiscourtto(a)declarethatrespondents
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing to
espousetheirclaimsforthecrimesagainsthumanityandwarcrimescommittedagainstthem
and(b)compeltherespondentstoespousetheirclaimsforofficialapologyandotherformsof
reparationsagainstJapanbeforetheInternationalCourtofJustice(ICJ)andotherinternational
tribunals.
Petitionersarguments
PetitionersarguethatthegeneralwaiverofclaimsmadebythePhilippinegovernmentin
theTreatyofPeacewithJapanisvoid.Theyclaimthatthecomfortwomensystemestablished
by Japan, and the brutal rape and enslavement of petitioners constituted a crime against
[3]
[4]
[5]
humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. They allege that the prohibition against these
international crimes is jus cogens norms from which no derogation is possible as such, in
waivingtheclaimsofFilipinacomfortwomenandfailingtoespousetheircomplaintsagainst
Japan,thePhilippinegovernmentisinbreachofitslegalobligationnottoaffordimpunityfor
crimesagainsthumanity.Finally,petitionersassertthatthePhilippinegovernmentsacceptanceof
the apologies made by Japan as well as funds from the Asian Womens Fund (AWF) were
contrarytointernationallaw.
RespondentsArguments
RespondentsmaintainthatallclaimsofthePhilippinesanditsnationalsrelativetothewarwere
4/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
dealtwithintheSanFranciscoPeaceTreatyof1951andthebilateralReparationsAgreementof
[6]
1956.
[7]
Article14oftheTreatyofPeace provides:
Article14.ClaimsandProperty
a)It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to theAllied Powers for the damage and
suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the
resourcesofJapanarenotpresentlysufficient,ifitistomaintainaviableeconomy,to
makecompletereparationforallsuchdamageandsufferingandatthepresenttime
meetitsotherobligations.
b) ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinthepresentTreaty,theAlliedPowerswaiveall
reparationsclaimsoftheAlliedPowers,otherclaimsoftheAlliedPowersandtheir
nationalsarisingoutofanyactionstakenbyJapananditsnationalsinthecourseof
theprosecutionofthewar,andclaimsoftheAlliedPowersfordirectmilitarycostsof
occupation.
[8]
Inaddition,respondentsarguethattheapologiesmadebyJapan havebeensatisfactory,
andthatJapanhadaddressedtheindividualclaimsofthewomenthroughtheatonementmoney
paidbytheAsianWomensFund.
HistoricalBackground
ThecomfortwomensystemwasthetragiclegacyoftheRapeofNanking.InDecember
1937, Japanese military forces captured the city of Nanking in China and began a barbaric
campaignofterrorknownastheRapeofNanking,whichincludedtherapesandmurdersofan
estimated 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women, including young girls, pregnant mothers, and
[9]
elderlywomen.
Inreactiontointernationaloutcryovertheincident,theJapanesegovernmentsoughtways
[10]
toendinternationalcondemnation
byestablishingthecomfortwomensystem.Under this
system,themilitarycouldsimultaneouslyappeasesoldiers'sexualappetitesandcontainsoldiers'
[11]
activitieswithinaregulatedenvironment. Comfortstationswouldalsopreventthespreadof
5/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
venereal disease among soldiers and discourage soldiers from raping inhabitants of occupied
[12]
territories.
[13]
Dailylifeasacomfortwomanwasunmitigatedmisery.
Themilitaryforcedvictimsinto
barracksstylestationsdividedintotinycubicleswheretheywereforcedtolive,sleep,andhave
[14]
sexwithasmany30soldiersperday.
The30minutesallottedforsexualrelationswitheach
[15]
soldier were 30minute increments of unimaginable horror for the women.
Disease was
[16]
rampant.
Militarydoctorsregularlyexaminedthewomen,butthesecheckswerecarriedout
topreventthespreadofvenerealdiseaseslittlenoticewastakenofthefrequentcigaretteburns,
bruises,bayonetstabsandevenbrokenbonesinflictedonthewomenbysoldiers.
[17]
Fewerthan30%ofthewomensurvivedthewar.
Theiragonycontinuedinhavingtosuffer
with the residual physical, psychological, and emotional scars from their former lives. Some
returned home and were ostracized by their families. Some committed suicide.Others, out of
[18]
shame,neverreturnedhome.
EffortstoSecureReparation
The most prominent attempts to compel the Japanese government to accept legal
responsibility and pay compensatory damages for the comfort women system were through a
seriesoflawsuits,discussionattheUnitedNations(UN),resolutionsbyvariousnations,andthe
WomensInternationalCriminalTribunal.TheJapanesegovernment,inturn,respondedthrough
[19]
aseriesofpublicapologiesandthecreationoftheAWF.
Lawsuits
InDecember1991,KimHakSunandtwoothersurvivorsfiledthefirstlawsuitinJapan
byformercomfortwomenagainsttheJapanesegovernment.TheTokyoDistrictCourthowever
6/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[20]
[21]
dismissedtheircase.
Othersuitsfollowed,
but the Japanese government has, thus far,
[22]
successfullycausedthedismissalofeverycase.
UndoubtedlyfrustratedbythefailureoflitigationbeforeJapanesecourts,victimsofthe
comfortwomensystembroughttheirclaimsbeforetheUnitedStates(US).OnSeptember18,
2000,15comfortwomenfiledaclassactionlawsuitintheUSDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof
[23]
Columbia
"seekingmoneydamagesfor[allegedly]havingbeensubjectedtosexualslavery
and torture before and during World War II," in violation of "both positive and customary
[24]
internationallaw."ThecasewasfiledpursuanttotheAlienTortClaimsAct(ATCA),
which
[25]
allowed the plaintiffs to sue the Japanese government in a US federal district court.
On
October4,2001,thedistrictcourtdismissedthelawsuitduetolackofjurisdictionoverJapan,
statingthat[t]hereisnoquestionthatthiscourtisnottheappropriateforuminwhichplaintiffs
mayseektoreopenxxxdiscussionsnearlyhalfacenturylaterxxx[E]venifJapandidnot
enjoysovereignimmunity,plaintiffs'claimsarenonjusticiableandmustbedismissed.
The District of Columbia Court ofAppeals affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the
[26]
case.
Onappeal,theUSSupremeCourtgrantedthewomenspetitionforwritofcertiorari,
[27]
vacatedthejudgmentoftheDistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppeals,andremandedthecase.
Onremand,theCourtofAppealsaffirmeditspriordecision,notingthatmuchaswemayfeelfor
[28]
theplightoftheappellants,thecourtsoftheUSsimplyarenotauthorizedtoheartheircase.
ThewomenagainbroughttheircasetotheUSSupremeCourtwhichdeniedtheirpetitionfor
writofcertiorarionFebruary21,2006.
EffortsattheUnitedNations
In1992,theKoreanCouncilfortheWomenDraftedforMilitarySexualSlaverybyJapan
(KCWS), submitted a petition to the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), asking for
assistance in investigating crimes committed by Japan against Korean women and seeking
7/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[29]
reparations for former comfort women.
The UNHRC placed the issue on its agenda and
appointedRadhikaCoomaraswamyastheissue'sspecialinvestigator.In1996,Coomaraswamy
issuedaReportreaffirmingJapan'sresponsibilityinforcingKoreanwomentoactassexslaves
fortheimperialarmy,andmadethefollowingrecommendations:
A.Atthenationallevel
137.TheGovernmentofJapanshould:
(a)AcknowledgethatthesystemofcomfortstationssetupbytheJapaneseImperialArmyduring
theSecondWorldWarwasaviolationofitsobligationsunderinternationallawandaccept
legalresponsibilityforthatviolation
(b) Pay compensation to individual victims of Japanese military sexual slavery according to
principlesoutlinedbytheSpecialRapporteuroftheSubCommissiononPreventionof
DiscriminationandProtectionofMinoritiesontherighttorestitution,compensationand
rehabilitationforvictimsofgraveviolationsofhumanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms.
Aspecialadministrativetribunalforthispurposeshouldbesetupwithalimitedtime
framesincemanyofthevictimsareofaveryadvancedage
(c)Makeafulldisclosureofdocumentsandmaterialsinitspossessionwithregardtocomfort
stations and other related activities of the Japanese ImperialArmy during the Second
WorldWar
(d)Makeapublicapologyinwritingtoindividualwomenwhohavecomeforwardandcanbe
substantiatedaswomenvictimsofJapanesemilitarysexualslavery
(e)Raiseawarenessoftheseissuesbyamendingeducationalcurriculatoreflecthistoricalrealities
(f) Identify and punish, as far as possible, perpetrators involved in the recruitment and
institutionalizationofcomfortstationsduringtheSecondWorldWar.
Gay J. McDougal, the Special Rapporteur for the UN SubCommission on Prevention of

DiscriminationandProtectionofMinorities,alsopresentedareporttotheSubCommitteeon
June22,1998entitledContemporaryFormsofSlavery:SystematicRape,SexualSlaveryand
Slaverylike Practices During Armed Conflict. The report included an appendix entitled An
Analysis of the Legal Liability of the Government of Japan for 'Comfort Women Stations'
[30]
establishedduringtheSecondWorldWar,
whichcontainedthefollowingfindings:
68.ThepresentreportconcludesthattheJapaneseGovernmentremainsliableforgraveviolations
ofhumanrightsandhumanitarianlaw,violationsthatamountintheirtotalitytocrimesagainst
humanity.TheJapaneseGovernmentsargumentstothecontrary,includingargumentsthatseekto
8/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
attack the underlying humanitarian law prohibition of enslavement and rape, remain as
unpersuasivetodayastheywerewhentheywerefirstraisedbeforetheNurembergwarcrimes
tribunalmorethan50yearsago.Inaddition,theJapaneseGovernmentsargumentthatJapanhas
already settled all claims from the Second World War through peace treaties and reparations
agreements following the war remains equally unpersuasive.This is due, in large part, to the
failure until very recently of the Japanese Government to admit the extent of the Japanese
militarys direct involvement in the establishment and maintenance of these rape centres. The
Japanese Governments silence on this point during the period in which peace and reparations
agreementsbetweenJapanandotherAsianGovernmentswerebeingnegotiatedfollowingtheend
ofthewarmust,asamatteroflawandjustice,precludeJapanfromrelyingtodayonthesepeace
treatiestoextinguishliabilityinthesecases.
69.Thefailuretosettletheseclaimsmorethanhalfacenturyafterthecessationofhostilitiesisa
testamenttothedegreetowhichthelivesofwomencontinuetobeundervalued.Sadly,thisfailure
toaddresscrimesofasexualnaturecommittedonamassivescaleduringtheSecondWorldWar
has added to the level of impunity with which similar crimes are committed today. The
GovernmentofJapanhastakensomestepstoapologizeandatonefortherapeandenslavementof
over200,000womenandgirlswhowerebrutalizedincomfortstationsduringtheSecondWorld
War.However,anythinglessthanfullandunqualifiedacceptancebytheGovernmentofJapanof
legalliabilityandtheconsequencesthatflowfromsuchliabilityiswhollyinadequate.Itmustnow
falltotheGovernmentofJapantotakethenecessaryfinalstepstoprovideadequateredress.
TheUN,sincethen,hasnottakenanyofficialactiondirectingJapantoprovidethereparations
sought.
Women'sInternationalWarCrimes
Tribunal
TheWomen'sInternationalWarCrimesTribunal(WIWCT)wasapeople'stribunalestablished
by a number ofAsian women and human rights organizations, supported by an international
[31]
coalitionofnongovernmentalorganizations.
Firstproposedin1998,theWIWCTconvened
in Tokyo in 2000 in order to adjudicate Japan's military sexual violence, in particular the
enslavement of comfort women, to bring those responsible for it to justice, and to end the
ongoingcycleofimpunityforwartimesexualviolenceagainstwomen.
After examining the evidence for more than a year, the tribunal issued its verdict on
December4,2001,findingtheformerEmperorHirohitoandtheStateofJapanguiltyofcrimes
[32]
againsthumanityfortherapeandsexualslaveryofwomen.
Itbearsstressing,however,that
9/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
althoughthetribunalincludedprosecutors,witnesses,andjudges,itsjudgmentwasnotlegally
bindingsincethetribunalitselfwasorganizedbyprivatecitizens.
ActionbyIndividualGovernments
OnJanuary31,2007,USRepresentativeMichaelHondaofCalifornia,alongwithsixcosponsor
representatives,introducedHouseResolution121whichcalledforJapaneseactioninlightofthe
ongoingstruggleforclosurebyformercomfortwomen.TheResolutionwasformallypassedon
[33]
July30,2007,
andmadefourdistinctdemands:
[I]tisthesenseoftheHouseofRepresentativesthattheGovernmentofJapan(1)shouldformally
acknowledge,apologize,andaccepthistoricalresponsibilityinaclearandunequivocalmannerfor
itsImperialArmedForces'coercionofyoungwomenintosexualslavery,knowntotheworldas
comfortwomen,duringitscolonialandwartimeoccupationofAsiaandthePacificIslandsfrom
the1930s through the duration ofWorldWar II (2)wouldhelp toresolverecurringquestions
aboutthesincerityandstatusofpriorstatementsifthePrimeMinisterofJapanweretomakesuch
anapologyasapublicstatementinhisofficialcapacity(3)shouldclearlyandpubliclyrefuteany
claimsthatthesexualenslavementandtraffickingofthecomfortwomenfortheJapaneseImperial
Armyneveroccurredand(4)shouldeducatecurrentandfuturegenerationsaboutthishorrible
crimewhilefollowingtherecommendationsoftheinternationalcommunitywithrespecttothe
[34]
comfortwomen.
InDecember2007,theEuropeanParliament,thegoverningbodyoftheEuropeanUnion,
[35]
draftedaresolutionsimilartoHouseResolution121.
Entitled,JusticeforComfortWomen,
the resolution demanded: (1) a formal acknowledgment of responsibility by the Japanese
government(2)aremovalofthelegalobstaclespreventingcompensationand(3)unabridged
educationofthepast.TheresolutionalsostressedtheurgencywithwhichJapanshouldacton
theseissues,stating:therightofindividualstoclaimreparationsagainstthegovernmentshould
be expressly recognized in national law, and cases for reparations for the survivors of sexual
slavery,asacrimeunderinternationallaw,shouldbeprioritized,takingintoaccounttheageof
thesurvivors.
The Canadian and Dutch parliaments have each followed suit in drafting resolutions
againstJapan.Canada'sresolutiondemandstheJapanesegovernmenttoissueaformalapology,
toadmitthatitsImperialMilitarycoercedorforcedhundredsofthousandsofwomenintosexual
10/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[36]
slavery, and to restore references in Japanese textbooks to its war crimes.
The Dutch
parliament's resolution calls for the Japanese government to uphold the 1993 declaration of
remorsemadebyChiefCabinetSecretaryYoheiKono.
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the United Kingdoms Parliament also produced a
reportinNovember,2008entitled,"GlobalSecurity:JapanandKorea"whichconcludedthat
Japanshouldacknowledgethepaincausedbytheissueofcomfortwomeninordertoensure
cooperationbetweenJapanandKorea.
StatementsofRemorsemadebyrepresentativesofthe
Japanesegovernment
VariousofficialsoftheGovernmentofJapanhaveissuedthefollowingpublicstatements
concerningthecomfortsystem:
a)StatementbytheChiefCabinetSecretaryYoheiKonoin1993:
TheGovernmentofJapanhasbeenconductingastudyontheissueofwartime"comfortwomen"
sinceDecember1991.Iwishtoannouncethefindingsasaresultofthatstudy.
Asaresultofthestudywhichindicatesthatcomfortstationswereoperatedinextensiveareasfor
longperiods,itisapparentthatthereexistedagreatnumberofcomfortwomen.Comfortstations
wereoperatedinresponsetotherequestofthemilitaryauthoritiesoftheday.ThethenJapanese
militarywas,directlyorindirectly,involvedintheestablishmentandmanagementofthecomfort
stationsandthetransferofcomfortwomen.Therecruitmentofthecomfortwomenwasconducted
mainlybyprivaterecruiterswhoactedinresponsetotherequestofthemilitary.TheGovernment
studyhasrevealedthatinmanycasestheywererecruitedagainsttheirownwill,throughcoaxing
coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the
recruitments.Theylivedinmiseryatcomfortstationsunderacoerciveatmosphere.
Astotheoriginofthosecomfortwomenwhoweretransferredtothewarareas,excludingthose
fromJapan,thosefromtheKoreanPeninsulaaccountedforalargepart.TheKoreanPeninsula
wasunderJapaneseruleinthosedays,andtheirrecruitment,transfer,control,etc.,wereconducted
generallyagainsttheirwill,throughcoaxing,coercion,etc.
Undeniably, this was an act, with the involvement of the military authorities of the day, that
severelyinjuredthehonoranddignityofmanywomen.TheGovernmentofJapanwouldliketo
take this opportunity once again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all those,
irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and
psychologicalwoundsascomfortwomen.
11/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
It is incumbent upon us, the Government of Japan, to continue to consider seriously, while
listeningtotheviewsoflearnedcircles,howbestwecanexpressthissentiment.
Weshallfacesquarelythehistoricalfactsasdescribedaboveinsteadofevadingthem,andtake
themtoheartaslessonsofhistory.Weherebyreiteratedourfirmdeterminationnevertorepeatthe
samemistakebyforeverengravingsuchissuesinourmemoriesthroughthestudyandteachingof
history.
AsactionshavebeenbroughttocourtinJapanandinterestshavebeenshowninthisissueoutside
Japan,theGovernmentofJapanshallcontinuetopayfullattentiontothismatter,includingprivate
researchedrelatedthereto.
b)PrimeMinisterTomiichiMurayamasStatementin1994
Ontheissueofwartimecomfortwomen,whichseriouslystainedthehonoranddignityofmany
women, I would like to take this opportunity once again to express my profound and sincere
remorseandapologies
c)LettersfromthePrimeMinisterofJapantoIndividualComfortWomen
The issue of comfort women, with the involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that
time,wasagraveaffronttothehonoranddignityofalargenumberofwomen.
AsPrimeMinisterofJapan,Ithusextendanewmymostsincereapologiesandremorsetoallthe
womenwhoenduredimmeasurableandpainfulexperiencesandsufferedincurablephysicaland
psychologicalwoundsascomfortwomen.
Ibelievethatourcountry,painfullyawareofitsmoralresponsibilities,withfeelingsofapology
and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future
generations.
d)TheDiet(JapaneseParliament)passedresolutionsin1995and2005
Solemnlyreflectinguponthemanyinstancesofcolonialruleandactsofaggressionthatoccurred
inmodernworldhistory,andrecognizingthatJapancarriedoutsuchactsinthepastandinflicted
sufferingonthepeopleofothercountries,especiallyinAsia,theMembersofthisHousehereby
expressdeepremorse.(ResolutionoftheHouseofRepresentativesadoptedonJune9,1995)
e)VariousPublicStatementsbyJapanesePrimeMinisterShinzoAbe
IhavetalkedaboutthismatterintheDietsessionslastyear,andrecentlyaswell,andtothepress.
Ihavebeenconsistent.IwillstandbytheKonoStatement.Thisisourconsistentposition.Further,
12/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
we have been apologizing sincerely to those who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable
psychological wounds as comfort women. Former Prime Ministers, including Prime Ministers
KoizumiandHashimoto,haveissuedletterstothecomfortwomen.IwouldliketobeclearthatI
carry the same feeling. This has not changed even slightly.(Excerpt from Remarks by Prime
MinisterAbeatanInterviewbyNHK,March11,2007).
Iamapologizinghereandnow.IamapologizingasthePrimeMinisteranditisasstatedinthe
statementbytheChiefCabinetSecretaryKono.(ExcerptfromRemarksbyPrimeMinisterAbeat
theBudgetCommittee,theHouseofCouncilors,theDietofJapan,March26,2007).
I am deeply sympathetic to the former comfort women who suffered hardships, and I have
expressedmyapologiesfortheextremelyagonizingcircumstancesintowhichtheywereplaced.
(ExcerptfromTelephoneConferencebyPrimeMinisterAbetoPresidentGeorgeW.Bush,April
3,2007).
I have to express sympathy from the bottom of my heart to those people who were taken as
wartimecomfortwomen.Asahumanbeing,Iwouldliketoexpressmysympathies,andalsoas
primeministerofJapanIneedtoapologizetothem.Myadministrationhasbeensayingallalong
that we continue to stand by the Kono Statement.We feel responsible for having forced these
womentogothroughthathardshipandpainascomfortwomenunderthecircumstancesatthe
time.(Excerptfromaninterviewarticle"AConversationwithShinzoAbe"bytheWashington
Post,April22,2007).
xxxbothpersonallyandasPrimeMinisterofJapan,myheartgoesoutinsympathytoallthose
whosufferedextremehardshipsascomfortwomenandIexpressedmyapologiesforthefactthat
theywereforcedtoenduresuchextremeandharshconditions.Humanrightsareviolatedinmany
partsoftheworldduringthe20thCenturythereforewemustworktomakethe21stCenturya
wonderfulcenturyinwhichnohumanrightsareviolated.AndtheGovernmentofJapanandI
wishtomakesignificantcontributionstothatend.(ExcerptfromPrimeMinisterAbe'sremarksat
theJointPressAvailabilityafterthesummitmeetingatCampDavidbetweenPrimeMinisterAbe
andPresidentBush,April27,2007).
TheAsianWomen'sFund
EstablishedbytheJapanesegovernmentin1995,theAWFrepresentedthegovernment's
concrete attempt to address its moral responsibility by offering monetary compensation to
[37]
victimsofthecomfortwomensystem.
ThepurposeoftheAWFwastoshowatonementof
theJapanesepeoplethroughexpressionsofapologyandremorsetotheformerwartimecomfort
[38]
women,torestoretheirhonor,andtodemonstrateJapansstrongrespectforwomen.
TheAWFannouncedthreeprogramsforformercomfortwomenwhoappliedforassistance:(1)
anatonementfundpaying2million(approximately$20,000)toeachwoman(2)medicaland
13/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
welfaresupportprograms,paying2.53million($25,000$30,000)foreachwomanand(3)a
letter of apology from the Japanese Prime Minister to each woman.Fundingfortheprogram
came from the Japanese government and private donations from the Japanese people. As of
March2006,theAWFprovided700million(approximately$7million)fortheseprogramsin
South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines 380 million (approximately $3.8 million) in
Indonesiaand242million(approximately$2.4million)intheNetherlands.
On January 15, 1997, the AWF and the Philippine government signed a Memorandum of
Understandingformedicalandwelfaresupportprogramsforformercomfortwomen.Overthe
nextfiveyears,thesewereimplementedbytheDepartmentofSocialWelfareandDevelopment.
OurRuling
Strippeddowntoitsessentials,theissueinthiscaseiswhethertheExecutiveDepartment
committedgraveabuseofdiscretioninnotespousingpetitionersclaimsforofficialapologyand
otherformsofreparationsagainstJapan.
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive

Department has the exclusive prerogative to
determine whether to espouse petitioners claims
againstJapan.
[39]
Baker v. Carr
remains the starting point for analysis under the political question
doctrine.TheretheUSSupremeCourtexplainedthat:
xxxProminentonthesurfaceofanycaseheldtoinvolveapoliticalquestionisfoundatextually
demonstrableconstitutionalcommitmentoftheissuetoacoordinatepoliticaldepartmentoralack
of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it, or the impossibility of
decidingwithoutaninitialpolicydeterminationofakindclearlyfornonjudicialdiscretionorthe
impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the
respectduecoordinatebranchesofgovernmentoranunusualneedforunquestioningadherence
to a political decision already made or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncementsbyvariousdepartmentsonquestion.
14/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[40]
InTaadav.Cuenco,
weheldthatpoliticalquestionsrefer"tothosequestionswhich,under
theConstitution,aretobedecidedbythepeopleintheirsovereigncapacity,orinregardtowhich
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government.Itisconcernedwithissuesdependentuponthewisdom,notlegalityofaparticular
measure."
[41]
Certain types of cases often have been found to present political questions.
One such
categoryinvolvesquestionsofforeignrelations.Itiswellestablishedthat"[t]heconductofthe
foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative'thepolitical'departmentsofthegovernment,andtheproprietyofwhatmaybedone
[42]
intheexerciseofthispoliticalpowerisnotsubjecttojudicialinquiryordecision."
TheUS
SupremeCourthasfurthercautionedthatdecisionsrelatingtoforeignpolicy
aredelicate,complex,andinvolvelargeelementsofprophecy.Theyareandshouldbeundertaken
onlybythosedirectlyresponsibletothepeoplewhosewelfaretheyadvanceorimperil.Theyare
[43]
decisionsofakindforwhichtheJudiciaryhasneitheraptitude,facilitiesnorresponsibility.
To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions, and courts
[44]
certainlypossesstheauthoritytoconstrueorinvalidatetreatiesandexecutiveagreements.
However,thequestionwhetherthePhilippinegovernmentshouldespouseclaimsofitsnationals
against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is
demonstrablycommittedbyourConstitutionnottothecourtsbuttothepoliticalbranches.Inthis
case,theExecutiveDepartmenthasalreadydecidedthatitistothebestinterestofthecountryto
waiveallclaimsofitsnationalsforreparationsagainstJapanintheTreatyofPeaceof1951.The
wisdomofsuchdecisionisnotforthecourtstoquestion.Neithercouldpetitionershereinassail
thesaiddeterminationbytheExecutiveDepartmentviatheinstantpetitionforcertiorari.
[45]
IntheseminalcaseofUSv.CurtissWrightExportCorp.,
theUSSupremeCourtheldthat
15/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[t]hePresidentisthesoleorganofthenationinitsexternalrelations,anditssolerepresentative
withforeignrelations.
It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment
perhaps serious embarrassment is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved,
congressionallegislationwhichistobemadeeffectivethroughnegotiationandinquirywithinthe
international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from
statutory restriction which would not be admissible where domestic affairs alone involved.
Moreover,he,notCongress,hasthebetteropportunityofknowingtheconditionswhichprevailin
foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of
information.Hehashisagentsintheformofdiplomatic,consularandotherofficials.xxx
ThisrulinghasbeenincorporatedinourjurisprudencethroughBayanv.
[47]
[46]
ExecutiveSecretary
andPimentelv.ExecutiveSecretary
itsoverreachingprinciplewas,
perhaps,bestarticulatedin(nowChief)JusticePunosdissentinSecretaryofJusticev.Lantion:
[48]
xxxTheconductofforeignrelationsisfullofcomplexitiesandconsequences,sometimeswith
lifeanddeathsignificancetothenationespeciallyintimesofwar.Itcanonlybeentrustedtothat
departmentofgovernmentwhichcanactonthebasisofthebestavailableinformationandcan
decidewithdecisiveness.xxxItisalsothePresidentwhopossessesthemostcomprehensiveand
themostconfidentialinformationaboutforeigncountriesforourdiplomaticandconsularofficials
regularlybriefhimonmeaningfuleventsallovertheworld.Hehasalsounlimitedaccesstoultra
sensitivemilitaryintelligencedata.Infine,thepresidentialroleinforeignaffairsisdominantand
thePresidentistraditionallyaccordedawiderdegreeofdiscretionintheconductofforeignaffairs.
Theregularity,nay,validityofhisactionsareadjudgedunderlessstringentstandards,lesttheir
judicial repudiation lead to breach of an international obligation, rupture of state relations,
forfeitureofconfidence,nationalembarrassmentandaplethoraofotherproblemswithequally
undesirableconsequences.
TheExecutiveDepartmenthasdeterminedthattakinguppetitionerscausewouldbeinimicalto
ourcountrysforeignpolicyinterests,andcoulddisruptourrelationswithJapan,therebycreating
serious implications for stability in this region.For us to overturn the Executive Departments
determination would mean an assessment of the foreign policy judgments by a coordinate
politicalbranchtowhichauthoritytomakethatjudgmenthasbeenconstitutionallycommitted.
In any event, it cannot reasonably be maintained that the Philippine government was without
authority to negotiate the Treaty of Peace with Japan.And it is equally true that, since time
16/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
immemorial,whennegotiatingpeaceaccordsandsettlinginternationalclaims:
xxx[g]overnmentshavedealtwithxxxprivateclaimsastheirown,treatingthemasnational
assets,andascounters,`chips',ininternationalbargaining.Settlementagreementshavelumped,or
linked,claimsderivingfromprivatedebtswithothersthatwereintergovernmentalinorigin,and
concessionsinregardtoonecategoryofclaimsmightbesetoffagainstconcessionsintheother,
[49]
oragainstlargerpoliticalconsiderationsunrelatedtodebts.
Indeed,exceptasanagreementmightotherwiseprovide,internationalsettlementsgenerallywipe
outtheunderlyingprivateclaims,therebyterminatinganyrecourseunderdomesticlaw.InWare
[50]
v. Hylton,
a case brought by a British subject to recover a debt confiscated by the
CommonwealthofVirginiaduringthewar,JusticeChasewrote:
I apprehend that the treaty of peace abolishes the subject of the war, and that after peace is
concluded,neitherthematterindispute,northeconductofeitherparty,duringthewar,canever
be revived, or brought into contest again.All violences, injuries, or damages sustained by the
government,orpeopleofeither,duringthewar,areburiedinoblivionandallthosethingsare
impliedbytheverytreatyofpeaceandthereforenotnecessarytobeexpressed.Henceitfollows,
thattherestitutionof,orcompensationfor,Britishpropertyconfiscated,orextinguished,during
thewar,byanyoftheUnitedStates,couldonlybeprovidedforbythetreatyofpeaceandifthere
hadbeennoprovision,respectingthesesubjects,inthetreaty,theycouldnotbeagitatedafterthe
treaty, by the British government, much less by her subjects in courts of justice. (Emphasis
supplied).
Thispracticeofsettlingclaimsbymeansofapeacetreatyiscertainly
[51]
nothingnew.Forinstance,inDames&Moorev.Regan,
theUSSupremeCourtheld:
Notinfrequentlyinaffairsbetweennations,outstandingclaimsbynationalsofonecountryagainst
the government of another country are sources of friction between the two sovereigns. United
States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 225, 62 S.Ct. 552, 563, 86 L.Ed. 796 (1942). To resolve these
difficulties, nations have often entered into agreements settling the claims of their respective
nationals.Asonetreatisewriterputsit,internationalagreementssettlingclaimsbynationalsofone
stateagainstthegovernmentofanotherareestablishedinternationalpracticereflectingtraditional
internationaltheory.L.Henkin,ForeignAffairsandtheConstitution262(1972).Consistentwith
thatprinciple,theUnitedStateshasrepeatedlyexerciseditssovereignauthoritytosettletheclaims
ofitsnationalsagainstforeigncountries.xxxUndersuchagreements,thePresidenthasagreedto
renounceorextinguishclaimsofUnitedStatesnationalsagainstforeigngovernmentsinreturnfor
lumpsum payments or the establishment of arbitration procedures. To be sure, many of these
settlementswereencouragedbytheUnitedStatesclaimantsthemselves,sinceaclaimant'sonly
hopeofobtaininganypaymentatallmightlieinhavinghisGovernmentnegotiateadiplomatic
17/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
settlementonhisbehalf.ButitisalsoundisputedthattheUnitedStateshassometimesdisposedof
theclaimsofitscitizenswithouttheirconsent,orevenwithoutconsultationwiththem,usually
withoutexclusiveregardfortheirinterests,asdistinguishedfromthoseofthenationasawhole.
Henkin,supra,at262263.Accord,Restatement(Second)ofForeignRelationsLawoftheUnited
States213(1965) (President may waive or settle a claim against a foreign state x x x [even]
without the consent of the [injured] national). It is clear that the practice of settling claims
continuestoday.
Respondents explain that the Allied Powers concluded the Peace Treaty with Japan not
necessarilyforthecompleteatonementofthesufferingcausedbyJapaneseaggressionduringthe
war,notforthepaymentofadequatereparations,butforsecuritypurposes.Thetreatysoughtto
preventthespreadofcommunisminJapan,whichoccupiedastrategicpositionintheFarEast.
Thus,thePeaceTreatycompromisedindividualclaimsinthecollectiveinterestofthefreeworld.
ThiswasalsothefindinginasimilarcaseinvolvingAmericanvictimsofJapaneseslavelabor
[52]
[53]
duringthewar.
InaconsolidatedcaseintheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,
thecourt
[54]
dismissed the lawsuits filed, relying on the 1951 peace treaty with Japan,
because of the
followingpolicyconsiderations:
Theofficialrecordoftreatynegotiationsestablishesthatafundamentalgoaloftheagreementwas
to settle the reparations issue once and for all. As the statement of the chief United States
negotiator, John Foster Dulles, makes clear, it was well understood that leaving open the
possibilityoffutureclaimswouldbeanunacceptableimpedimenttoalastingpeace:
Reparationisusuallythemostcontroversialaspectofpeacemaking.Thepresent
peaceisnoexception.
Ontheonehand,thereareclaimsbothvastandjust.Japan'saggressioncaused
tremendouscost,lossesandsuffering.
Ontheotherhand,tomeettheseclaims,therestandsaJapanpresentlyreducedto
fourhomeislandswhichareunabletoproducethefooditspeopleneedtolive,or
therawmaterialstheyneedtowork.xxx
ThepolicyoftheUnitedStatesthatJapaneseliabilityforreparationsshouldbesharplylimited
wasinformedbytheexperienceofsixyearsofUnitedStatesledoccupationofJapan.Duringthe
occupation the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP) for the region, General
Douglas MacArthur, confiscated Japanese assets in conjunction with the task of managing the
economic affairs of the vanquished nation and with a view to reparations payments. It soon
becameclearthatJapan'sfinancialconditionwouldrenderanyaggressivereparationsplan
an exercise in futility. Meanwhile, the importance of a stable, democratic Japan as a
18/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
bulwarktocommunismintheregionincreased.Attheendof1948,MacArthurexpressedthe
viewthat[t]heuseofreparationsasaweapontoretardthereconstructionofaviableeconomyin
Japanshouldbecombatedwithallpossiblemeansandrecommendedthatthereparationsissuebe
settledfinallyandwithoutdelay.
Thatthispolicywasembodiedinthetreatyisclearnotonlyfromthenegotiationshistorybutalso
fromtheSenateForeignRelationsCommitteereportrecommendingapprovalofthetreatybythe
Senate.Thecommitteenoted,forexample:
Obviously insistence upon the payment of reparations in any proportion

commensuratewiththeclaimsoftheinjuredcountriesandtheirnationalswould
wreckJapan'seconomy,dissipateanycreditthatitmaypossessatpresent,destroy
the initiative of its people, and create misery and chaos in which the seeds of
discontentandcommunismwouldflourish.Inshort,[it]wouldbecontrarytothe
basicpurposesandpolicyofxxxtheUnitedStatesxxx.
We thus hold that, from a municipal law perspective, that certiorari will not lie.As a general
principleandparticularlyhere,wheresuchanextraordinarylengthoftimehaslapsedbetween
the treatys conclusion and our consideration the Executive must be given ample discretion to
assesstheforeignpolicyconsiderationsofespousingaclaimagainstJapan,fromthestandpoint
of both the interests of the petitioners and those of the Republic, and decide on that basis if
apologiesaresufficient,andwhetherfurtherstepsareappropriateornecessary.
The Philippines is not under any international

obligationtoespousepetitionersclaims.
Intheinternationalsphere,traditionally,theonlymeansavailableforindividualstobringaclaim
within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a
[55]
governmenttobringaclaimontheindividualsbehalf.
Eventhen,itisnottheindividuals
rights that are being asserted, but rather, the states own rights.Nowhere is this position more
clearlyreflectedthaninthedictumofthePermanentCourtofInternationalJustice(PCIJ)inthe
1924MavrommatisPalestineConcessionsCase:
Bytakingupthecaseofoneofitssubjectsandbyresortingtodiplomaticactionorinternational
judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its ownright to ensure, in the
personofitssubjects,respectfortherulesofinternationallaw.Thequestion,therefore,whether
thepresentdisputeoriginatesinaninjurytoaprivateinterest,whichinpointoffactisthecasein
manyinternationaldisputes,isirrelevantfromthisstandpoint.OnceaStatehastakenupacaseon
behalfofoneofitssubjectsbeforeaninternationaltribunal,intheeyesofthelattertheStateissole
19/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[56]
claimant.
SincetheexerciseofdiplomaticprotectionistherightoftheState,relianceontherightis
withintheabsolutediscretionofstates,andthedecisionwhethertoexercisethediscretionmay
invariablybeinfluencedbypoliticalconsiderationsotherthanthelegalmeritsoftheparticular
[57]
claim.
AsclearlystatedbytheICJin
BarcelonaTraction:
TheCourtwouldhereobservethat,withinthelimitsprescribedbyinternationallaw,aStatemay
exercisediplomaticprotectionbywhatevermeansandtowhateverextentitthinksfit,foritis
itsownrightthattheStateisasserting.Shouldthenaturalorlegalpersononwhosebehalfit
is acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have no remedy in
internationallaw.Alltheycandoisresorttonationallaw,ifmeansareavailable,withaviewto
furtheringtheircauseorobtainingredress.ThemunicipallegislatormaylayupontheStatean
obligationtoprotectitscitizensabroad,andmayalsoconferuponthenationalarighttodemand
theperformanceofthatobligation,andclothetherightwithcorrespondingsanctions.However,all
these questions remain within the province of municipal law and do not affect the position
[58]
internationally. (Emphasissupplied)
TheState,therefore,isthesolejudgetodecidewhetheritsprotectionwillbegranted,to
whatextentitisgranted,andwhenwillitcease.Itretains,inthisrespect,adiscretionarypower
the exercise of which may be determined by considerations of a political or other nature,
unrelatedtotheparticularcase.
TheInternationalLawCommissions(ILCs)DraftArticlesonDiplomaticProtectionfully
supportthistraditionalview.They(i)statethat"therightofdiplomaticprotectionbelongstoor
[59]
vestsintheState,
(ii)affirmitsdiscretionarynaturebyclarifyingthatdiplomaticprotectionis
[60]
a"sovereignprerogative"oftheState
and(iii)stressthatthestate"hastherighttoexercise
diplomaticprotection
[61]
onbehalfofanational.Itisundernodutyorobligationtodoso."
It has been argued, as petitioners argue now, that the State has a duty to protect its
[62]
nationalsandactonhis/herbehalfwhenrightsareinjured.
However,atpresent,thereisno
20/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
sufficientevidencetoestablishageneralinternationalobligationforStatestoexercisediplomatic
[63]
protection of their own nationals abroad.
Though, perhaps desirable, neither state practice
noropiniojurishasevolvedinsuchadirection.Ifitisadutyinternationally,itisonlyamoral
[64]
andnotalegalduty,andthereisnomeansofenforcingitsfulfillment.
Wefullyagreethatrape,sexualslavery,torture,andsexualviolencearemorallyreprehensibleas
[65]
wellaslegallyprohibitedundercontemporaryinternationallaw.
However,petitionerstake
quite a theoretical leap in claiming that these proscriptions automatically imply that that the
Philippines is under a nonderogable obligation to prosecute international crimes, particularly
sincepetitionersdonotdemandtheimputationofindividualcriminalliability,butseektorecover
monetaryreparationsfromthestateofJapan.Absenttheconsentofstates,anapplicabletreaty
regime, or a directive by the Security Council, there is no nonderogable duty to institute
proceedings against Japan. Indeed, precisely because of states reluctance to directly
prosecuteclaimsagainstanotherstate,recentdevelopmentssupportthemoderntrendto
empower individuals to directly participate in suits against perpetrators of international
[66]
crimes.
Nonetheless,notwithstandinganarrayofGeneralAssemblyresolutionscallingfor
theprosecutionofcrimesagainsthumanityandthestrongpolicyargumentswarrantingsucha
rule,thepracticeofstatesdoesnotyetsupportthepresentexistenceofanobligationtoprosecute
[67]
internationalcrimes.
Ofcourseacustomarydutyofprosecutionisideal,butwecannotfind
enoughevidencetoreasonablyassertitsexistence.Totheextentthatanystatepracticeinthis
areaiswidespread,itisinthepracticeofgrantingamnesties,immunity,selectiveprosecution,or
[68]
defactoimpunitytothosewhocommitcrimesagainsthumanity.
Eventheinvocationofjuscogensnormsandergaomnesobligationswillnotalterthisanalysis.
Evenifwesidestepthequestionofwhetherjuscogensnormsexistedin1951,petitionershave
not deigned to show that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens
prohibitionsatthetimetheTreatyofPeacewassigned,orthatthedutytoprosecuteperpetrators
ofinternationalcrimesisanergaomnesobligationorhasattainedthestatusofjuscogens.
21/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
Thetermergaomnes(Latin:inrelationtoeveryone)ininternationallawhasbeenusedasalegal
termdescribingobligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. The
conceptwasrecognizedbytheICJinBarcelonaTraction:
x x x an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the
international community as a whole, and those arising visvis another State in the field of
diplomaticprotection.Bytheirverynature,theformeraretheconcernofallStates.Inviewofthe
importanceoftherightsinvolved,allStatescanbeheldtohavealegalinterestintheirprotection
theyareobligationsergaomnes.
Suchobligationsderive,forexample,incontemporaryinternationallaw,fromtheoutlawingof
acts of aggression, and of genocide, asalso from the principlesand rules concerning thebasic
rightsofthehumanperson,includingprotectionfromslaveryandracialdiscrimination.Someof
the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the body of general international law
othersareconferredbyinternationalinstrumentsofauniversalorquasiuniversalcharacter.
TheLatinphrase,ergaomnes,hassincebecomeoneoftherallyingcriesofthosesharingabelief
intheemergenceofavaluebasedinternationalpublicorder.However,asissooftenthecase,the
realityisneithersoclearnorsobright.Whatevertherelevanceofobligationsergaomnesasa
[69]
legalconcept,itsfullpotentialremainstoberealizedinpractice.
Thetermiscloselyconnectedwiththeinternationallawconceptofjuscogens.Ininternational
law,thetermjuscogens(literally,compellinglaw)referstonormsthatcommandperemptory
authority, superseding conflicting treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are considered
peremptoryinthesensethattheyaremandatory,donotadmitderogation,andcanbemodified
[70]
onlybygeneralinternationalnormsofequivalentauthority.
[71]
Earlystrainsofthejuscogensdoctrinehaveexistedsincethe1700s,
butperemptorynorms
began to attract greater scholarly attention with the publication of Alfred von Verdross's
[72]
influential 1937 article, Forbidden Treaties in International Law.
The recognition of jus
cogensgainedevenmoreforceinthe1950sand1960swiththeILCspreparationoftheVienna
[73]
Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).
Though there was a consensus that certain
[74]
international norms had attained the status of jus cogens,
the ILC was unable to reach a
consensusonthepropercriteriaforidentifyingperemptorynorms.
22/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
Afteranextendeddebateovertheseandothertheoriesofjuscogens,theILCconcludedruefully
in1963thatthereisnotasyetanygenerallyacceptedcriterionbywhichtoidentifyageneralrule
[75]
ofinternationallawashavingthecharacterofjuscogens.
Inacommentaryaccompanying
thedraftconvention,theILCindicatedthattheprudentcourseseemstobetoxxxleavethefull
contentofthisruletobeworkedoutinStatepracticeandinthejurisprudenceofinternational
[76]
tribunals.
Thus, while the existence of jus cogens in international law is undisputed, no
[77]
[78]
consensusexistsonitssubstance,
beyondatinycoreofprinciplesandrules.
Ofcourse,wegreatlysympathizewiththecauseofpetitioners,andwecannotbeginto
comprehendtheunimaginablehorrortheyunderwentatthehandsoftheJapanesesoldiers.We
arealsodeeplyconcernedthat,inapparentcontraventionoffundamentalprinciplesoflaw,the
petitioners appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them before
appropriatefora.Needlesstosay,ourgovernmentshouldtaketheleadinprotectingitscitizens
againstviolationoftheirfundamentalhumanrights.Regrettably,itisnotwithinourpowerto
ordertheExecutiveDepartmenttotakeupthepetitionerscause.Oursisonlythepowertourge
andexhorttheExecutiveDepartmenttotakeuppetitionerscause.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisherebyDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
23/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
24/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusions
intheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriter
oftheopinionoftheCourt.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
[1]
InReWorldWarIIEraJapaneseForcedLaborLitigation,114F.Supp.2d939(N.D.Cal.2000).
[2]
U.N.Doc.E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1(January4,1996),ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronviolenceagainstwomen,its
causesandconsequences,Ms.RadhikaCoomaraswamy,inaccordancewithCommissiononHumanRightsresolution
1994/45.
[3]
Treatyandcustomarylawbothprovidethatwhenrapeiscommittedaspartofawidespreadorsystematicattackdirected
at any civilian population, regardless of its international or internal character, then it constitutes one of the gravest
crimesagainsthumanity.ThisprincipleiscodifiedunderArticle6(c)ofthe1945NurembergCharteraswellasArticle
5(c)oftheTokyoCharter,whichenumeratedmurder,extermination,enslavement,deportation,andotherinhumaneacts
committedagainstanycivilianpopulations,beforeorduringthewarascrimesagainsthumanity,andextendedinscope
toincludeimprisonment,tortureandrapebyControlCouncilLawNo.10.
[4]
Article1oftheSlaveryConventionprovides:
ForthepurposeofthepresentConvention,thefollowingdefinitionsareagreedupon:
(1)Slaveryisthestatusorconditionofapersonoverwhomanyorallofthepowersattachingtotherightofownership
areexercised.
(2)Theslavetradeincludesallactsinvolvedinthecapture,acquisitionordisposalofapersonwithintenttoreducehim
to slavery all acts involved in the acquisition of a slave with a view to selling or exchanging him all acts of
disposalbysaleorexchangeofaslaveacquiredwithaviewtobeingsoldorexchanged,and,ingeneral,everyact
oftradeortransportinslaves.
Slavery,Servitude,ForcedLabourandSimilarInstitutionsandPracticesConventionof1926(SlaveryConventionof
1926),60L.N.T.S.253,enteredintoforceMarch9,1927.
[5]
Tortureisdefinedasanyactbywhichseverepainorsuffering,whetherphysicalormental,isintentionallyinflictedona
personforsuchpurposesasobtainingfromhimorathirdperson,informationoraconfession,punishinghimforanact
he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigationoforwiththeconsentoracquiescenceofapublicofficialorotherpersonactinginanofficialcapacity.It
doesnotincludepainorsufferingarisingonlyfrom,inherentinorincidentaltolawfulsanctions.(ConventionAgainst
Torture,Article1.1)
[6]
SignedatSanFrancisco,September8,1951Initialentryintoforce:April28,1952.ThetreatywassignedbyArgentina,
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia,
DominicanRepublic,Ecuador,Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway,
25/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, The Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, South
Africa,Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam. The signatories for the
RepublicofthePhilippineswereCarlosP.Romulo,J.M.Elizalde,VicenteFrancisco,DiosdadoMacapagal,Emiliano
Tirona,andV.G.Sinco.
[7]
SignedinSanFrancisco,September8,1951,ratifiedbythePhilippineSenateonJuly16,1956.SignedbythePhilippine
PresidentonJuly18,1956.EnteredintoforceonJuly23,1956.
[8]
OnSeptember21,1992,theJapaneseEmbassyformallyconfirmedtothePhilippinegovernmenttheinvolvementofthe
JapaneseImperialArmyintheestablishmentofcomfortwomenstations.
InMay1993,Japanapprovedtextbooksfeaturinganaccountofhowcomfortwomenwereforcedtoworkasprostitutes
fortheJapaneseImperialArmy.
OnAugust4,1993,JapanesePrimeMinisterMiyazawa,beforeresigning,formallyapologizedtowomenalloverthe
worldwhowereforcedtoserveascomfortwomen:
The Japanese government regrets and sincerely apologizes for the unbearable pain that these women
regardlessoftheirnationalities,sufferedwhilebeingforcedtoworkassocalledcomfortwomen.
TheJapanesegovernmentexpressesitsheartfeltsentimentsofreflectionandapologytoallthewomenfor
theirmanysufferingsandtheinjuriestomindandbodythatcannotbehealed.
The Philippine government, under the administration of then President FidelV. Ramos, accepted the formal apology
given the Japanese Government. Though the formal apology came late, it is a most welcome gesture from the
governmentofJapan,whichhasbeenverysupportiveofoureconomicdevelopment.
[9]
RichardJ.Galvin,TheCaseforaJapaneseTruthCommissionCoveringWorldWarIIEraJapaneseWarCrimes,11TUL.
J.INT'L&COMP.L.59,64(2003).
[10]
See Argibay, Ad Litem Judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Speech at the Stefan A.
RiesenfeldSymposium:SexualSlaveryandtheComfortWomenofWorldWarII,in21BERKELEYJ.INT'LL.375,376
(2003).
[11]
Id.
[12]
Nearey,SeekingReparationsintheNewMilleunium:WillJapanCompensatetheComfortWomenofWorldWarII?,15
TEMP.INT'L&COMP.L.J.121,134(2001).
[13]
USTINIADOLGOPOL&SNEHALPARANJAPE,COMFORTWOMEN:ANUNFINISHEDORDEAL15(1994).
[14]
Id.at48.
[15]
SeeJohnson,Comment,Justice for Comfort Women: Will theAlien Tort ClaimsAct Bring Them the Remedies They
Seek?,20PENNST.INT'LL.REV.253,260(2001).
[16]
Id.at261.Soldiersdisregardedrulesmandatingtheuseofcondoms,andthusmanywomenbecamepregnantorinfected
withsexuallytransmitteddiseases.
[17]
Boling, Mass Rape, Enforced Prostitution, and the Japanese Imperial Army: Japan Eschews International Legal
Responsibility?3OCCASIONALPAPERS/REPRINTSERIESCONTEMPORARYASIANSTUDIES8(1995).
[18]
Id.
[19]
YAMAMOTOETAL.,RACE,RIGHTSANDREPARATION43538(2001).
[20]
Meade,FromShanghaitoGlobocourt:AnAnalysisoftheComfortWomen'sDefeatinHwangv.Japan,35VAND.J.
TRANSNAT'LL.211,233(2002).
[21]
Numerous lawsuits immediately followed, including lawsuits filed by the Korean Council for Women Drafted for
Sexual Slavery, and a suit by a Dutch former comfort woman Fisher, Japan's Postwar Compensation Litigation, 22
WHITTIERL.REV.35,44(2000).
[22]
ThelowercourtrulinginHav.Japanhasbeenthelonecourtroomvictoryforcomfortwomen.OnDecember25,1992,
ten Korean women filed the lawsuit with the Yamaguchi Prefectural Court, seeking an official apology and
compensationfromtheJapanesegovernment.TheplaintiffsclaimedthatJapanhadamoraldutytoatoneforitswartime
crimesandalegalobligationtocompensatethemunderinternationalanddomesticlaws.Morethanfiveyearslater,on
26/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
April27,1998,thecourtfoundtheJapanesegovernmentguiltyofnegligenceandorderedittopay300,000,or$2,270,
to each of the three plaintiffs. However, the court denied plaintiffs demands that the government issue an official
apology.Bothpartiesappealed,butJapan'sHighCourtlateroverturnedtheruling.SeePark,BrokenSilence:Redressing
the Mass Rape and Sexual Enslavement ofAsian Women by the Japanese Government in anAppropriate Forum,3
ASIANPAC.L.&POL'YJ.40(2002)Kim&Kim,DelayedJustice:TheCaseoftheJapaneseImperialMilitarySex
Slaves,16UCLAPAC.BASINL.J.263(1998).Park,ComfortWomenDuringWWII:AreU.S.CourtsaFinalResortfor
Justice?,17AM.U.INT'LL.REV.403,408(2002).
[23]
Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan (Hwang I), 172 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2001), affirmed, 332 F.3d 679 (D.C. Cir. 2003),
vacated,542U.S.901(2004),remandedto413F.3d45(D.C.Cir.2005),cert.denied,126S.Ct.1418(2006).
[24]
Alien Tort ClaimsAct, 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2000). The ATCA gives US federal district courts original jurisdiction to
adjudicatecivilcasesandawardtortdamagesforviolationsofthelawofnationsorUnitedStatestreaties.SeeAhmed,
The Shame of Hwang v. Japan: How the International Community Has Failed Asia's Comfort Women, 14 TEX. J.
WOMEN&L.121,14142(2004).
[25]
UndertheATCA,whenacauseofactionisbroughtagainstasovereignnation,theonlybasisforobtainingpersonal
jurisdictionoverthedefendantisthroughanexceptiontotheForeignSovereignImmunitiesAct(FSIA). SeeJeffords,
Will Japan Face Its Past? The Struggle for Justice for Former Comfort Women, 2 REGENT J. INT'L L. 145, 158
(2003/2004).TheFSIA(28U.S.C.1604(1994&Supp.1999).)grantsforeignstatesimmunityfrombeingsuedinUS
districtcourtsunlessthestatewaivesitsimmunityortheclaimsfallwithincertainenumeratedexceptions.TheJapanese
governmentsuccessfullyarguedthatitisentitledtosovereignimmunityundertheFSIA.Thegovernmentadditionally
arguedthatpostwartreatieshadresolvedtheissueofreparations,whichwerenonjusticiablepoliticalquestions.
[26]
See Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan (Hwang II), 332 F.3d 679, 68081 (D.C. Cir. 2003), vacated, 542 U.S. 901 (2004),
remandedto413F.3d45(D.C.Cir.2005),cert.denied,126S.Ct.1418(2006).
[27]
SeeHwangGeumJoov.Japan(HwangIII),542U.S.901(2004)(memorandum),remandedto413F.3d45(D.C.Cir.
2005),cert.denied,126S.Ct.1418(2006).
[28]
Id.
[29]
SOH, THE COMFORT WOMEN PROJECT, SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY (19972001),
http://online.sfsu.edu/~soh/comfortwomen.html,at123435.
[30]
AnAnalysisOfTheLegalLiabilityOfTheGovernmentOfJapanForComfortWomenStationsEstablishedDuringThe
Second World War (Appendix) REPORT ON CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF SLAVERY: SYSTEMATIC RAPE,
SEXUALSLAVERYANDSLAVERYLIKEPRACTICESDURINGARMEDCONFLICT ,Finalreportsubmittedby
Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special Rapporteur, SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities,CommissiononHumanRights(FiftiethSession)E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13(June22,1998).
[31]
Chinkin,Women'sInternationalTribunalonJapaneseSexualSlavery,95AM.J.INT'L.L.335(2001).
[32]
Alargeamountofevidencewaspresentedtothetribunalforexamination.SixtyfourformercomfortwomenfromKorea
andothersurroundingterritoriesintheAsiaPacificregiontestifiedbeforethecourt.Testimonywasalsopresentedby
historicalscholars,internationallawscholars,andtwoformerJapanesesoldiers.Additionalevidencewassubmittedby
the prosecution teams of ten different countries, including: North and South Korea, China, Japan, the Philippines,
Indonesia,Taiwan,Malaysia,EastTimor,andtheNetherlands.Id.at336.
[33]
PressRelease,CongressmanMikeHonda,Rep.HondaCallsonJapantoApologizeforWorldWarIIExploitationof
ComfortWomen(January31,2007).
[34]
H.R.Res.121,110thCong.(2007)(enacted).
[35]
EuropeanParliament,Humanrights:Chad,Women'sRightsinSaudiArabia,Japan'sWartimeSexSlaves,Dec.17,2007,
http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IM
PRESS&reference=20071210BRI14639&secondRef=ITEM008EN.
[36]
TheComfortWomenAHistoryofTrauma,
http://taiwan.yam.org.tw/womenweb/conf_women/index_e.html.
27/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[37]
YAMAMOTOETAL., supra note 19 at 437.The government appointed Bunbei Hara, former Speaker of the Upper
House of the Diet, as the first President of the Asian Women's Fund (19951999). Former Prime Minister Tomiichi
MurayamasucceededHaraasthesecondpresidentoftheprogram(1999present).SeeJeffords,supranote25at158.
[38]
TheAsianWomen'sFund,http://www.awf.or.jp/english/project_atonement.html,at55.
[39]
369U.S.186,82S.Ct.691,7L.Ed.2d663(1962).
[40]
103Phil1051,1068(1957).
[41]
SeeBakerv.Carr,369U.S.at211222.
[42]
Oetjenv.CentralLeatherCo.,246U.S.297,302(1918).
[43]
Chicago&S.AirLines,Inc.v.WatermanS.S.Corp.,333U.S.103,111(1948).
[44]
CONSTITUTION,Art.VIII,Sec.5(2)(a).
[45]
299US304,57S.Ct.216,81L.Ed,255(1936).
[46]
396Phil623,663(2000).Weheld:
Byconstitutionalfiatandbytheintrinsicnatureofhisoffice,thePresident,asheadofState,isthesole
organandauthorityintheexternalaffairsofthecountry.Inmanyways,thePresidentisthechiefarchitect
ofthenation'sforeignpolicyhis"dominanceinthefieldofforeignrelationsis(then)conceded."Wielding
vast powers and influence, his conduct in the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes, is
"executivealtogether".
[47]
501Phil.304,313(2005).Westated:
In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and
authority in external relations and is the country's sole representative with foreign nations.As the chief
architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country's mouthpiece with respect to international
affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments,
extendorwithholdrecognition,maintaindiplomaticrelations,enterintotreaties,andotherwisetransact
the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treatymaking, the President has the sole authority to
negotiatewithotherstates.
[48]
379Phil.165,233234(2004).
[49]
HENKIN,FOREIGNAFFAIRSANDTHECONSTITUTION 300(2d1996)seeDamesandMoorev.Regan,453U.S.
654,688,101S.Ct.2972,69L.Ed.2d918(1981)(upholdingthePresident'sauthoritytosettleclaimsofcitizensas"a
necessaryincidenttotheresolutionofamajorforeignpolicydisputebetweenourcountryandanother[atleast]where...
CongressacquiescedinthePresident'saction")Am.Ins.Ass'nv.Garamendi,539U.S.396,424,123S.Ct.2374,156
L.Ed.2d 376 (2003) (acknowledging "President's authority to provide for settling claims in winding up international
hostilities").SeealsoAkbayanCitizensActionParty(AKBAYAN)v.Aquino,G.R.No.170516,July16,2008,558SCRA
468,517whereweheldthat:
x x x While, on first impression, it appears wise to deter Philippine representatives from entering into
compromises,itbearsnotingthattreatynegotiations,oranynegotiationforthatmatter,normallyinvolvea
processofquidproquo,andoftentimesnegotiatorshavetobewillingtograntconcessionsinanareaof
lesserimportanceinordertoobtainmorefavorabletermsinanareaofgreaternationalinterest.
[50]
3U.S.(3Dall.)199,230,1L.Ed.568(1796).
[51]
453U.S.654,101S.Ct.2972(1981)(retheestablishmentoftheIranUnitedStatesClaimsTribunalfollowingthe
seizureofAmericanpersonnelashostagesattheAmericanEmbassyinTehran).
[52]
Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective, 20 BERKELEY J. INTL. L. 11, 2532
(2002).
[53]
InReWorldWarIIEraJapaneseForcedLaborLitigation,supranote1.
[54]
TreatyofPeacewithJapan1951,136UNTS45.
28/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[55]
The conceptual understanding that individuals have rights and responsibilities in the international arena does not
automaticallymeanthattheyhavetheabilitytobringinternationalclaimstoasserttheirrights.Thus,thePermanent
CourtofInternationalJusticedeclaredthatitisscarcelynecessarytopointoutthatthecapacitytopossesscivilrights
does not necessarily imply the capacity to exercise those rights oneself. Appeal from a Judgment of the
Hungaro/CzeochoslovakMixedArbitralTribunal,Judgment,1933,PCIJ,Ser.A/BNo.61,p.208at231.
[56]
PCIJ,Ser.A,No.2,p.11,at16.ThistraditionalviewwasrepeatedbythePCIJinthePanevezysSaldutiskisRailway
Case,theCaseConcerningthePaymentofVariousSerbianLoansissuedin France,JudgmentofJuly12,1929, PCIJ
Reports,SeriesANo.20andintheCaseConcerningtheFactoryatChorzow,JudgmentofSeptember13,1928,Merits,
PCIJReports,SeriesANo.17.TheICJhasadopteditinthe ReparationforinjuriessufferedintheserviceoftheUnited
NationsAdvisoryOpinion:ICJReports1949,p.174theNottebohmCase(secondphase)JudgmentofApril6,1955:
ICJReports1955,p.4atp.24theInterhandelCase(JudgmentofMarch21st,1959:ICJReports1959,p.6atp.27)and
theBarcelonaTraction,LightandPowerCompany,Limitedcase,(Belg.v.Spain),1970I.C.J.3,32(Feb.5).
[57]
See BORCHARD, E., DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF CITIZENSABROADAT VI (1915). Under this view, the
considerationsunderlyingthedecisiontoexerciseornotdiplomaticprotectionmayvarydependingoneachcaseand
mayrelyentirelyonpolicyconsiderationsregardlessoftheinterestsofthedirectlyinjuredindividual,andtheStateis
notrequiredtoprovidejustificationforitsdecision.
[58]
BarcelonaTraction,LightandPowerCompany,Limited,case,supranote56,atp.44par.78.
[59]
ILCFirstReadingDraftArticlesonDiplomaticProtection,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/484,ILCReport,A/53/10(F),par.60,
CommentarytoDraftArticle2,par.(1)seealso,CommentarytoDraftArticle1,par.(3),andtextofDraftArticle2.
[60]
ReportoftheInternationalLawCommissionontheworkofits50thsession,supranote60,par.77.
[61]
ILCFirstReadingDraftArticlesonDiplomaticProtection,supranote60,commentarytoDraftArticle2,par.(2).
[62]
Forinstance,SpecialRapporteurDugardproposedthattheILCadoptinitsDraftArticlesaprovisionunderwhichStates
wouldbeinternationallyobligedtoexercisediplomaticprotectioninfavoroftheirnationalsinjuredabroadbygrave
breachestojuscogensnorms,ifthenationalsorequestedandifhe/shewasnotaffordeddirectaccesstoaninternational
tribunal.Theproposedarticlereadsasfollows:
Article [4]1. Unless the injured person is able to bring a claim for such injury before a competent
international court or tribunal, the State of his/her nationality has a legal duty to exercise diplomatic
protectiononbehalfoftheinjuredpersonuponrequest,iftheinjuryresultsfromagravebreachofajus
cogensnormattributabletoanotherState.2.Thestateofnationalityisrelievedofthisobligationif:(a)The
exerciseofdiplomaticprotectionwouldseriouslyendangertheoverridinginterestsoftheStateand/orits
people(b)AnotherStateexercisesdiplomaticprotectiononbehalfoftheinjuredperson(c)Theinjured
persondoesnothavetheeffectiveanddominantnationalityoftheState.Statesareobligedtoprovidein
their municipal law for the enforcement of this right before a competent domestic court or other
independent national authority". Special Rapporteur John Dugard, appointed in 1999, First Report on
DiplomaticProtection,par.74(UNDoc.A/CN.4/506(March7,2000)andCorr.1(June7,2000)andAdd.
1(April20,2000).
However,theproposalwasnotacceptedbytheILC,as"thequestionwasstillnotripefortreatment"because"the
Statepracticeandtheiropiniojurisstillhadnotevolvedinsuchdirection".OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly:
55th session, Supplement No. 10, Doc. A/55/10 (2000), Report of the ILC on the work of its 52nd session, p. 131.
Instead, Draft Article 19, entitled Recommended Practice, suggests that states should be encouraged to exercise
diplomaticprotectionespeciallywhensignificantinjuryoccurredtothenational.Draftedinsoftlanguage,theArticle
doesnotpurporttocreateanybindingobligationsonthestate.
Inaddition,someStateshaveincorporatedintheirmunicipallawadutytoexercisediplomaticprotectioninfavor
of their nationals. (Dugard identifies this "obligation" to exist in the Constitutions ofAlbania, Belarus, Bosnia and
Herzegovina,Bulgaria,Cambodia,China,Croatia,Estonia,Georgia,Guyana,Hungary,Italy,Kazakhstan,LaoPeoples
DemocraticRepublic,Latvia,Lithuania,Poland,Portugal,RepublicofKorea,Romania,RussianFederation,Spain,the
formerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,Turkey,Ukraine,VietNamandYugoslavia,albeitwithdifferentreaches.J.
Dugard,FirstReportondiplomaticprotection,supranote13,par.80),buttheirenforceabilityisalso,tosaytheleast,
questionable(inmanycasestherearenotevencourtscompetenttoreviewthedecision).Moreover,theirexistenceinno
way implies that international law imposes such an obligation, simply suggesting "that certain States consider
diplomatic protection for their nationals abroad to be desirable" (ILC First Reading Draft Articles on Diplomatic
29/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
Protection,supranote60,CommentarytoDraftArticle2,par(2)).
[63]
Even decisions of national courts support the thesis that general international law as it stands does not mandate an
enforceablelegaldutyofdiplomaticprotection.
ThetraditionalviewhasbeenchallengedintheUKinacasearisingfromtheunlawfuldetentionbytheUSofprisonersin
GuantanamoBay.InAbbasiv.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs([2002]EWCACiv1316,19
September2002),theapplicant(aBritishnational)soughtjudicialreviewoftheadequacyofthediplomaticactionsof
the British government with the US government. The UK Court ofAppeals came to the conclusion that diplomatic
protectiondidnotassuchgiverisetoanenforceabledutyunderEnglishLaw.Itfoundthatonnoviewwoulditbe
appropriatetoordertheSecretaryofStatetomakeanyspecificrepresentationstotheUnitedStates,eveninthefaceof
whatappearstobeaclearbreachofafundamentalhumanright,asitisobviousthatthiswouldhaveanimpactonthe
conductofforeignpolicy.
CourtsintheUKhavealsorepeatedlyheldthatthedecisionstakenbytheexecutiveinitsdealingswithforeignstates
regardingtheprotectionofBritishnationalsabroadarenonjusticiable.
(1)R.v.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs,expartePirbhai(107ILR462(1985):
"xxxinthecontextofasituationwithseriousimplicationsfortheconductofinternationalrelations,the
courtsshouldactwithahighdegreeofcircumspectionintheinterestsofallconcerned.Itcanrarely,ifever,
beforjudgestointervenewherediplomatsfeartotread."(p.479,perSirJohnDonaldsonMR)
(2)R.v.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs,exparteFerhutButt(116ILR607(1999):
"Thegeneralruleiswellestablishedthatthecourtsshouldnotinterfereintheconductofforeignrelations
bytheExecutive,mostparticularlywheresuchinterferenceislikelytohaveforeignpolicyrepercussions
(seeR.v.SecretaryofStateforForeignandCommonwealthAffairs,exparteEverett[1989]1QB811at
820). This extends to decisions whether or not to seek to persuade a foreign government of any
internationalobligation(e.g.torespecthumanrights)whichithasassumed.Whatifanyapproachshould
bemadetotheYemeniauthoritiesinregardtotheconductofthetrialoftheseterroristchargesmustbea
matterfordelicatediplomacyandtheconsideredandinformedjudgmentoftheFCO.Insuchmattersthe
courtshavenosupervisoryrole."(p.615,perLightmanJ).
"Whetherandwhentoseektointerfereortoputpressureoninrelationtothelegalprocess,ifeveritisa
sensibleandarightthingtodo,mustbeamatterfortheExecutiveandnooneelse,withtheiraccessto
information and to local knowledge. It is clearly not a matter for the courts. It is clearly a high policy
decision of a government in relation to its foreign relations and is not justiciable by way of judicial
review."(p.622,perHenryLJ).
(3)R.(SureshandManickavasagam)v.SecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment[2001]EWHCAdmin1028
(unreported,16November2001):
"...thereis,inmyjudgment,nodutyupontheSecretaryofStatetoensurethatothernationscomplywith
their human rights obligations. There may be cases where the United Kingdom Government has, for
example by diplomatic means, chosen to seek to persuade another State to take a certain course in its
treatmentofBritishnationalsbutthereisnodutytodoso."(paragraph19,perSirRichardTucker).
TheSouthAfricanConstitutionalCourtinKaundaandothersv.PresidentoftheRepublicofSouthAfricaandothers(Case
CCCT23/04)recognizedtheconstitutionalbasisoftherightofdiplomaticprotectionasenshrinedintheSouthAfrican
Constitution,butwentontoholdthatthenatureandextentofthisobligationwasanaspectofforeignpolicywithinthe
discretionoftheexecutive.
[64]
BORCHARD,E.,DIPLOMATICPROTECTIONOFCITIZENSABROAD,29(1915).
[65]
Theconceptofrapeasaninternationalcrimeisrelativelynew.Thisisnottosaythatrapehasneverbeenhistorically
prohibited,particularlyinwar.ButmoderndaysensitivitytothecrimeofrapedidnotemergeuntilafterWorldWarII.In
theNurembergCharter,thewordrapewasnotmentioned.Thearticleoncrimesagainsthumanityexplicitlysetforth
prohibitedacts,butrapewasnotmentionedbyname.(Forexample,theTreatyofAmityandCommercebetweenPrussia
andtheUnitedStatesprovidesthatintimeofwarallwomenandchildrenshallnotbemolestedintheirpersons.The
TreatyofAmityandCommerce,BetweenhisMajestytheKingofPrussiaandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica,art.23,Sept.
10,1785,U.S.Pruss.,8TREATIES&OTHERINT'LAGREEMENTSOFTHEU.S.78,85.The1863LieberInstructions
classifiedrapeasacrimeoftroopdiscipline.(Mitchell,TheProhibitionofRapeinInternationalHumanitarianLawas
aNormofJuscogens:ClarifyingtheDoctrine,15DUKEJ.COMP.INTL.L.219,224).Itspecifiedrapeasacapital
crime punishable by the death penalty (Id.at236). The 1907 Hague Convention protected women by requiring the
protection of their honour. (Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious
convictionsandpractice,mustberespected.Convention(IV)RespectingtheLaws&CustomsofWaronLand,art.46,
Oct. 18, 1907. General Assembly resolution 95 (I) of December 11, 1946 entitled, Affirmation of the Principles of
30/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
InternationalLawrecognizedbytheCharteroftheNrnbergTribunalGeneralAssemblydocumentA/64/Add.1of1946
SeeAgreementfortheProsecutionandPunishmentoftheMajorWarCriminalsoftheEuropeanAxis,Aug.8,1945,59
Stat.1544,82U.N.T.S.279.Article6(c)oftheCharterestablishedcrimesagainsthumanityasthefollowing:
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on
political,racialorreligiousgroundsinexecutionoforinconnectionwithanycrimewithintheJurisdiction
oftheTribunal,whetherornotinviolationofthedomesticlawofthecountrywhereperpetrated.
The Nuremberg Judgment did not make any reference to rape and rape was not prosecuted. (Judge Gabrielle Kirk
McDonald,TheInternationalCriminalTribunalsCrimeandPunishmentintheInternationalArena,7ILSA J. INTL.
COMP.L.667,676.)However,InternationalMilitaryTribunalfortheFarEast prosecutedrapecrimes,eventhoughits
Statute did not explicitly criminalize rape.The Far EastTribunal held General Iwane Matsui, Commander Shunroku
HataandForeignMinisterHirotacriminallyresponsibleforaseriesofcrimes,includingrape,committedbypersons
undertheirauthority.(THETOKYOJUDGMENT:JUDGMENTOFTHEINTERNATIONALMILITARYTRIBUNAL
FORTHEFAREAST44554(1977).
ThefirstmentionofrapeasaspecificcrimecameinDecember1945whenControlCouncilLawNo.10includedthe
termrapeinthedefinitionofcrimesagainsthumanity.LawNo.10,adoptedbythefouroccupyingpowersinGermany,
wasdevisedtoestablishauniformbasisforprosecutingwarcriminalsinGermancourts.(ControlCouncilforGermany,
LawNo.10:PunishmentofPersonsGuiltyofWarCrimes,CrimesAgainstPeaceandAgainstHumanity,Dec.20,1945,
3OfficialGazetteControlCouncilforGermany50,53(1946))
The1949GenevaConventionRelativetotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWarwasthefirstmoderndayinternational
instrumenttoestablishprotectionsagainstrapeforwomen.GenevaConventionRelativetotheProtectionofCivilian
Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, art. 27, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 (entry into force Oct. 20, 1950)
[hereinafter Fourth Geneva Convention].Furthermore, the ICC, the ICTY, and the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda(ICTR)havesignificantlyadvancedthecrimeofrapebyenablingittobeprosecutedasgenocide,awarcrime,
andacrimeagainsthumanity.
Rape is clearly emerging as a core crime within humanitarian law. (APPLEMAN, MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND
INTERNATIONAL CRIMES 299 (1954) MERON, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN NORMS AS
CUSTOMARYLAW47(1989).Amajorstepinthislegaldevelopmentcamein1949,whenrapeandsexualassault
wereincludedintheGenevaConventions.Rapeisincludedinthefollowingactscommittedagainstpersonsprotected
by the 1949 Geneva Conventions: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfullycausinggreatsufferingorseriousinjurytobodyorhealth.Rapeasaviolationofthelawsorcustomsofwar
generallyconsistsofviolationsofArticle3ofthe1949GenevaConventions,which,inpart,prohibitsviolencetolife
andperson,inparticularmutilation,crueltreatmentandtortureoutragesuponpersonaldignity,inparticularhumiliating
anddegradingtreatment.(SeeGenevaConventionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickin
ArmedForcesintheField,art.3(1)(c),75U.N.T.S.31GenevaConventionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionof
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members ofArmed Forces at Sea, art. 3(1)(c), 75 U.N.T.S. 85 Geneva Convention
RelativetotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,art.3(1)(c),75U.N.T.S.973FourthGenevaConvention,supranote23,art.
3(1)(c).
Article27oftheFourthGenevaConvention,directedatprotectingciviliansduringtimeofwar,statesthatwomenshall
beespeciallyprotectedagainstanyattackontheirhonour,inparticularagainstrape,enforcedprostitution,oranyformof
indecentassault.
ProtocolIoftheGenevaConventionscontinuestoexpandtheprotectedrightsbyprovidingthatwomenshallbethe
objectofspecialrespectandshallbeprotectedinparticularagainstrape,forcedprostitutionandanyformofindecent
assault.(ProtocolAdditionaltotheGenevaConventionsofAugust12,1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictims
ofInternationalArmedConflicts(ProtocolI),Article76(1),1125U.N.T.S.4).
[66]
Forinstance,theInternationalCriminalCourtwasestablishedtodealwiththemostseriouscrimesofconcerntothe
internationalcommunity,withjurisdictionovergenocide,crimesagainsthumanity,andwarcrimes,asdefinedinthe
RomeStatute.TheICCProsecutorcaninvestigateallegationsofcrimesnotonlyuponreferralfromtheSecurityCouncil
and state parties, but also on information from victims, nongovernmental organizations or any other reliable source
(Article15).See also the Statute of the InternationalTribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
ViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedintheTerritoryoftheFormerYugoslaviasince1991,U.N.
Doc.S/25704at36,annex(1993)andS/25704/Add.1(1993),adoptedbySecurityCouncilon25May1993,U.N.Doc.
S/RES/827(1993).
[67]
Scharf,TheLetteroftheLaw:TheScopeoftheInternationalLegalObligationToProsecuteHumanRightsCrimes,
59(4)LAW&CONTEMP.PROBS.41,59(1996).Dugard,DealingwithCrimesofaPastRegime:IsAmnestyStillan
31/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
Option?,12LEIDENJ.INT'LL.1001,1003(1999).Gavron,AmnestiesinLightofDevelopmentsinInternationalLaw
andtheEstablishmentoftheInternationalCriminalCourt,51INT'L&COMP.L.Q.91,106(2002).
[68]
O'SHEA,AMNESTYFORCRIMEININTERNATIONALLAWANDPRACTICE35(2002).
[69]
BrunoSimmasmuchquotedobservationencapsulatesthisfeelingofdisappointment:Viewedrealistically,theworldof
obligationsergaomnesisstilltheworldoftheoughtratherthanoftheisTHECHARTEROFTHEUNITEDNATIONS:
ACOMMENTARY125(Simma,ed.1995).SeeTams,EnforcingObligationsErgaomnesinInternationalLaw(2005).
Inallcaseswherethisprinciplehasbeencited,eventheICJhasfoundawaytoavoidgivingforcetotheclaimsbased
ontheergaomnescharacteroftheobligation,despitehavingrecognizedtheminprinciple.IntheSouthWestAfrica
Case,theICJdeclaredthatanactionpopulariswasincompatiblewithexistinginternationallaw.IntheNicaraguacase,
it evaded the consequences of a violation of erga omnes obligations by treating human rights conventions as self
containedregimes.Nicaraguav.US,Merits,ICJReports1986,14etseq.(134,par.267):However,wherehumanrights
are protected by international conventions, that protection takes the form of such arrangements for monitoring or
ensuringrespectforhumanrightsasareprovidedforintheconventionsthemselves.IntheEastTimorCase,itdenied
jurisdictiononthegroundthatIndonesiawasanindispensablethirdpartytotheproceedingswhichhadnotaccepted
jurisdiction.(Portugalv.Australia,ICJReports1995,90(102,par29)Portugalsassertionthattherightofpeoplesto
selfdeterminationhasanergaomnescharacter,isirreproachable.
[70]
SeeViennaConventionontheLawofTreatiesart.53,openedforsignatureMay23,1969,1155U.N.T.S.331,8I.L.M.
679[hereinafterVCLT].
[71]
ClassicalpublicistssuchasHugoGrotius,EmerdeVattel,andChristianWolffdrewupontheRomanlawdistinction
between jus dispositivum (voluntary law) and jus scriptum (obligatory law) to differentiate consensual agreements
betweenstatesfromthenecessaryprinciplesofinternationallawthatbindallstatesasapointofconscienceregardless
ofconsent.(SeeHugonisGrotii,DeJureBellietPacis[OntheLawofWarandPeace](WilliamWhewelled.&trans.,
JohnW.Parker,London2009)(1625)EmerdeVattel,LeDroitdesGensouPrincipesdelaLoiNaturelle[TheLawof
NationsorPrinciplesofNaturalLaw]9,27(1758)(distinguishingleDroitdesGensNaturel,ouNcessairefromleDroit
Volontaire)ChristianWolff,JusGentiumMethodoScientificaPertractorum[AScientificMethodforUnderstandingthe
Law of Nations] 5 (James Brown Scott ed., Joseph H. Drake trans., Clarendon Press 1934) (1764)). Early twentieth
centurypublicistssuchasLassaOppenheimandWilliamHallassertedthatstatescouldnotabrogatecertainuniversally
recognized principles by mutual agreement. (William Hall, A Treatise on International Law 38283 (8th ed. 1924)
(asserting that fundamental principles of international law may invalidate [], or at least render voidable, conflicting
international agreements) 1 Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 528 (1905).) Judges on the Permanent Court of
International Justice affirmed the existence of peremptory norms in international law by referencing treaties contra
bonosmores(contrarytopublicpolicy)inaseriesofindividualconcurringanddissentingopinions.(Forexample,in
the1934OscarChinnCase,JudgeSchcking'sinfluentialdissentstatedthatneitheraninternationalcourtnoranarbitral
tribunalshouldapplyatreatyprovisionincontradictiontobonosmores.OscarChinnCase,1934P.C.I.J.(ser.A/B)No.
63,at14950(Dec.12)(Schcking,J.,dissenting).
[72]
Verdrossarguedthatcertaindiscreterulesofinternationalcustomhadcometoberecognizedashavingacompulsory
characternotwithstandingcontrarystateagreements.Atfirst,Verdross'svisionofinternationaljuscogensencountered
skepticismwithinthelegalacademy.Thesevoicesofresistancesoonfoundthemselvesintheminority,however,asthe
jus cogens concept gained enhanced recognition and credibility following the Second World War. (See Lauri
Hannikainen,PeremptoryNorms(Juscogens)inInternationalLaw:HistoricalDevelopment,Criteria,PresentStatus150
(1988)(surveyinglegalscholarshipduringtheperiod194569andreportingthatabouteightypercent[ofscholars]held
theopinionthatthereareperemptorynormsexistingininternationallaw).
[73]
InMarch1953,theILC'sSpecialRapporteur,SirHerschLauterpacht,submittedfortheILC'sconsiderationapartialdraft
conventionontreatieswhichstatedthat[a]treaty,oranyofitsprovisions,isvoidifitsperformanceinvolvesanact
which is illegal under international law and if it is declared so to be by the International Court of Justice. Hersch
Lauterpacht,LawofTreaties:ReportbySpecialRapporteur,[1953]2Y.B.Int'lL.Comm'n90,93,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/63.
[74]
See Summary Records of the 877th Meeting, [1966] 1 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 227, 230231, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/188
(notingthattheemergenceofaruleofjuscogensbanningaggressivewarasaninternationalcrimewasevidencethat
internationallawcontainsminimumrequirement[s]forsafeguardingtheexistenceoftheinternationalcommunity).
[75]
SecondReportontheLawofTreaties,[1963]2Y.B.Int'lL.Comm'n1,52,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/156.
32/33
4/27/2016
G.R.No.162230
[76]
Id.at53.
[77]
While the ICJ recently endorsed the jus cogens concept for the first time in its 2006 Judgment on Preliminary
ObjectionsinArmedActivitiesontheTerritoryoftheCongo(Congov.Rwanda),itdeclinedtoclarifyjuscogens'slegal
status or to specify any criteria for identifying peremptory norms. (ArmedActivities on the Territory of the Congo,
JurisdictionoftheCourtandAdmissibilityoftheApplication(Dem.Rep.Congov. Rwanda)(JudgmentofFebruary3,
2006),at3132,availableathttp://www.icjcij.org/docket/files/126/10435.pdf.
In some municipal cases, courts have declined to recognize international norms as peremptory while expressing
doubtaboutthepropercriteriaforidentifyingjuscogens.(See,e.g.,Sampsonv.FederalRepublicofGermany,250F.3d
1145,1149(7thCir.2001)(expressingconcernthatjuscogensshouldbeinvoked[o]nlyasalastresort)).
Inothercases,nationalcourtshaveacceptedinternationalnormsasperemptory,buthavehesitatedtoenforcethese
normsforfearthattheymighttherebycompromisestatesovereignty. (See,e.g.,Bouzariv.Iran,[2004]71O.R.3d675
(Can.) (holding that the prohibition against torture does not entail a right to a civil remedy enforceable in a foreign
court)).
InCongov.Rwanda,forexample,JudgeadhocJohnDugardobservedthattheICJhadrefrainedfrominvokingthe
juscogensconceptinseveralpreviouscaseswhereperemptorynormsmanifestlyclashedwithotherprinciplesofgeneral
international law. (SeeArmedActivities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda) (Judgment of
February3,2006),at2(DissentingOpinionofJudgeDugard))
Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has addressed jus cogens only once, in AlAdsani v. United
Kingdom, when it famously rejected the argument that jus cogens violations would deprive a state of sovereign
immunity.AlAdsaniv.UnitedKingdom,2001XIEur.Ct.H.R.79,61).
[78]
SZTUCKI,JUSCOGENSANDTHEVIENNACONVENTIONONTHELAWOFTREATIES119123(1974).
33/33

Isabelita Vinuya Et Al Vs The Executive Secretary, Secretary of Foreign Affairs... GR 162230

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Isabelita Vinuya Et Al Vs The Executive Secretary, Secretary of Foreign Affairs... GR 162230

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/27/2016

Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a nonstock, nonprofit

Gay J. McDougal, the Special Rapporteur for the UN SubCommission on Prevention of

From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive

Obviously insistence upon the payment of reparations in any proportion

The Philippines is not under any international

You might also like