Case Summary (G.R. No. 162230)
Issues Presented
- Whether respondents gravely abused their discretion by refusing to espouse petitioners’ claims for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
- Whether respondents should be compelled to take up petitioners’ claims for official apology and reparations against Japan before the ICJ or other tribunals.
Petitioners’ Arguments
They contend the blanket waiver of claims in the Peace Treaty is void because rape, sexual slavery, and torture are jus cogens violations impervious to waiver. By not espousing their claims, the government breaches its obligation to prevent impunity for international crimes. They further allege that Japan’s “apologies” and Asian Women’s Fund atonement payments are insufficient and contrary to international law.
Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents assert that all claims by the Philippines and its nationals arising from WWII were settled by the 1951 Treaty and the 1956 Reparations Agreement. Article 14(b) of the Treaty expressly waives reparations claims of Allied Powers and their nationals. Japan’s apologies and the Asian Women’s Fund satisfy moral and diplomatic obligations.
Treaty and Foreign Policy Considerations
The Peace Treaty bargain exchanged full national compensation for future peace and regional stability, preventing renewed claims. The Executive Department concluded that reopening claims would undermine bilateral relations and national interests. Such foreign policy judgments lie exclusively within the constitutional prerogative of the political branches.
Judicial Restraint in Foreign Relations
Under the political question doctrine, the Courts must refrain from reviewing executive determinations in foreign affairs. The 1987 Constitution commits treaty negotiation and international claim settlement to the Executive and Senate, not the Judiciary (art. VIII, sec. 5). Decisions on espousing private claims before foreign tribunals involve no judicially manageable standards and risk discordant official voices in foreign policy.
International Practice on Claims Settlement
States commonly treat private claims as national assets, settling them collectively in peace treaties to achieve broader political objectives. Historical precedents (Ware v. Hylton; Dames & Moore v. Regan) confirm that peace treaties extinguish individual claims and vest settlement authority in the executive, often without claimant consent.
Diplomatic Protection and J
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 162230)
Procedural Posture
- Original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
- Petitioners: Former “comfort women” organized as the Malaya Lolas Organization
- Respondents: Executive Secretary Romulo; Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo‐Albert; Secretary of Justice Gutierrez; Solicitor General Benipayo
- Petitioners pray that the Court declare respondents’ refusal to espouse their claims as grave abuse of discretion and compel respondents to pursue official apology and reparations against Japan before the ICJ and other tribunals
Factual Antecedents
- During WWII the Japanese Army systematically raped, tortured, forcibly confined and abused Philippine women in “comfort stations”
- Petitioners endured physical injuries, disease, psychological trauma and lifelong disability
- Since 1998 petitioners sought assistance from the DOJ, DFA, and OSG to file claims against Japanese officials; respondents declined, citing the 1951 Treaty of Peace and 1956 Reparations Agreement
Issues
- Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to espouse petitioners’ individual claims for crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture
- Whether the Court can compel the Executive Department to pursue official apology and other reparations against Japan before international courts
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The waiver of claims in the Peace Treaty is void as the comfort women system, rape and slavery are crimes against humanity and torture
- These prohibitions are jus cogens norms that admit no derogation; the State had a non‐derogable duty to protect and espouse petitioners’ claims
- Acceptance of Japan’s apologies and Asian Women’s Fund atonement payments violates international law and affords impunity for atrocities
Respondents’ Arguments
- All war‐related claims of the Philippines and its nationals were fully settled by the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and the 1956 bilateral Reparations Agreement
- Article 14 of the Treaty recognized limited Japanese reparations capacity and included a broad waiver of further claims
- Japanese a