Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
162230, April 28, 2010

April 28, 2010
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 162230 April 28, 2010
ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEÑA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO,

LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG,
MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. 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 PEÑA, 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, TEODORA M. HERNANDEZ, FERMIN B. DELA PEÑA, MARIA DELA PAZ
B. CULALA, ESPERANZA MANAPOL, JUANITA M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M.
GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA R. PUNZALAN,
JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q.
GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PEÑA, RUFINA Q.
CATACUTAN, FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M. DELA
CRUZ, PETRONILA O. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA CRUZ, CORAZON M.
SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M. BUCO,
PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H. PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER
C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C. MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT,
GUILLERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO,
CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA, MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA
G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T.
SAGUM, CARIDAD L. TURLA, et al. In their capacity and as members of the “Malaya
Lolas Organization”, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGO-ALBERT,
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, and
THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, Respondents.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as it barred future claims such as those asserted by
plaintiffs in these actions, exchanged full compensation of plaintiffs for a future peace. History
has vindicated the wisdom of that bargain. And while full compensation for plaintiffs’ hardships,
in the purely economic sense, has been denied these former prisoners and countless other
survivors of the war, the immeasurable bounty of life for themselves and their posterity in a free
society and in a more peaceful world services the debt.1
There is a broad range of vitally important areas that must be regularly decided by the Executive
Department without either challenge or interference by the Judiciary. One such area involves the
delicate arena of foreign relations. It would be strange indeed if the courts and the executive
spoke with different voices in the realm of foreign policy. Precisely because of the nature of the
questions presented, and the lapse of more than 60 years since the conduct complained of, we
make no attempt to lay down general guidelines covering other situations not involved here, and
confine the opinion only to the very questions necessary to reach a decision on this matter.
Factual Antecedents
This is an original Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with an application
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the Office of the Executive
Secretary, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Secretary of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, established for the purpose of
providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during the
Second World War.
Petitioners narrate that during the Second World War, the Japanese army attacked villages and
systematically raped the women as part of the destruction of the village. Their communities were
bombed, houses were looted and burned, and civilians were publicly tortured, mutilated, and
slaughtered. Japanese soldiers forcibly seized the women and held them in houses or cells, where
they were repeatedly raped, beaten, and abused by Japanese soldiers. As a result of the actions of
their Japanese tormentors, the petitioners have spent their lives in misery, having endured
physical injuries, pain and disability, and mental and emotional suffering.2
Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department through the
DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and
military officers who ordered the establishment of the “comfort women” stations in the
Philippines. However, officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners,
and took the position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had
already been fully satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines
and Japan.
Issues
Hence, this petition where petitioners pray for this court to (a) declare that respondents
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretion in refusing to
espouse their claims for the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them;
and (b) compel the respondents to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of
reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international
tribunals.
Petitioners’ arguments
Petitioners argue that the general waiver of claims made by the Philippine government in the
Treaty of Peace with Japan is void. They claim that the comfort women system established by
Japan, and the brutal rape and enslavement of petitioners constituted a crime against
humanity,3 sexual slavery,4 and torture.5 They allege that the prohibition against these
international crimes is jus cogens norms from which no derogation is possible; as such, in
waiving the claims of Filipina comfort women and failing to espouse their complaints against
Japan, the Philippine government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for
crimes against humanity. Finally, petitioners assert that the Philippine government’s acceptance
of the “apologies” made by Japan as well as funds from the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) were
contrary to international law.
Respondents’ Arguments
Respondents maintain that all claims of the Philippines and its nationals relative to the war were
dealt with in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the bilateral Reparations Agreement of
1956.6
Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace7 provides:
Article 14. Claims and Property
a) It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and
suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of
Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete
reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the present time meet its other obligations.
b) Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations
claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of
any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and
claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation.
In addition, respondents argue that the apologies made by Japan8 have been satisfactory, and that
Japan had addressed the individual claims of the women through the atonement money paid by
the Asian Women’s Fund.
Historical Background
The comfort women system was the tragic legacy of the Rape of Nanking. In December 1937,
Japanese military forces captured the city of Nanking in China and began a “barbaric campaign
of terror” known as the Rape of Nanking, which included the rapes and murders of an estimated
20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women, including young girls, pregnant mothers, and elderly women.9
In reaction to international outcry over the incident, the Japanese government sought ways to end
international condemnation10 by establishing the “comfort women” system. Under this system,
the military could simultaneously appease soldiers’ sexual appetites and contain soldiers’
activities within a regulated environment.11 Comfort stations would also prevent the spread of
venereal disease among soldiers and discourage soldiers from raping inhabitants of occupied
territories.12
Daily life as a comfort woman was “unmitigated misery.” 13 The military forced victims into
barracks-style stations divided into tiny cubicles where they were forced to live, sleep, and have
sex with as many 30 soldiers per day.14 The 30 minutes allotted for sexual relations with each
soldier were 30-minute increments of unimaginable horror for the women. 15 Disease was
rampant.16 Military doctors regularly examined the women, but these checks were carried out to
prevent the spread of venereal diseases; little notice was taken of the frequent cigarette burns,
bruises, bayonet stabs and even broken bones inflicted on the women by soldiers.
Fewer than 30% of the women survived the war.17 Their agony continued in having to suffer 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 shame,
never returned home.18
Efforts to Secure Reparation
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 series of lawsuits,
discussion at the United Nations (UN), resolutions by various nations, and the Women’s
International Criminal Tribunal. The Japanese government, in turn, responded through a series of
public apologies and the creation of the AWF.19

Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

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

Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

162230, April 28, 2010

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 162230 April 28, 2010

ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEÑA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO,

Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace7 provides:

Article 14. Claims and Property

Efforts to Secure Reparation

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.