G.R. No. 162230, 28 April 2010
FACTS
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. 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 emotional suffering. 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, said officials declined to assist
the petitioners, and took the position that the individual claims for
compensation have already been fully satisfied by Japan’s compliance with the
Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan. Petitioners also argued that
the comfort women system constituted a crime against humanity, sexual slavery,
and torture. They alleged that the prohibition against these international crimes
is jus cogens norms from which no derogation is possible, as such, the
Philippine government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford
impunity for crimes against humanity.
ISSUE
Whether the Executive Department committed grave abuse of
discretion in not espousing petitioner’s claims for official apology and other
forms of reparations against Japan.
RULING
No. The question whether the government should espouse
claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations
matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution
not to the courts but to the political branches. In this case, the Executive
Department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical
to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with
Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region. For the Court to overturn the
Executive Departments determination would mean an assessment of the foreign
policy judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to make
that judgment has been constitutionally committed. In the international
sphere, traditionally, the only means available for individuals to bring a
claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is
able to persuade a government to bring a claim on the individuals behalf.
Even then, it is not the individuals rights that are being asserted, but
rather, the states own rights. The State, therefore, is the sole judge
to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted,
and when will it cease.
The Court fully agree that
rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as
well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law.
However, it does not automatically imply that the Philippines is under a
non-derogable obligation to prosecute international crimes. Absent the consent
of the states, an applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security
Council, there is no non-derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan.
Even the invocation of jus
cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not
alter this analysis. Even if we sidestep the question of whether jus
cogens norms existed in 1951, petitioners have not deigned to show
that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus cogens prohibitions
at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to prosecute
perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation
or has attained the status of jus cogens.
Thank you so much for the digest!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this case!!
ReplyDelete