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( system of sexual slavery) 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(compelling law,
absolute in nature) 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(exception) 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 Japan 8 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.

e Asian Women’s Fund

Established by the Japanese government in 1995, the AWF represented the

government’s concrete attempt to address its moral responsibility by offering
monetary compensation to victims of the comfort women system. 37 The
purpose of the AWF was to show atonement of the Japanese people through
expressions of apology and remorse to the former wartime comfort women, to
restore their honor, and to demonstrate Japan’s strong respect for women.38

The AWF announced three programs for former comfort women who applied
for assistance: (1) an atonement fund paying ¥2 million (approximately
$20,000) to each woman; (2) medical and welfare support programs, paying
¥2.5-3 million ($25,000-$30,000) for each woman; and (3) a letter of apology
from the Japanese Prime Minister to each woman. Funding for the program
came from the Japanese government and private donations from the
Japanese people. As of March 2006, the AWF provided ¥700 million
(approximately $7 million) for these programs in South Korea, Taiwan, and
the Philippines; ¥380 million (approximately $3.8 million) in Indonesia; and
¥242 million (approximately $2.4 million) in the Netherlands.

On January 15, 1997, the AWF and the Philippine government signed a
Memorandum of Understanding for medical and welfare support programs
for former comfort women. Over the next five years, these were implemented
by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

Our Ruling

Stripped down to its essentials, the issue in this case is whether the
Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing
petitioners’ claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against
Japan.

The petition lacks merit.

From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the

exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claims
against Japan.

In Tañada v. Cuenco,40 we held that political questions refer “to those

questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure.”

Certain types of cases often have been found to present political

questions.41 One such category involves questions of foreign relations. It is
well-established that “[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our
government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative
—’the political’—departments of the government, and the propriety of what
may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial
inquiry or decision.”42 The US Supreme Court has further cautioned that
decisions relating to foreign policy are delicate, complex, and involve large
elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those
directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.
They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude,
facilities nor responsibility.43

To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations present political

questions, and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or
invalidate treaties and executive agreements.44 However, the question
whether the Philippine 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 already
decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its
nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The
wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question. Neither could
petitioners herein assail the said determination by the Executive
Department via the instant petition for certiorari.

In the seminal case of US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 45 the US Supreme

Court held that “[t]he President is the sole organ of the nation in its external
relations, and its sole representative with foreign relations.”

Of course, we greatly sympathize with the cause of petitioners, and we

cannot begin to comprehend the unimaginable horror they underwent at the
hands of the Japanese soldiers. We are also deeply concerned that, in
apparent contravention of fundamental principles of law, the petitioners
appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them
before appropriate fora. Needless to say, our government should take the
lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human
rights. Regrettably, it is not within our power to order the Executive
Department to take up the petitioners’ cause. Ours is only the power
to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up petitioners’ cause.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.