Alonzo et al v Philippines

CEDAW Committee, 8 March 2023. CEDAW/C/84/D/155/2020

The Philippines was held liable for its failure to secure full reparation for women and girls enslaved by the Japanese army during World War II.

What happened

Natalia M. Alonzo, Perla B. Balingit, Virginia M. Bangit, Francia A. Buco, Dela Paz B. Culala, Belen A. Culala, Jovita A. David, Zenaida P. Dela Cruz, Fermina B. Dela Pena, Pilar Q. Galang, Januaria G. Garcia, Rufina C. Gulapa, Marta A. Gulapa, Crisenciana C. Gulapa, Rufina P. Mallari, Erlinda Manalastas, Emilia C. Mangilit, Lourdes M. Navarro, Esther M. Palacio, Teofila R. Punzalan, Maria L. Quilantang, Candelaria L. Soliman, Seferina S. Turla and Isabelita C. Vinuya – 24 Philippine women applicants – had been enslaved by the Japanese army during World War II, and were held captive in a place called Bahay na Pula “the Red House.” They joined together as a group called the Malaya Lolas (“the Free Grandmothers”) and took successive cases against the Philippine government from 1998 onwards, in respect of their request that the Philippines bring proceedings on their behalf against the Government of Japan regarding their right to reparations originating in the system of sexual slavery during the Second World War.

They stated that the Philippines’ ongoing failure to ensure an appropriate reparation from Japan was a violation of their right not to be subjected to discrimination. They particularly asked for the Philippines to undertake their claim against Japan for a full apology and acceptance of legal responsibility for the sexual slavery that they endured. A general offer of money had been made for survivors of these crimes from an organization called the Asian Women’s Fund: but for the Malaya Lolas, this was a charitable payment, not a legal acceptance of the obligation to pay appropriate compensation. They were also provided with “apology letters” from the Japanese government and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines – however, these did not refer specifically to the experiences of the Malaya Lolas, and they therefore did not accept these letters as a sincere and complete apology.

The Malaya Lolas argued that although the original harm took place decades ago, subsequent decisions on the part of the Philippine authorities to not take action secure the appropriate reparation had a serious and continuing effect on the rights of these survivors, and “in essence, resulted in ongoing discrimination against the authors that persists to the present day.” (paragraph 3.4)

They argued that the discrimination was not solely in these principled arguments about the nature and quality of reparations, there were other aspects in which the Philippine authorities discriminated against survivors like the Malaya Lolas:

“The authors argue that there is additional evidence of continuous discrimination against them and the violation of their rights under the Convention. For example, the Philippine Commission on Women, which is the main government body charged with monitoring compliance with international obligations affecting women, has never addressed the institutionalized system of wartime sexual slavery, its consequences for survivors or their protection needs. In contrast, Philippine war veterans, who are predominantly male, receive special and esteemed treatment, encompassing educational benefits, health-care benefits, old age, disability and death pensions and burial assistance. It is arguably discriminatory that no corresponding benefits or services or any form of support are provided for the Malaya Lolas, who were also victims of war.” (paragraph 5.5)

The applicants also said that the Philippines continuing discrimination was “further underlined by its neglect of the Bahay na Pula (Red House), which should have been preserved to memorialize the suffering inflicted there and the continuing struggle for justice.” (paragraph 5.6) They also experienced stigma associated with sexual violence (paragraph 7.3).

The applicants also referred to the importance of “the involvement of women in the process of seeking justice, as well as in the design and implementation of reparation and compensation mechanisms,” was clarified in general recommendation No. 30 (2013) on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations. In this general recommendation, the CEDAW Committee recommends that States parties

“Ensure that women are involved in the design, operation and monitoring of transitional justice mechanisms at all levels so as to guarantee that their experience of the conflict is included, their particular needs and priorities are met and all violations suffered are addressed; and ensure their participation in the design of all reparations programmes.” (paragraph 7.13)

They specified the type of reparation which would be meaningful and appropriate to them:

“The authors assert that the reparations requested of the State party are sufficiently clear. Specifically, the authors have enumerated the provision of the following as constituting “sufficient assistance” to them: (a) regular medical care and assistance, as survivors are now all advanced in age, with ailments attendant to old age that are a drain on the already meagre resources of most, if not all, of them; (b) livelihood assistance for their families, most of whom are in an economically disadvantaged situation; (c) educational opportunities for their grandchildren or close kin; and (d) housing support, given the economically disadvantaged situation of most of them.” (paragraph 7.17)

What was the decision?

The CEDAW Committee agreed with the Philippine government that it cannot seek further reparation from Japan, “given that the State party has the obligation to uphold and abide by the Treaty of Peace with Japan of 1951, including the waiver of all claims arising from any actions committed by the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second World War, the authors’ claims under article 6 cannot be brought against the Philippines.” (paragraph 8.4)

However, the CEDAW Committee agreed that there was a significant discrimination by the government of the Philippines against women subjected to sexual slavery in comparison with male war veterans, in terms of the range of benefits and the “corresponding dignified treatment, recognition, benefits or services or any form of support are provided for the Malaya Lolas.” (paragraph 9.2)

Recommendations

The CEDAW Committee recommended to the government of the Philippines, for the applicants the Malaya Lolas:

“ensure that the authors receive from the State party full reparation, including recognition, redress and an official apology for material and moral damages, for the continuous discrimination that they have suffered, and restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, including the restoration of their dignity and reputation, which includes financial reparation proportionate to the physical, psychological and material damage suffered by them and to the gravity of the violations of their rights;” (paragraph 11(a))

The CEDAW Committee also made structural recommendations, (paragraph 11(b))

Establish an effective, nationwide reparation scheme for all victims of war crimes, especially sexual violence
Remove restrictive and discriminatory provisions from legislation and policies relating to civilian victims of war
Provide compensation and other forms of reparation, in order to “ensure the restoration of dignity, value and personal liberty.”
Create a permanent memorial to commemorate the suffering of victims of war crimes, including sexual slavery
“Mainstream in the curricula of all academic institutions, including in secondary and university education, the history of Filipina victims/survivors of wartime sexual slavery, as remembrance is critical to a sensitive understanding of the history of human rights violations endured by these women, to emphasize the importance of advancing human rights, and to avoid recurrence.”

Learning from other institutions

The CEDAW Committee cited the Committee against Torture’s recommendation on reparation, for procedural and substantive reparation, including enacting legislation and establishing complaints mechanisms which are effective and accessible for all victims.

Relevance

This case is especially relevant because it takes the long view on the effect of crimes of violence against women, and the on-going obligation to provide full reparation (rehabilitation, restitution, compensation, satisfaction (including apology) and guarantees of non-repetition, that crimes of sexual violence are forms of torture, and therefore there is an on-going duty to provide reparation.