SC asked to consider Korean court ruling on ‘comfort women’

A+
A
A-

INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—A lawyer from the Center for International Law on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2010 ruling that dismissed the bid of more than 70 Filipino women abused during World War II to compel the government to support their demand for apology and reparations from the Japanese government.

In an eight-page motion, the group called “Malaya Lolas” through their lawyer asked the high court to consider the Aug. 30, 2011 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Korea which approved the bid of their “comfort women” and ordered that its government settle the issue with the government of Japan.

The Korean court ruled that blocking the payment of claims is directly related to the “infringement of fundamental dignity and value of human beings.”

The Korean case stemmed from a suit filed by Korean comfort women against their own Minister of Foreign Affairs questioning the refusal of the government to settle the issue if the Japanese government can be held liable for the atrocities committed to them by its soldiers during World War II.

In its ruling, the Korean court said that issues on diplomatic ties is not an excuse because it will be more constructive for both Korea-Japan diplomatic ties and Korea’s national interest to call on the Japanese government to take on its legal responsibility towards the victims.

In 2010, the high court dismissed the petition filed by the Malaya Lolas.

The Malaya Lolas appealed the high court’s ruling.

The case also became controversial after the author of the decision, Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo was accused of plagiarism. But the high court dismissed the allegation saying it was an accidentally omitted footnote by the justice’s staff.

Congress also initiated an impeachment case against Del Castillo but was eventually dismissed.

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • vlxcy

    Ask Atty. Michelle Juan. She was the one who wrote the plagiarized decision of the thick-faced Justice del Castillo who had to gall to keep his post in SC even after the exposition of this controversy. If I remember it correctly, there are a couple of articles published recently which mentioned that Michelle Juan now represents Aga Muhlach – perhaps as legal counsel and spokesperson.

  • joboni96

    support our disappearing lolas

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

advertisement
advertisement