Paper analyzes CEDAW Committee’s ruling that the Philippines’ failure to help WWII sexual slavery survivors constitutes gender discrimination

The issue of Japan’s World War II wartime sexual slavery remains a sensitive topic, shaping how it is publicly discussed and memorialized—often amidst delicate diplomatic pressure. Governments representing affected victims have reacted differently to calls for official reparations. Core to these demands is holding Japan legally accountable for implementing a systematic policy of sexual slavery in different territories, such as the Philippines. Advocates ground this legal responsibility in international humanitarian law, customary international law, and violations of relevant conventional international law.

This case note looks at a decision by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) in Alonzo et al. v. The Philippines. This was the first time an international body formally recognized the rights of Filipino women who were forced into sexual slavery by Japan during World War II. Unlike past efforts that focused on blaming Japan, the Committee took a different angle: it said the Philippine government’s long-standing refusal to help the survivors was itself a form of ongoing gender discrimination, which violated the country’s obligations under CEDAW. By framing the problem this way, the decision shines a light on how international human rights law can address not only past atrocities but also the lasting harm and inequality that survivors still face today. It shows how applying the principle of non-discrimination can help fill the gap left by earlier failed attempts to secure justice and compensation for these women.

This paper is significant because it highlights a turning point in the recognition of justice for Filipino women who were subjected to wartime sexual slavery. By examining Alonzo et al. v. The Philippines, it shows how the CEDAW Committee reframed the issue from one of historical state responsibility (focused on Japan) to an ongoing problem of gender-based discrimination within the Philippines itself. It also critically revisits the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.

The paper contributes to international human rights scholarship by:
– Demonstrating how human rights law can address the lasting impact of past atrocities, rather than
limiting justice to questions of historical accountability.
– Emphasizing that governments can be held responsible not only for past violations but also for
present-day failures to support survivors.
– Illustrating how the principle of non-discrimination under CEDAW can provide new pathways for
redress when traditional legal routes have failed.

Ultimately, the paper underscores the broader role of international human rights mechanisms in validating survivors’ experiences and offering a framework for justice where national and bilateral efforts have fallen short.

Author: Ruby Rosselle L. Tugade (Faculty of Law & Justice, University of New South Wales | College of Law, University of the Philippines Diliman)

Read the full paper: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/13582291251381117