Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

BAER vs.

TIZON the civil and criminal

G.R. No. L-24294 jurisdiction of the place."
May 3, 1974
FACTS: In the case of Raquiza v. Bradford, it
was held that”
• Respondent Edgardo Gener, as
plaintiff, filed a complaint for injunction Accuracy demands the clarification that
with the Court of First Instance of after the conclusion of the Philippine-American
Bataan against petitioner, Donald Baer, Military Bases Agreement, the treaty provisions
Commander of the United States Naval should control on such matter, the assumption
Base in Olongapo. being that there was a manifestation of the
submission to jurisdiction on the part of the
• He alleged that he was engaged in the foreign power whenever appropriate.
business of logging and that the
American Naval Base authorities This is not only a case of a
stopped his logging operations. citizen filing a suit against his
own Government without the
• He prayed for a writ of preliminary latter's consent but it is of a
injunction restraining petitioner from citizen filing an action against
interfering with his logging operations. a foreign government without
said government's consent,
which renders more obvious
• A restraining order was issued by
the lack of jurisdiction of the
respondent Judge
courts of his country.
• Counsel for petitioner, upon
In the case of Parreno v. McGranery,
instructions of the American
the court ruled that:
Ambassador to the Philippines, entered
their appearance for the purpose of
"It is a widely accepted
contesting the jurisdiction of
principle of international law,
respondent Judge on the ground that
which is made a part of the law
the suit was one against a foreign
of the land (Article II, Section 3
sovereign without its consent.
of the Constitution), that a
foreign state may not be
brought to suit before the
courts of another state or its
Whether the contention of the petitioner that
own courts without its
the respondent judge acquires no jurisdiction
on the ground that the suit was one against a
foreign sovereign without its consent.
The doctrine of state immunity is not
limited to cases which would result in a
pecuniary charge against the sovereign or
YES. The contention of the petitioner would require the doing of an affirmative act
is tenable. by it. Prevention of a sovereign from doing an
The writ of certiorari prayed for is affirmative act pertaining directly and
granted, nullifying and setting aside the writ of immediately to the most important public
preliminary injunction. function of any government - the defense of
the state - is equally as untenable as requiring
The invocation of the doctrine of it to do an affirmative act." That such an
immunity from suit of a foreign state without appraisal is not opposed to the interpretation
its consent is appropriate. of the relevant treaty provision by our
government is made clear in the aforesaid
In the case of Coleman v. manifestation and memorandum as amicus
Tennessee, it was explicitly declared: curiae, wherein it joined petitioner for the grant
of the remedy prayed for.
"It is well settled that a foreign
army, permitted to march There should be no misinterpretation of
through a friendly country or to the scope of the decision reached by this
be stationed in it, by Court. Petitioner, as the Commander of
permission of its government the United States Naval Base in
or sovereign, is exempt from Olongapo, does not possess diplomatic
immunity. He may therefore be
proceeded against in his personal
capacity, or when the action taken by him
cannot be imputed to the government
which he represents.

Thereafter, in the cited cases of Syquia,

Marquez Lim, and Johnson, the parties
proceeded against were American army
commanding officers stationed in the
Philippines. The insuperable obstacle to
the jurisdiction of respondent Judge is
that a foreign sovereign without its
consent is haled into court in connection
with acts performed by it pursuant to
treaty provisions and thus impressed
with a governmental character.