DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

No. The general rule on states immunity from suit applies in this case.

CONSTI 1

1. Arigo vs Swift
Case Digest GR 206510 Sept 14, 2014

First, any waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as for the issuance of the writ of
kalikasan. Hence, contrary to petitioners claim, the US government could not be
deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.

Facts:
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground on an area

Second, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding

officers of the US Navy who have control and supervision over the USS

near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine habitat of which entry and certain human

Guardian and its crew. Since the satisfaction of any judgment against these

activities are prevented and afforded protection by a Philippine law. The

officials would require remedial actions and the appropriation of funds by the US

grounding incident prompted the petitioners to seek for issuance of Writ of

government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. Thus, the

Kalikasan with TEPO from the SC.

principle of State Immunity from suit bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the court
over their persons.

Among those impleaded are US officials in their capacity as commanding officers

of the US Navy. As petitioners argued, they were impleaded because there was

Issue 2: W/N the US government may still be held liable for damages caused to

a waiver of immunity from suit between US and PH pursuant to the VFA terms.

the Tubbataha Reefs

Petitioners claimed that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations
Yes. The US government is liable for damages in relation to the grounding

of the USS Guardian violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and

incident under the customary laws of navigation.

healthful ecology since these events caused and continue to cause

environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect other provinces

The conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in

surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs. Aside from damages, they sought a directive

violation of RA 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the

from the SC for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts

matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the UNCLOS. While historically, warships

committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with

enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the

the grounding incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some VFA

UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with

provisions for being unconstitutional.

the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the
latters internal waters and the territorial sea.

Issue 1: W/N the US Government has given its consent to be sued through the
VFA
HELD:

DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

CONSTI 1

In any case, the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan provides that a criminal case against

Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-

a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed

standing policy, the US considers itself bound by customary international rules

separately. Hence, a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal

on the traditional uses of the oceans, which is codified in UNCLOS.

jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to a US personnel who may be found

responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and

As to the non-ratification by the US, it must be noted that the US refusal to join

beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

the UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS regime of deep
seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep seabed

Challenging the Constitutionality of a Treaty Via a Petition for the Issuance of

commonly owned by mankind. Such has nothing to do with the acceptance by

Writ of Kalikasan is Not Proper

the US of customary international rules on navigation. (Justice Carpio)

The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been

Hence, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will

recognized as a treaty by the US as attested and certified by the duly authorized

disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters

representative of the US government. The VFA being a valid and binding

and territorial sea. It is thus expected of the US to bear international

agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by

responsibility under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding

its terms and provisions. A petition under the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan is not

which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. ##

the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisions.

Other Issues
Claim for Damages Caused by Violation of Environmental Laws Must be Filed
Separately
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is improper
considering that it is the VFA which governs disputes involving US military ships
and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the
agreement.
As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions. Since jurisdiction cannot be had over
the respondents for being immuned from suit, there is no way damages which
resulted from violation of environmental laws could be awarded to petitioners.

DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

CONSTI 1

Facts:

The heirs of the deceased of the January 22, 1987

Mendiola massacre (background: Wiki), together with those injured
(Caylao group), instituted the petition, seeking the reversal and setting
aside of the orders of respondent Judge Sandoval (May 31 and Aug 8,
1988) in "Erlinda Caylao, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al."
which dismissed the case against the Republic of the Philippines

May 31 order: Because the impleaded military officers

are being charged in their personal and official capacity, holding them
liable, if at all, would not result in financial responsibility of the
government

Aug 8 order: denied the motions filed by both parties for

reconsideration

In January 1987, farmers and their sympathizers

presented their demands for what they called "genuine agrarian reform"

The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), led by

Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems and demands such as:

giving lands for free to farmers

zero retention of lands by landlords

stop amortizations of land payments

Dialogue between the farmers and then Ministry of

Agrarian Reform (MAR) began on January 15, 1987

On January 20, 1987, Tadeo met with MAR Minister

Heherson Alvarez

Alvarez was only able to promise to do his best to bring

the matter to the attention of then President Cory Aquino during the
January 21 Cabinet meeting

Tension mounted the next day

The farmers, on their 7th day of encampment,

barricaded the MAR premises and prevented the employees from going
inside their offices

2. Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1)

(Two petitions consolidated.)
Topic: Sovereignty - Suit not against the State - Beyond the Scope of
Authority

DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

The water cannons and tear gas were not put into
effective use to disperse the crowd; the water cannons and fire trucks
were not put into operation because:

there was no order to use them

they were incorrectly prepositioned

they were out of range of the marchers

The Commission recommended the criminal prosecution

of four unidentified, uniformed individuals shown either on tape or in
pictures, firing at the direction of the marchers

The Commission also recommended that all the

commissioned officers of both the Western Police District (WPD) and
Integrated National Police (INP) who were armed be prosecuted for
violation of par. 4(g) of the Public Assembly Act of 1985

Prosecution of the marchers was also recommended

It was also recommended that Tadeo be prosecuted

both for holding the rally without permit and for inciting sedition

Administrative sanctions were recommended for the

following officers for their failure to make effective use of their skill and
experience in directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola:

Gen. Ramon E. Montao

Police Gen. Alfredo S. Lim

Police Gen. Edgar Dula Torres

Police Maj. Demetrio dela Cruz

Col. Cezar Nazareno

Maj. Filemon Gasmin

Last and most important recommendation: for the

deceased and wounded victims to be compensated by the government

It was this portion that petitioners (Caylao group) invoke

in their claim for damages from the government

No concrete form of compensation was received by the

victims

CONSTI 1

On January 22, 1987, following a heated discussion

between Alvarez and Tadeo, Tadeo's group decided to march to
Malacanang to air their demands

On their march to Malacanang, they were joined by

Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN),
League of Filipino Students (LFS), and Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng
Maralitang Lungsod (KPML)

Government intelligent reports were also received that

the KMP was heavily infliltrated by CPP/NPA elements, and that an
insurrection was impending

Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola

The marchers numbered about 10,000 to 15,000 at

around 4:30 pm

From CM Recto, they proceeded toward the police lines.

No dialogue took place; "pandemonium broke loose"

After the clash, 12 marchers were officially confirmed

dead (13 according to Tadeo)

39 were wounded by gunshots and 12 sustained minor

injuries, all belonging to the group of marchers

Of the police and military, 3 sustained gunshot wounds

and 20 suffered minor physical injuries

The "Citizens' Mendiola Commission" submitted its

report on the incident on February 27, 1987 as follows

The march did not have any permit

The police and military were armed with handguns

prohibited by law

The security men assigned to protect the government

units were in civilian attire (prohibited by law)

There was unnecessary firing by the police and military

The weapons carried by the marchers are prohibited by

law

It is not clear who started the firing

DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

The Commission was simply a fact-finding body; its

findings shall serve only as cause of action for litigation; it does not bind
the State immediately

President Aquino's speeches are likewise not binding on

the State; they are not tantamount to a waiver by the State
2.
Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:
1.
When the Republic is sued by name;
2.
When the suit is against an unincorporated government
agency
3.
When the suit is on its face against a government officer
but the case is such that the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer
but to the government

Although the military officers and personnel were

discharging their official functions during the incident, their functions
ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority

There was lack of justification by the government forces

in the use of firearms.

Their main purpose in the rally was to ensure peace and

order, but they fired at the crowd instead
No reversible error by the respondent Judge found. Petitions dismissed.

CONSTI 1

On January, 1988, petitioners instituted an action for

damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together with the
military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola incident

Solicitor general filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground

that the State cannot be sued without its consent

Petitioners said that the State has waived its immunity

from suit

Judge Sandoval dismissed the case on the ground that

there was no such waiver

Motion for Reconsideration was also denied

Issues:
1.
Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from
suit (i.e. Whether or not this is a suit against the State with its consent)

Petitioners argue that by the recommendation made by

the Commission for the government to indemnify the heirs and victims,
and by public addresses made by President Aquino, the State has
consented to be sued
2.

Whether or not the case qualifies as a suit against the

1.

2.

No.
This is not a suit against the State with its consent.
No.

State

HELD:

3. Holy See vs Rosario

G.R. No. 101949
238 SCRA 524
December 1, 1994

Ratio:

1.
Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State may not
be sued without its consent

The recommendations by the Commission does not in

any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State

DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

ground that petitioner already "shed off" its sovereign immunity by

entering into a business contract. The subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil action for
certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity.
HELD:
The Court held that Holy See may properly invoke sovereign
immunity for its non-suability. As expressed in Sec. 2 Art II of the 1987
Constitution, generally accepted principles of International Law are
adopted by our Courts and thus shall form part of the laws of the land as
a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations.
It was noted in Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations that diplomatic envoy shall be granted immunity
from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any
real action relating to private immovable property. The Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly
accredited diplomatic missionary to the Republic of the Philippines and is
thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled to the immunity
rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this Court.
Furthermore, it shall be understood that in the case at bar, the petitioner
has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business,
surely, the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis.
However, petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent
disposal of the lot were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said
property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the
Philippines.
The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of
concern is non-propriety in nature. The lot was acquired through a

CONSTI 1

Petitioner: The Holy See

Respondent: Hon. Elidberto Rosario, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of
RTC Makati, Branch 61 and Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.
FACTS:
Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot 5-A,
registered under the name Holy See, was contiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D
under the name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The land was
donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio, which
represents the Holy See, who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican
City, Rome, Italy, for his residence.
Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who assigned his
rights to respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.
When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arose between
the two parties because both were unsure whose responsibility was it to
evict the squatters from said lots. Respondent Starbright Sales
Enterprises Inc. insists that Holy See should clear the property while
Holy See says that respondent corporation should do it or the earnest
money will be returned. With this, Msgr. Cirilios, the agent, subsequently
returned the P100,000 earnest money.
The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development
Corporation.
Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. filed a suit for annulment of the sale,
specific performance and damages against Msgr. Cirilios, PRC as well
as Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. The Holy See
and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction
based on sovereign immunity from suit. RTC denied the motion on

DELA CRUZ, EILEEN EIKA M.

STATE IMMUNITY

proprietal) character as petitioner sold the lot not for profit or gain rather
because it merely cannot evict the squatters living in said property.
In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the
complaints were dismissed accordingly.

CONSTI 1

donation from the Archdiocese of Manila, not for a commercial purpose,

but for the use of petitioner to construct the official place of residence of
the Papal Nuncio thereof. The transfer of the property and its
subsequent disposal are likewise clothed with a governmental (non-