Arigo vs Swift

Case Digest GR 206510 Sept 14, 2014

Full Text
Facts:
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground on an area near the Tubbataha
Reefs, a marine habitat of which entry and certain human activities are prevented and
afforded protection by a Philippine law. The grounding incident prompted the petitioners to
seek for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the SC.

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

Petitioners claimed that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS
Guardian violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology since
these events caused and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as
to affect other provinces surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs. Aside from damages, they
sought a directive from the SC for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits
for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with
the grounding incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some VFA provisions for
being unconstitutional.

Issue 1: W/N the US Government has given its consent to be sued through the VFA
No. The general rule on states immunity from suit applies in this case.
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.

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 Guardian and its crew. Since
the satisfaction of any judgment against these officials would require remedial actions and
the appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the
US itself. Thus, the principle of State Immunity in correlation with the principle of States
as sovereign equals par in parem non habet non imperium bars the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court over their persons.

Issue 2: W/N the US government may still be held liable for damages caused to the Tubbataha
Reefs
Yes. The US government is liable for damages in relation to the grounding incident under
the customary laws of navigation.
The conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation
of RA 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the
ambit of Article 31 of the UNCLOS. While historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity
from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to
this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal
State regarding passage through the latters internal waters and the territorial sea.

Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy,
the US considers itself bound by customary international rules on the traditional uses of
the oceans, which is codified in UNCLOS.
As to the non-ratification by the US, it must be noted that the US refusal to join the
UNCLOS was centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS regime of deep seabed mining
(Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind. Such
has nothing to do with the acceptance by the US of customary international rules on
navigation. (Justice Carpio)

Hence, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the
rights of the Philippines as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. It is
thus expected of the US to bear international responsibility under Art. 31 in connection
with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. ##

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.

In any case, the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan provides that a criminal case against a person
charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately. Hence, a ruling
on the application or non-application of criminal 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 beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

Challenging the Constitutionality of a Treaty Via a Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan is
Not Proper
The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a
treaty by the US as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the US
government. The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a
matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions. A petition under the Rules
on Writ of Kalikasan is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its
provisions.

Relevant Laws and Jurisprudence

States Immunity from Suit Extends to its Officials (Garcia vs Chief of Staff, 1966)
Exception to the Doctrine of States Immunity from Suit (Shauf vs CA, 1990)
Article 30, UNCLOS: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
Article 31, UNCLOS: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other
government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
Full Text
Share this: