Chuaquico Jett, I.

1A
Arigo vs. Swift G.R. no. 206510. September 16, 2014
Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

FACTS
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067 otherwise known as
the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009". Under the "no-take" policy, entry into
the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human activities are prohibited and penalized
or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP.
The law likewise created the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which
shall be the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP.
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy,
requested the PH embassy diplomatic clearance to enter and exit the territorial waters of PH. On
January 17, 2013 at 2:30am while transiting it ran aground on the northwest side of the south
shoal of the tubbataha reefs.
Vice admiral Scott Swift and US ambassador Harry K. Thomas Jr. expressed their regret
for the incident in a press statement and assured that US will provide appropriate compensation
for damage to the reef caused by the ship.
March 30, 2013 the US had finished clearing operation to the reef.
Petitioners Contention: On April 17, 2013 a petition for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan
with Temporary Environmental Protection Order is filed against Scott Swift, Mark Rice
(Commander), Terry Robling (Commanding officer of USS Guardian), and various PH officials.
The petition is grounded on: (1) that the grounding, salvaging, post salvaging operations of the
USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage which violates the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. (2) Institution of civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings against the respondents due to violation of under R.A. No. 10067:
unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of conservation fees (Section 21); obstruction of
law enforcement officer (Section 30); damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and
disturbing resources (Section 26[g]). (3) Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being
unconstitutional.
Petitioners prayed for: (1) cease and desist all operations over the Guardian grounding
incident. (2) demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area. (3) stop all port calls and
war games under 'Balikatan' and require Respondents to assume responsibility for prior and

future environmental damage in general, and environmental damage under the Visiting Forces
Agreement in particular. (4) define and describe allowable activities. (5) negotiate with the
United States representatives for the appropriate agreement. (6) commence administrative, civil,
and criminal proceedings. (7) Declare that Philippine authorities may exercise primary and
exclusive criminal jurisdiction over erring U.S. personnel. (8) Require Respondents to pay just
and reasonable compensation. (9) cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in
the collection and production of evidence. (10) Require the authorities of the Philippines and the
United States to notify each other of the disposition of all cases. (11) restoration, repair, salvage
or post salvage plan or plans, including cleanup plans covering the damaged area of the
Tubbataha Reef absent a just settlement approved by the Honorable Court. (12) Require
Respondent US officials and their representatives to place a deposit to the TRNP Trust Fund.
(13) undertake measures to rehabilitate the areas affected by the grounding of the Guardian. (14)
Regularly publish environmental damage assessment, valuation, and valuation methods, in all
stages of negotiation. (15) Convene a multisectoral technical working group to provide scientific
and technical support. (16) review the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Mutual Defense Treaty.
(17) Narrowly tailor the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement for purposes of protecting
the damaged areas of TRNP. (18) Declare the grant of immunity found in Article V ("Criminal
Jurisdiction") and Article VI of the Visiting Forces Agreement unconstitutional.
Respondents Contention: (1) the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ
of Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the salvage operations on the USS Guardian were
already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition improperly
raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America; and (4) the determination of the extent of responsibility of the US Government as
regards the damage to the Tubbataha Reefs rests exdusively with the executive branch.

ISSUES
1. WON, the US Officers impleaded in the petition can be sued under the Doctrine of
State Immunity against suits
2. WON, the VFA serves as a waiver of USs immunity to the suit
3. WON, the VFA is unconstitutional

RULING
1. NO, the US officers cannot be liable due to the doctrine of state immunity against
suits
According to Art. XVI sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution: The state may not be sued without its
consent.

USA vs. Judge Guinto case: such doctrine is based on the principles of international law that
we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Art. II sec. 2 of the 1987 constitution. Even
without such constitutional mandate, we will still be bound by such general principle of
international law under the doctrine of incorporation. The doctrine is a condition and
consequence of a state of its membership in the society of nations.
In this case, it also defines restrictive application of the doctrine: the doctrine is applicable
only to JURE IMPERII (sovereign and governmental acts) and will not be proper on JURE
GESTIONIS (private, commercial, proprietary acts).
Shauf vs. CA case: The doctrine does not apply if the government officials has performed an
unlawful act or has exceed the powers given to him which causes injury to another. Such public
official is acting in his private and personal capacity thus he cannot use the doctrine as an
instrument for perpetrating fraud.
A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, unduly vex the peace of
nations.
This doctrine is also applicable to cases filed against the officers of a foreign state in the
discharge of their duties. If the judgement against such official will require the state to do an
affirmative act to satisfy the claim, then the suit is regarded as against the state itself although not
formally impleaded.
Minucher vs. CA case: even if the suit is against a foreign agent of a foreign government and
not a diplomatic personage, the doctrine still applies provided that it such act which brought
about the suit is in the discharge of his duties.
In the case at bar, the US officials were sued in their official capacity as commanding
officers of the US Navy. The collision with reefs happened while they were performing official
military duties. Satisfaction of a judgement will require actions and appropriation of funds by the
US government thus the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
2. No, the VFA agreement is not a waiver of immunity
Petitioners contention that the waiver under VFA agreement between the US and PH is not
meritorious. The VFA covers the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of
equipment, materials and supplies.
What is covered in VFA is waiver from suits only pertains to criminal jurisdiction and not to
special civil action such as the present petition.

Statutory Basis: SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing of a petition for the
issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or
administrative actions.
3. No, the VFA is constitutional
The VFA was duly concurred in by the PH Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the
US as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the US government, BAYAN
vs. Exec. Sec. Zamora.

WHEREFOR, petition for issuance is DENIED