CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

AY 2017-2018
1st Semester

Algarme, Danielle Kym Marie R. CONSTI1

1JDP Group 2
Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Hon. Sandoval, RTC of Manila, Branch 9, Caylao et al.
GR No. 84607 | March 19, 1993
PROVISION: Article XIV, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
DOCTRINE: Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

FACTS:
Farmers and sympathizers marched to Malacañang to voice out their demand for
genuine Agrarian Reform headed by Jaime Taedo. A confrontation ensued between the police
and rallyist which resulted to the death of 12 rallyist and a number were wounded. Due to the
incident Pres. Aquino issued A.O. 11 creating the Citizen Mendiola Commission to conduct
an investigation. The Commission submitted its report on February 27, 1987which included
that the heirs of the deceased and those injured during the January 22, 1987 Mendiola
Massacre be compensated by the government.
January 1988 herein respondents petitioned an action for damages against the State
together with the military officials and personnel involved in the incident. Through the
Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss the case invoking that the state cannot be sued
without consent. Petitioners move that the state has waived its right. The lower court ruled
that there was no such waiver and dismissed the case. Motion for reconsideration was also
denied
ISSUE :
1. Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from Suit.
2. Whether or not the case at bar qualifies as a suit against the State and is liable for
damages.
HELD:
1. NO. Art. XIV, Sec 3 of the 1987 Constitution states that the state cannot be sued
without its content. Herein respondents argue that through the report filed by the
Mendiola Commission and the speeches of Pres. Aquino implies that the State waived
its rights to immunity from suit. The court ruled that the recommendations of the
Commission, by the purpose of its creation, serves only as basis for a cause of action
and not legally binding the State. As well as the speeches of Pres. Aquino, the court
finds that they are not synonymous to a waiver. Consequently, no such waiver exist to
be waived.
2. NO. the court finds that although the State is sued due to the actions of government
officials which acted according to their official functions during the incident, the
ultimate liability is found with the officials the moment they exceeded their authority
and thus their functions ceased to be official. Based on the findings of the
Commission, no justification was found on the use of firearms. The court concludes
that the state cannot be civilly liable for the death and injuries where the liability
should fall on the named defendants in the lower court.
Petition DISMISSED.

ALGARME DIGEST