I.

Philippines as a State
A. Sovereignty
i. Sovereign Immunity
1. STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
a. The state cannot be sued without its consent (Art 16, Sec 3, 1987)
b. Even without this provision, the State generally is exempt from any
and all suits if the same is commenced against the State without its
consent.
c. Rationale:
i. Logical Proposition
1. There can be no right against the authority which makes the
laws on which emanates from. There can be no legal right as
against the authority which creates or guarantees the right
ii. Practical Side
1. There is logic to this prohibition, Imagine a situation where the
State can be sued without its consent, the State may not be
able to function properly; being preoccupied in defending suits
lefts and right. Its attention will be diverted to defending suits.
d. Cases
i. Sovereignty
1. Laurel v. Misa
a. A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but
an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the
obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or
sovereign.
2. Peralta v. Director of Prisons
a. Peralta, a Filipino, refused to collaborate with the Japanese
imperial forces and was prosecuted and tried for treason for
not giving up his allegiance. He got convicted and when the
belligerent occupation was over, Peralta filed for habeas
corpus, asking that he be released from jail. The Supreme
Court granted the petition because Peralta was convicted for
a political offense.
3. Tiamco v. Diaz
a. “…Cases of forcible entry and detainer are summary in
nature, for they involve perturbation of social order which
must be restored as promptly as possible and, accordingly,
technicalities or details of procedure which may cause
unnecessary delays should carefully be avoided.”
4. People v. Perfecto
a. Perfecto was prosecuted for maligning the reputation of the
old Congress of the Philippines. He wrote an article in the
newspaper maligning the senators, calling them
incompetent fools. He was prosecuted for libel under the old
provision of the Spanish Penal Code. Perfecto was convicted,
but his conviction was overturned by the SC, noting that the
Spanish Civil Code was already abrogated by the transfer of
sovereignty from Spain to the US
ii. Sovereign Immunity/Doctrine on Non-suability of State, Basis
1. Article 16, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
 2. Republic v. Villasor
a. Public funds would remain to be government funds and the
same may only be appropriated or disbursed pursuant to an
appropriation law. Public funds are supposedly for public use
and not for satisfying money claims adjudged against the
State. Sec 29 par 1 Art 6 says that no public funds shall be
released from treasury without the benefit of an
appropriation law.
ii. Immunity of Other States and International Organs
1. Immunity from suit likewise extends to foreign international
organizations
2. Par in pari nor habet in perium
a. There is sovereignty among equals. Each state is regarded as equal
to other states.
3. Section 3, Article 16
a. The State cannot be sued without its consent. Therefore, it can be
sued if it gives its consent to being sued.
b. Two Kinds of Consent
i. Express consent
1. A law enacted by congress allowing the State to be sued.
2. It is only Congress that can expressly give consent to be sued.
The president cannot, not the SolGen.
ii. Implied consent
1. Happens when the State commences litigation by itself. When
the Republic files a case against a private person or
corporation, the defendant is authorized to file a countersuit
against the Republic. By filing a case, the Republic has already
divested itself of its immunity from suit.
a. General Rule: When the State commences litigation, it is
thereby giving its implied consent to be sued.
b. Exception: Where such litigation is brought precisely for the
State to invoke its immunity from suit.
2. When the State enters into a contract with private persons or
corporation in the exercise of its proprietary functions – it
descended to the level of a private citizen or individual
a. General Rule: If the State enters into a contract in the
exercise of its proprietary functions – implied consent
b. Exception: If the contract is entered into in the exercise of
its governmental functions – immune from suit.
c. Exception to the Exception: (Instances when State immunity
cannot be availed of)
i. When the State enters into a contract in the exercise of its
proprietary functions.
ii. When the state takes away private public property
supposedly for public use without payment or just
compensation.
4. Cases
a. Minucher v CA
i. It was sufficiently established that respondent Arthur Scalzo, an
agent of the US Drug Enforcement Agency, was tasked to conduct
 surveillance on suspected drug activities within the country, and
having ascertained the target, to inform the local law enforcers
who would then be expected to make the arrest. In conducting
this surveillance and later, acting as the poseur-buyer during the
buy-bust operation, and they becoming a principal witness in the
criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo can hardly be said to have
acted beyond the scope of his official function for duties. He
should, there for, be accorded diplomatic immunity
b. Arigo v. Swift
i. Foreign warship’s unauthorized entry into our internal waters with
resulting damage to marine resources is one situation in which
Articles 30 and 31 may apply. Even if the US is a non-member of
the UNCLOS, it does not mean it will disregard the rights of the
Philippines as a coastal state over its internal waters and
territorial sea. Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is
concerned, the coastal states exercise sovereignty, subject to the
ONVLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty
extends to the airspace over the territorial sea as well as to its
bed and subsoil.
c. WHO v Aquino
i. The United Nations, as well as its organs and specialized agencies,
are likewise beyond the jurisdiction of local courts.
d. Lasco v United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources
Exploitation
i. The SC upheld the diplomatic immunity of private respondent as
established by the ltter of the Department of Foreign Affairs
recognizing and confirming such immunity in accordance with the
1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN of
which the Philippines is a signatory
e. SEAFdec v Acosta
i. It was held that SEAFDEC, as an international agency, enjoys
diplomatic immunity. It was established though an international
agreement to which the Philippines became a signatory on
January 16, 1968. The purpose of the Center is to contribute to
the promotion of fisheries development in Southeast Asia by
mutual cooperation among the member government of the
Center. The invocation by private respondents of the doctrine of
estoppel is unavailing, because estoppel does not confer
jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over a cause of action.
Ruling cannot apply to parties which enjoy foreign and diplomatic
immunity
f. Callardo v. IRRI
i. The Court upheld anew that constitutionality of Sec. 3, P.D. 1620,
which provides that the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative
proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly
waived by the Director General of the Institute or his authorized
representative.
iii. What Constitutes a Suit against the State
1. Cases
 i. Sanders v. Veridiano
1. On the assumption that decision is rendered against the
public officer or agency impleaded, will the enforcement
thereof require an affirmative act from the State, such as the
appropriation of the needed amount to satisfy the judgment?
If so, then it is a suit against the state
ii. Professional Video Inc. v. TESDA
1. Even assuming that TESDA entered into a proprietary
contract with PROVI and thereby gave its implied consent to
be sued, TESDA’s funds are still public in nature and thus,
cannot be the valid subject of a writ of garnishment or
attachment.
iii. Republic v. Feliciano
1. The plaintiff has impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as
defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and
possession of a parcel of land, bringing the State to court just
like any private person who is claimed to be usurping a piece
of property. A suit for the recovery of property is not an
action in re, but an action in personam.
2. By its caption and its allegation and prayer, the complaint is
clearly a suit against the State, which under settled
jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that
the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by
implication through the use of statutory language too plain to
be misinterpreted. There is no such showing in the instant
case.
iv. Tan v. Director of Forestry
1. The Supreme Court said that State immunity from suit may
be invoked as long as the suit really affects the property,
rights or interest of the State and not merely those of the
officers nominally made party defendants. In this case, the
Court said that the promotion of public welfare and the
protection of the inhabitants near the public forest are
property rights and interest of the State.
v. Veterans manpower and Protective Services, Inc. v. CA
1. The suit for damages filed against the PC Chief and the PC-
SUSIA would require an affirmative act of appropriation
should damage be awarded, and is, therefore, a suit against
the State.
vi. Liwayway Vinzonz-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation
2. The suit for damages filed against the PC Chief and the PC-SUSIA would
require an affirmative act of appropriation should damage be awarded,
and is, therefore, a suit against the State.
iv. Suit Against Government Agencies
1. If the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, we can deduce
whether or not the action will prosper. If the state has not given its
consent, it can invoke state immunity form suit and can move of the
outright dismissal of the case – but this happens only if the defendant is
the Republic itself.
2. Incorporated and Unincorporated government agencies:
 a. Incorporated government agency
i. Government agencies, which have charters of their own governing
their creation, normally in the form of a special law creating such
particular agency. (UP, SSS, Central Bank, Philippine National
Railways)
ii. Rules to determine
1. Examine the charters of the government agency concerned. If
in their charters, there are provisions providing to that their
agency has the capacity to sue and be sued – it can be sued
even if it is performing governmental function. The nature of
the function being performed is immaterial.
2. If the charter is silent in the capacity of such agency to sue and
be sued – factor in the primary functions being performed by
such incorporated government agency.
a. If governmental functions – state immunity supplies
b. If proprietary functions – state immunity cannot apply.
b. Unincorporated governmental agency
i. Governmental agencies which have no charters of their own (DoJ,
Department of Works and Highways)
ii. Rules to determine
1. Determine the primary functions that it is performing
a. If governmental functions – immune from suit
b. If proprietary functions - can be sued
3. Cases
a. Municipality of San Fernando v. Judge Firme
i. The issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts
committed by its employee, the test of liability of the municipality
depends of whether or not the driver (Judge), is acting in behalf of
the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary
functions.
b. Air Transportation Office v. Spouses Ramos
i. Air Transportation Office (ATO) was an agency of the Government
not performing a purely governmental or sovereign function, but
was instead involved in the management and maintenance of
Loaken Airport, an activity that was not the exclusive prerogative of
the State in its sovereign capacity. Hence, the ATO has no claim to
the States immunity from suit
c. National Electrification Administration (NEA) v. Morales
i. NEA is a government-owned and controlled corporation, a juridical
personality separate and distinct from the government, with
capacity to sue and be sued. As such, it cannot evade execution; its
funds may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment
rendered against it. However, before execution may be had, a claim
for payment of the judgment award must be first filed with the COA
d. Lockheed Detective & Watchman Agency v. University of the
Philippines
i. “Clearly, UP consented to be sued when it participated in the
proceedings. What UP questions is the hasty garnishment of its
funds.”
 ii. Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the
government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. Thus, also
like NEA, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be subject to
garnishment or levy. However, before execution may be had, a
claim for payments of judgment award much must first be filed with
the COA.
e. Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals
i. The SC said that the bureau of Customs, being an unincorporated
agency without a separate juridical sovereignty, namely the power
of taxation; it performs governmental functions. Hence, cannot be
sued without its consent.
f. Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA
i. If proprietary, suit will prosper because when the States engages in
principally proprietary functions, the it descends to the level of a
private individual, and may, therefore, be vulnerable to suit.
g. Sanders v. Veridiano
i. The SC spoke of a number of well-recognized exception when a
public officer may be sued without the prior consent of the State,
viz (1) to compel him to do an act required by law; (2) to restrain
him from enforcing an act claimed to be unconstitutional; (3) to
compel the payment of damages from a fund already available for
the purpose; (4) to secure a judgment that the officer impleaded
may satisfy by himself without the State having to do a positive act
to assist him; and (5) where the government itself has violated its
own laws, because the doctrine of State Immunity “cannot be used
to perpetrate an injustice”.
v. Suit Against Public Officials
1. General Rule: When a case is filed against a public official for acts
performed by him in the ordinary discharge of his functions and so long
as he acts within the confines of his given authority – immunity from
suit (considered as a suit against the republic)
a. Test to be employed
i. Determine whether or not in the satisfaction of the claim, a positive
act is to be required from the government
1. If in satisfying the claims of the plaintiff, there is a need for the
state to appropriate funds to satisfy such claims – Immune from
suit.
2. If the claim of the plaintiff can be satisfied without need for
appropriating funds to satisfy such claims – NOT immune from
suit.
2. Exception
a. Instances where a case may NOT be dismissed even if such was filed
WITHOUT the consent of the State
i. When the action is filed against a public officer only to compel the
performance of his duties which he is duty-bound to perform under
the law. (Ex. A fire marshall not doing his job – writ of mandamus)
ii. When the case is filed against a public officer to enjoin the
performance of an act which is patently illegal or unconstitutional
(Ex. DPWH demolishing a house without payment of just
compensation – injunction order)
 iii. When the case is filed against the public officer who performed an
ultra vires act – beyond the bound of authority given to him by law.
iv. When there is a patent violation in the Constitution.
b. Cases (Suit against Public Officials)
i. Department of Health v. Philippine Pharmawealth
1. The doctrine of state immunity does not apply where the public
official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are
unauthorized or unlawful and injurious to the rights of others.
Neither does it apply where the public official is clearly being
sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity,
although the acts complained of may have been committed
while he occupied a public position, For an office who exceeds
the power conferred on him by law, cannot hide behind the plea
of sovereign immunity and must bear the liability personally.
ii. Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. v. CA
1. The suit for damages filed against the PC Chief and the PC-
SUSIA would require an affirmative act of appropriation should
damage be awarded, and is, therefore, a suit against the State.
iii. Sanders v. Veridiano (supra)
iv. Republic v. Sandiganbayan
1. When Cory Aquino became president, she ordered the
confiscation of the properties of Marcos’ cronies. One of those
affected was Major Ramas. His properties and all his assets
were confiscated without the benefit of a search warrant.
2. Major Ramas objected, invoking the 1973 provision of the
constitution, which prohibits the confiscation and seizure of
properties without a search warrant. However, the SC disagreed
because at that time, there were still under the revolutionary
government and the 1973 constitution was inoperative. In fact,
Aquino made an announcement that her administration was
instituted in defiance of the 1973 constitution and that her
administration totally abrogated such constitution. Hence,
Major Ramas could not invoke such provision of the dead
constitution.
3. But the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, invoking the
principles under the universal declaration of human rights and
the international and political right, which President Aquino did
not declare to have abandoned.
v. Lansang v. CA
1. The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints
filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of
the duties. The rule does not apply where the public official is
charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and
injurious to the rights of others. Neither does it apply where the
public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but
in his personal capacity.
2. The Doctrine of state immunity will not apply, even if the acts
complained of were committed while the public official was
occupying a public position. The petitioner was sued for
allegedly “personal motives” in ordering the ejectment of the
General Assembly of the Blind, Inc. (GAMI) from the Rizal Park;
thus, the case was not deemed a suit against the State.