G.R No. 206510 – 743 Phil. 8 – 735 SCRA 102 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – State Immunity from Suit – A foreign state may not be sued without its consent
In 1993, the Tubbataha Reef in Palawan was declared as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In 2010, it was declared a National Park.
In January 2013, the USS Guardian, an anti-mine US Navy ship, after securing clearances embarked to its next port of call from Subic to Indonesia. On its way, it ran aground the Tubbataha Reef. No one was harm and no oil leak was detected. The US government expressed regret and undertook to restore the damage caused to the reef as well as to clean the debris. In March 2013, the US was able to clean up the mess.
In April 2013, Most Rev. Pedro Arigo and several other concerned citizens filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus against US Navy officers including Scott Swift, Commander of the US Fleet, and Mark Rice, Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian. Likewise sued were officials of the Philippine government.
The petition alleged that the incident caused continuing environmental damages to the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should prosper.
HELD: No. A State, like the US, enjoys immunity from suit. A State may not be sued in foreign soil. We are bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states.
In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would “unduly vex the peace of nations.”
This is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.
The exception is if it is the official himself or herself who is made to account for acts that violated the personal and property rights of others. In this case, the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity.
