III.

THE CONCEPT OF STATE Freedom Islands (to which Spratly islands

belong) - basis: terra nullius (nobody's land)
Article I - National Territory
"The national territory comprises the What does the Archipelagic Doctrine
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands emphasize?
and waters embraced therein. and all other • It emphasizes the unity of the land and
territories over which the Philippines has waters by defining an archipelago as group
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its of islands surrounded by waters or a body
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, of waters studded with islands.
including its territorial sea, the seabed. the • To emphasize unity, an imaginary single
subsoil. the insular shelves, and other baseline is drawn around the islands by
submarine areas. The waters around, joining appropriate paints of the outermost
between, and connecting the islands of the islands of the archipelago with straight lines
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and and all islands and waters enclosed within
dimensions, form part of the internal waters the baseline form part of its territory.
of the Philippines."
Straight baseline method
"All other territories over which the This consists of:
Philippines has sovereignty or • drawing straight lines
jurisdiction" • connecting appropriate points on the coast
This includes any territory which • without departing to any appreciable
presently belongs or might in the future extent from the general direction of the
belong to the Philippines through any of the coast.
internationally accepted modes of acquiring These baselines divide the internal
territory. waters from the territorial sea of an
It also includes territories belonging archipelago.
to the Philippines by "historic or legal title." Baselines are lines drawn along the
that is, other territories which, depending on low water mark of an island or group of
available evidence, might belong to the islands which mark the end of the internal
Philippines (e.g. Sabah, the Marianas, waters and the beginning of the territorial
Freedomland). sea. Each country must draw its own
Kalayaan Island Group baselines according to the provisions of the
a, historic right Law of the Sea.
b. P.D. No. 1596 (June 11, 1978) -
Describing KIG as Part of the • The baselines: the low water mark on the
Philippine Territory beach following the curvature of the coast.
c. Effective occupation From that "normal baseline" count 12
d. Principle of contiguity because of nautical miles. A nautical mile is equivalent
proximity to 1.852 kilometers or 11508 miles. Those
e. Part of the continental shelf 12 nautical miles constitute the country's
f. RA 3046 & RA 5446, as amended territorial sea.
by RA 9552 - An Defining the Anything within the 12 nautical mile
Baselines of the Philippines area is Philippine territory, which means that
anyone or anything within that zone is
subject to Philippine laws. Philippine the Republic of the Philippines has acquired
territory ends past the 2" nautical mile. dominion and sovereignty.
• However, international law particularly as
provided far under the 1982 UNCLOS) REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9522 - AN ACT TO
provided certain recognitions to an AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
archipelagic country like the Philippines. If REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3046, AS AMENDED
the normal baseline method is solely used it BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5446, TO DEFINE
will result in swathes of "open seas" THE ARCHIPELAGIC BASELINE OF THE
between our islands. PHILIPPINES
This could lead to breaches of • It redrew the country's baseline to comply
security and other violations of Philippine with the UNCLOS l requirements for
rights. Hence, the archipelagic doctrine: archipelagic state. The law provides
make imaginary lines from the outermost one baseline around the archipelago and
tips of the islands, each line not exceeding separate baselines for the "regime of
100 nautical miles (subject to certain islands" outside the archipelago.
exceptions). • shortened one baseline, optimized the
location of some basepaints around the
Philippine laws defining baselines: Philippine archipelago and classified
R.A. 3046 (June 17, 1961) - AN ACT TO adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan
DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough
TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE PHILIPPINES Shoal, as "regimes of islands" whose
The waters around between and islands generate their own applicable
connecting the various islands of the maritime zones.
Philippines archipelago. irrespective of their • The national territory constitutes a roughly
width or dimension, have always been triangular delineation which excludes large
considered as necessary appurtenances of areas of waters within 600 miles by 1.200
the land territory forming part of the inland miles rectangular enclosing the Philippine
or internal waters of the archipelago as defined in the Treaty of
Philippines. Paris.

R.A. 5446(1968) - AN ACT TO AMEND Philippine laws defining baselines:

SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT SUMMARY:
NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND • In 1961. Congress passed Republic Act
FORTY-SIX, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO No. 3046 (RA 3046) demarcating the
DEFINE THE BASELINES OF THE maritime baselines of the Philippines as an
TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE archipelagic State. This law followed the
PHILIPPINES* framing of the Convention on the Territorial
The definition of the baselines of the Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958
territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago (UNCLOS 1 ), codifying, among others. the
as provided for in this Act is without sovereign right of States parties over their
prejudice to the delineation of the baselines "territorial sea," the breadth of which
of the territorial sea around the territory of however, was left undetermined.
Sabah. situated in North Borneo, over which
• Attempts to fill this void during the second Baseline laws are statutory
round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 mechanisms for UNCLOS I State parties to
(UNCLOS Il) proved futile. delimit with precision the extent of their
• Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained maritime zones and continental shelves.
unchanged for nearly five decades, save for This gives notice to the rest of the
legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. international community of the scope of the
5446 [RA 5446)) correcting typographical maritime space and submarine areas within
errors and reserving the drawing of which State parties exercise treaty-based
baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. rights, e.g. the exercise of sovereignty over
territorial waters; the jurisdiction to enforce
Magallona vs ermita customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation
• The Supreme Court rejected the laws in the contiguous zone: and the right to
Petitioners contentions. exploit the living and nonliving resources in
• UNCLOS l has nothing to do with the the exclusive economic zone and
acquisition or loss of territory. It is a continental shelf.
multilateral treaty regulating sea-use rights
over maritime zones (e.g. territorial sea), The Philippines is a signatory to the
contiguous zones, exclusive economic zone Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
and continental shelves that UNCLOS Ill Contiguous Zone (otherwise referred to as
delimits. UNCLOS l), which codified, among others,
"the sovereign right of States parties over
Magallona vs. Ermita the 'territorial sea,' the breadth of which,
KIG and Scarborough Shoal are however, was left undetermined," and which
located at an appreciable distance from the served as basis for the passage in 1961 by
nearest shoreline of the Philippine Congress of Republic Act No. 3046
archipelago. Any straight baseline loped "demarcating the maritime baselines if the
around them from the nearest basepoint will Philippines as an archipelagic State."
inevitably depart to an appreciable extent Said law "remained unchanged for
from the general configuration of the nearly five decades, save for legislation
archipelago. passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA
Congress’ decision to classify KIG 5446]) correcting typographical errors and
and Scarborough Shoal as "regimes of reserving the drawing of baselines around
islands" consistent with Article 121 of Sabah in North Borneo". (Magallona v.
UNCLOS Il manifests the Philippines' Ermita, 655 SRA 476, cited in Cruz,
responsible observance of its pacta sunt Philippine Political Law)
servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.
Under Article 121 of UNCLOS I any Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS Ill requires that
"naturally formed area of land. surrounded "the length of the baselines shall not exceed
by water, which is above water at high tide." 100 nautical miles," save for three per cent
such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under (3%) of the total number of baselines which
the category of "regime of islands." whose can reach up to 125 nautical miles.
islands generate their own applicable Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS Ill requires that
maritime zones. "the drawing of such baselines shall not
depart to any appreciable extent from the
general configuration of the archipelago".
(Magallona v. Ermita)

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE:

• An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a
sea zone prescribed by the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
over which a state has special rights
regarding the exploration and use of marine
resources. including energy production from
water and wind.
• It stretches from the baseline out to 200
nautical miles (nmi) from its coast.
• In colloquial usage, the term may include
the continental shelf.
• The term does not include either the
territorial sea or the continental shelf
beyond the 200 nmi limit.
• The difference between the territorial sea
and the exclusive economic zone is that the
first confers full sovereignty over the waters,
whereas the second is merely a "sovereign
right" which refers to the coastal state's
rights below the surface of the sea.

Republic vs. Provincial Government of

Palawan
FACTS:
• In December 1990. the Republic,
through the Department of Energy, entered
into Service Contract No. 38 with Shell
Philippines Exploration B.V. and Occidental
Philippines. The 20-year contract was made
for the drilling of the natural gas reservoirs
in the Camago-Malampaya area, about 80
kilometers from mainland Palawan.
 • Service Contract No. 38 provided a Republic Act No. 7611. Section 290 of the
60-40 production sharing scheme for the Local Government Code, and Palawan
sale of petroleum, where the national Provincial Ordinance No. 474. series of
government would receive 60% of the net 2000. In particular. The Province of Palawan
proceeds, while Shell Philippines sought a judicial declaration that it has
Exploration B.V. and Occidental Philippines, territorial jurisdiction over the
as service contractors, would receive 40%. Camargo-Malampaya natural gas
reservoirs, entitling it to an equitable share
• In February 1998. then President in the proceeds from the Natural Gas
Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order Project.
No. 381, which provided that per the Local • In February 2005. while the
Government Code, part of the national declaratory relief case was still pending.
government's 60% share would be given to then Energy Secretary Vincent S. Perez.
the concerned local government units. It Jr., then Budget and Management Secretary
further provided that the Province of Mario L. Relampagos, and then Finance
Palawan was "expected to receive about Secretary Juanita D. Amatong executed an
US$2.1 billion from the total government Interim Agreement with then Palawan
share of US$8.1 billion" throughout the Governor Joel T. Reyes.
contract's 20-year period. • Under the agreement half of the
• In 2001, then Finance Secretary 40% revenue share being claimed by the
Jase Isidra N. Camacho sought the legal Province of Palawan, to be called the
opinion of then Justice Secretary Hernando "Palawan Share," would be used in its
B. Perez on whether the Province of development and infrastructure projects,
Palawan had a share in the national wealth environment protection and conservation,
from the proceeds of the Natural Gas electrification of 431 barangays, and
Project. establishment of facilities to enhance the
• The Department of Finance had exclusive economic zone's security.
taken the position that the province did not, • The Interim Agreement likewise
as a local government unit's territorial stated that the release of funds would be
jurisdiction was only within its land area and without prejudice to the outcome of Special
excludes marine waters more than 15 Civil Action No. 3779. The parties further
kilometers from its coastline. agreed that the P600 million already
• Since the national government released to the Province of Ralawan would
would not grant the province's expected be deducted from the initial release of the
US$2. billion share, the Sangguniang province's 50% share of 40% of the remitted
Panlalawigan of Palawan in February 11, funds.
2003 called off further negotiations and • In December 2005. the RTC
instead authorized the Palawan Governor to rendered a Decision in the Province of
file the appropriate judicial action. Palawan's favor. It found that. under Article
• In May 2003, the Province of X. Section 7 of the Constitution and the
Palawan filed before the Regional Trial Local Government Code, the province was
Court a Petition for Declaratory Relief, entitled to a 40% share of the revenues
seeking a judicial determination of its rights generated from the Natural Gas Project.
under Administrative Order No. 381.
 • On February 16, 2006. the • The Local Government Code does not
Republic filed before the Supreme Court a define the term "territorial jurisdiction."
Petition for Review, docketed as G.R. No. Provisions therein, however. indicate that
170867, assailing the trial court's December territorial jurisdiction refers to the LGU's
16, 2005 Decision and its January 16, 2006 territorial.
Amended Order. • Under the Local Government Code, a
ISSUE: "province" is composed of a cluster of
• Is the Province of Palawan entitled, under municipalities, or municipalities and
Article X, Section I of the Constitution and component cities. A" municipality" in turn, is
Section 290 of the Local Government Code, described as a group of barangays, while a
to a 40% equitable share in the proceeds "city" is referred to as consisting of more
from the Camago-Malampaya Natural Gas urbanized and developed barangays.
Project? • In the creation of municipalities, cities and
RULING: barangays, the Local Government Code
• No. Unless expanded by Congress, the uniformly requires that the territorial
LU's territorial jurisdiction refers only to its jurisdiction of these government units be
territorial boundaries or land area. "properly identified by metes and bounds".
• Article X. Section 7 of the Constitution • The intention. therefore, is to consider an
mandates that local government units shall LU's territorial jurisdiction as pertaining to a
be entitled to an equitable share in the physical location or area as identified by its
utilization and development of the natural boundaries.
wealth within their area. • In enacting charters of LUs. Congress is
• While "territorial jurisdiction" does not called upon to properly identify their
appear in the Constitution, it is inscribed in territorial jurisdiction by metes and bounds.
the Local Government Code. the law meant • The LEU's territorial jurisdiction refers only
to implement the constitutional mandate to its territorial boundaries or land area
under Article X. Section 7. unless expanded by law to include the
• The Local Government Code provides that maritime area.
local government units shall be entitled to a • Thus its 40% share only pertains to the
40% share in the gross collection the State proceeds from the use and development of
derives from the utilization and development natural resources found only in its land
of these natural resources "within their area. Only utilization of natural resources
territorial jurisdiction." found within the land area as delimited by
• Until the Supreme Court's December 4. law is subject to LEU's equitable share.
2018 Decision. "territorial jurisdiction" has • The area is beyond the province's territory
not been defined. Thus. drawing from the when the 15-kilometer boundary of the
provisions of the Local Government Code Local Government Code and the Philippine
and jurisprudence, the Court concluded that Fisheries Code is applied.
territorial jurisdiction referred to "the local > Note: The Local Government Code
government unit's territorial boundaries." or provides that a local government unit's
that jurisdiction "pertaining to a physical territory extends to its municipal waters (15
location or area as identified by its kms. From the general coastline).
boundaries". • The area is also beyond the Province of
Palawan's territory when the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Republic • Executive Order Na. 683 has. thus,
Act No. 9522.14 and the 1898 Treaty of become functus officio (no further authority
Paris are applied. or legal effect).
• Likewise, the area is beyond the
province's territory when Presidential Government
Decree Na. 1596 is applied. • The agency or instrumentality through
• For their part, none of the parties have which the will of the State is formulated,
presented maps or statutes that expressed and realized.
conclusively prove that the • Our government is democratic and
Camago-Malampaya reservoirs are within republican.
the Province of Palawan. • The mandate of the government from the
• The Supreme Court is, thus, constrained State is to promote the welfare of the
to uphold the ruling that the area remains people.
under the territorial jurisdiction of the
Republic, unless otherwise provided by law. Functions of the Government
• The Province of Palawan also failed to • Constituent functions: constitute the very
establish that it is entitled to its share based bonds of society and are therefore
on equity, considering its proximity and the compulsory.
environmental repercussions of the Natural • Ministrant functions: those undertaken to
Gas Project. advance the general interests of society,
• Whatever environmental or such as public works. public charity, and
socio-economic impact the Natural Gas regulation of trade and industry. These
Project may have has been addressed by functions are merely optional.
the Environmental Compliance Certificate • NOTE: In PVTA v. CIR. such distinction
which provides the proponent shall set up has been blurred because of the repudiation
an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF to of the laissez faire policy in the Constitution.
compensate for whatever damage, may be
caused by the project. Doctrine of Parens Patriae
• Since the Camago-Malampaya Natural • The government is the guardian of the
Gas Project was launched in 2001, the rights of the people.
Province of Palawan has yet to submit any
factual documentation of the environmental • See GP/ v. Monte de Piedad - re: right of
or socio-economic damage it may have the government to file an action for recovery
caused, such that the province may be of claims in representation of the legitimate
entitled to a share in its proceeds on claimants.
equitable grounds.
• Therefore, the Province of Palawan need • See Labanas v. Pilapil - the government
not return the P600 million it received under chose the mother of an illegitimate child as
Executive Order No. 683. against his uncle to be the trustee of the
• Moving forward, any share that Congress insurance proceeds left him by his father.
will allot for the province will purely be an who had expressly designated the uncle.
act of political discretion.
• See Soriano v. Laguardia - re: suspension
of Soriano's religious TV program by MIRCo
due to uttered expletives in the course of Sovereignty
said program. It is the supreme and uncontrollable power
inherent in a State by which that State is
• See Dela Cruz v. Garcia - re: registration governed.
of an illegitimate child using the surname of
his deceased Two kinds of sovereignty:
1. Legal - the authority which has the power
De Jure and De Facto Governments to issue final commands.
• A de jure government has rightful title but 2. Political - power behind the legal
na power or control, either because this has sovereign, or the sum of the influences that
been withdrawn from it or because it has not operate upon it.
yet actually entered into the exercise
thereof. Sovereignty: characteristics
• A de facto government is a government 1.Permanent
of fact. i.e. it actually exercises power or 2. Exclusive
control but without legal title. 3. Comprehensive
4. Absolute
Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. 5 Indivisible
Corazon C. Aquino 6. Inalienable
• The people have made the judgment: they 7. Imprescriptible
have accepted the government of President
Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective Sovereignty
control of the entire country so that it is not • It is not deemed suspended although acts
merely a de facto government but in fact of sovereignty cannot be exercised by the
and law. a de jure government. legitimate authority.
• Moreover, the community of nations has • Thus, sovereignty over the Philippines
recognized the legitimacy of her remained with the United States during the
government. Japanese occupation although the
Americans could not exercise any control
Define: Government of the Philippines over the occupied territory at the time. What
(Actual Bar Question) the belligerent occupant took over was only
The Government of the Philippines is the exercise of acts of sovereignty.
defined as the corporate governmental
entity through which the functions of Sovereignty
government are exercised throughout the • In a BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION, the
Philippines, including, save as the contrary POLITICAL LAWS are merely suspended,
appears from the context, the various arms subject to revival under the concept of jus
through which political authority is made postliminium upon the end of the
effective in the Philippines, whether occupation.
pertaining to the autonomous regions. the • Jus Postliminium - When a foreign power
provincial city. municipal or barangay occupies a state and exercises the powers
subdivisions or other forms of local of government, the political laws of the said
government. state are deemed automatically suspended
but the farmer government automatically
comes to light and will be in force and in THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
effect again upon the re-establishment of Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)
the farmer government. (Taylor.
International Law. p. 615) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
• Non-political laws are deemed continued • The rule that a state may not be sued
unless changed by the belligerent occupant without its consent, now expressed in Article
since they are intended to govern the XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is
relations of individuals as among one of the generally accepted principles of
themselves and are not generally affected international law that we have adopted as
by changes in regimes or rulers. part of the law of our land under Article II,
Section 2. This latter provision merely
People v. Perfecto reiterates a policy earlier embodied in the
43 Phil. 887 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and also
The accused had written an editorial intended to manifest our resolve to abide by
against the Philippine Senate and was the rules of the international community.
prosecuted under a provision of the Spanish
Penal Code punishing insults to Ministers of • Even without such affirmation, we would
the Crown. still be bound by the generally accepted
The Supreme Court acquitted him, principles of international law under the
holding that the particular article of the said doctrine of incorporation.
Code had been automatically abrogated Under this doctrine, as accepted by the
being political in nature, upon the advent of majority of states, such principles are
American sovereignty. deemed incorporated in the law of every
civilized state as a condition and
Macariola v. Asuncion consequence of its membership in the
114 SCRA 77 society of nations. Upon its admission to
Article 14 of the Code of Commerce such society, the state is automatically
prohibiting judges from engaging in obligated to comply with these principles in
commerce was political in nature and so its relations with other states.
was automatically abrogated with the end of
Spanish rule in the country. • As applied to the local state, the doctrine
of state immunity is based on the
Dominium v. Imperium justification given by Justice Holmes that
Dominium refers to the capacity to own or "there can be no legal right against the
acquire property, including lands held by the authority which makes the law on which the
State in its proprietary capacity. right depends." There are other practical
Imperium is the authority possessed by the reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine.
State embraced in the concept of In the case of the foreign state sought to be
sovereignty 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, in the language
of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace 1. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THE MAXIM
of nations." PAR IN PAREM NON HABET IMPERIUM?
2.Can foreign states be sued in the
• While the doctrine appears to prohibit only Philippines, as a host state?
suits against the state without its consent, it 3. How do you distinguish jure gestionis
is also applicable to complaints filed against from jure imperii?
officials of the state for acts allegedly 4.Explain the restrictive application of State
performed by them in the discharge of their immunity.
duties.
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY - when
• The rule is that if the judgment against applied to foreign states
such officials will require the state itself to • General rule: The doctrine is also available
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the to foreign states on the basis of the maxim
same, such as the appropriation of the par in parem non habet imperium -
amount needed to pay the damages sovereign equality of states.
awarded against them, the suit must be
regarded as against the state itself although • Exception: Foreign states may be sued if
it has not been formally impleaded. In such (1) engaged regularly in a business or trade,
a situation, the state may move to dismiss or (2) enters into a contracts in the host
the complaint on the ground that it has been state which are purely commercial, private
filed without its consent. and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).

• The doctrine is sometimes derisively called • Exception to the exception: Contracts

"the royal prerogative of dishonesty" entered into by it as governmental or
because of the privilege it grants the state to sovereign acts (jure imperii).
defeat any legitimate claim against it by
simply invoking its non-suability. U.S. V. RUIZ
136 SCRA 487
• The doctrine is not absolute and does not • The doctrine of state immunity does apply
say the state may not be sued under any where the contract relates to the exercise of
circumstance. On the contrary, the rule says its sovereign functions.
that the state may not be sued without its • The contract for the repair of wharves was
consent, which clearly imports that it may be a contract in jure imperi, because the
sued if it consents. wharves were to be used in national
defense (for both US and the Philippines),
• The consent of the state to be sued may indisputably a governmental function of the
be manifested expressly or impliedly. highest order, not utilized for nor dedicated
• Express consent may be embodied in a to commercial or business purposes.
general law or a special law. • The restrictive application of State
• Consent is implied when the state enters immunity is proper only when the
into a contract or it itself commences proceedings arise out of commercial
litigation transactions of the foreign sovereign, its
commercial activities or economic affairs.
• A State may be said to have descended to operated by private persons. This being the
the level of an individual and can thus be case, the petitioners cannot plead any
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to immunity from the complaint filed by the
be sued only when it enters into business private respondents in the court below. The
contracts. contracts in question being decidedly
commercial.
U.S. V. GUINTO
182 SCRA 644 Second case: Re: dismissal as cook in the
• First case: The private respondents are U.S. Air Force Recreation Center
suing several officers of the U.S. Air Force • The restaurant services offered at the
stationed in Clark Air Base in connection John Hay Air Station partake of the nature
with the bidding conducted by them for of a business enterprise undertaken by the
contracts for barber services in the base. United States government in its proprietary
• Second case: Private respondents filed a capacity. Such services are undoubtedly
complaint for damages against private operated for profit, as a commercial and not
petitioners for his dismissal as cook in the a governmental activity.
U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the Petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of
John Hay Air Station. state immunity to justify the dismissal of the
• Third case: Private respondent, who was damage suit against them by Genove. For
employed as a barracks boy in the U.S. that matter, not even the United States
Base, was arrested following a buy-bust government itself can claim such immunity.
operation conducted by the individual The reason is that by entering into the
petitioners, officers of the U.S. Air Force employment contract with Genove in the
and special agents of the Air Force Office of discharge of its proprietary functions, it
Special Investigators. He then filed a impliedly divested itself of its sovereign
complaint for damages against the immunity from suit.
individual petitioners claiming that it was
because of their acts that he was removed. Third case: Re: complaint for damages due
• Fourth case: A complaint for damages to removal from work following a buy-bust
was filed by the private respondents against operation
the private petitioners, for injuries allegedly • It is clear from a study of the records that
sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the the individually-named petitioners therein
acts of the defendants. According to the were acting in the exercise of their official
plaintiffs, the defendants beat them up, functions when they conducted the buy-bust
handcuffed them and unleashed dogs on operation against the complainant.
them which bit them in several parts of their They were connected with the Air Force
bodies and caused extensive injuries to Office of Special Investigators and were
them. charged with the function of preventing the
U.S. v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 64 distribution, possession and use of
First case: Re: contracts for barber prohibited drugs. It follows that for
services in the base. discharging their duties as agents of the
• The barbershops subject of the United States, they cannot be directly
concessions granted by the United States impleaded for acts imputable to their
government are commercial enterprises
principal, which has not given its consent to from making an inquiry into the intrinsic
be sued. correctness of such certification.

Fourth case: A complaint for damages for • Can immunity from suit be waived by the
injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs State? Why or why
as a result of the acts of the defendants. not?
• The record is too meager to indicate if the • When a state commences litigation, is
defendants were really discharging their there an implied consent to be sued?
official duties or had actually exceeded their • Are local government units liable for
authority when the incident in question damages for the death of any person by
occurred. Lacking this information, this reason of the defective condition of roads in
Court cannot directly decide this case. The their territorial jurisdiction?
case is remanded to the RTC for the • Are public funds subject of garnishment
hearing. proceedings if the consent to be sued had
been previously granted?
The Holy See vs. Rosario
238 SCRA 524 WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
• The Supreme Court dismissed a Philippines as a State vs. Citizens
civil complaint against the petitioner after (natural/Juridical)
the DFA had officially certified that the 1. Express consent - manifested through
Embassy of the Holy See is a duly a. General law
accredited diplomatic mission to the b. Special law
Republic of the Philippines exempt from 2. Implied consent - given when the State
local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, itself
privileges and immunities of a diplomatic a. Commences litigation
mission or embassy in this country. b. When it enters into a contract
• The determination of the executive
arm of the government that a state or EXPRESS CONSENT - GENERAL LAW
instrumentality is entitled to sovereign or Act No. 3083 - the Government of the
diplomatic immunity is a political question Philippine Islands consents and submits to
that is conclusive upon the courts. be sued upon any moneyed claim involving
liability arising from contract, express or
German Agency for Technical implied, which could serve as a basis of civil
Cooperation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. action between private parties.
No. 152318, April 16, 2009) C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. No. 1445
• An endorsement by the Office of - a claim against the government must first
the Solicitor General on the petitioner's be filed with the Commission on Audit,
claim of state immunity does not inspire the which must act upon it within 60 days.
same degree of confidence as a certification Rejection of the claim will authorize the
from the DFA would have elicited. claimant to elevate the matter to the
• Note: It is only the Department of Foreign Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect
Affairs which has the authority to make a sue the State with its consent.
determination of immunity from suit,
although the Court would not be precluded EXPRESS CONSENT - GENERAL LAW
Art. 2180 of Civil Code - The State is
responsible in like manner when it acts SPECIAL AGENT
through a special agent. Special agent one who receives a definite
Art. 2189 of the Civil Code - Provinces, and fixed order or commission, foreign to
cities and municipalities shall be liable for the exercise of the duties of his office if he is
damages for the death of, or injuries a special official.
suffered by, any person by reason of the This concept does not apply to any
defective condition of roads, streets, executive agent who is an employee of the
bridges, public buildings, and other public active administration and who on his own
works under their control or supervision. responsibility performs the functions which
are inherent in and naturally pertain to his
Merritt V. Government of Philippine office and which are regulated by law and
Islands the regulations. (Merritt v. Govt of the
34 Phil. 311 Philippine Islands)
• The State is not responsible for damages Rule: a government entity can be sued for
suffered by private individuals in tort, but it can invoke the defense that it
consequence of acts performed by its acted through its regular employee, and not
employees in the discharge of the functions through a special agent.
pertaining to their office, because neither
fault nor even negligence can be presumed • When the State gives its consent to be
on the part of the State in the organization sued, does it also give its consent to the
of branches of public service and in the execution of the judgment against it?
appointment of its agents. • Discuss the case of Republic vs. Villasor
• The State can only be liable if it acts
through a special agent so that in Republic v. Villasor
representation of the state and being bound 54 SCRA 84
to act as an agent thereof, he executes the • When the State gives its consent to be
trust confided to him. sued, it does not thereby also give its
• A special agent is one who receives a consent to the execution of the judgment
definite and fixed order or commission, against it.
foreign to the exercise of the duties of his • Execution will require another waiver,
office if he is a special official. lacking which the decision cannot be
• In the case at bar, the ambulance driver enforced against the State.
was not a special agent nor was a • Thus, a writ of execution against the funds
government officer acting as a special agent of the AFP to satisfy a judgment rendered
hence, there can be no liability from the against the Philippine Government is
government. unlawful. Public funds cannot be the object
• The Government does not undertake to of garnishment proceedings even if the
guarantee to any person the fidelity of the consent to be sued had been previously
officers or agents whom it employs, since granted and the State liability adjudged.
that would involve it in all its operations in
endless embarrassments, difficulties and
losses, which would be subversive of the
public interest.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES V. IMPLIED CONSENT
DIZON, G.R. NO. 171182 1. When the government engages in
Government Funds may not be subject to commercial business - SUABLE
Garnishment. The funds of the UP are • EXCEPTION - if it is merely incidental to
government funds that are public in the exercise to its principal governmental
character. They include the income accruing function - NOT SUABLE
from the use of real property ceded to the 2. When the government enters into
UP that may be spent only for the proprietary contract - SUABLE.
attainment of its institutional objectives. 3.When the government initiates the filing of
Hence, the funds subject of this a complaint for affirmative relief then that is
action could not be validly made the subject a waiver of immunity - SUABLE
of writ of execution or garnishment. The • EXCEPTION - when the purpose of filing
adverse judgment rendered against the UP of the suit to intervene is for the purpose of
in a suit to which it had impliedly consented resisting a claim against it, hence, the state
was not immediately enforceable by can still invoke its immunity from suit. - NOT
execution against the UP, because suability SUABLE
of the State did not necessarily mean its
liability. WHEN IS A SUIT CONSIDERED AS SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE?
• Properties held for public use - are not • When the Republic is sued by name
subject to levy and sale under execution • When the suit is against an
against such corporation. UNINCORPORATED government agency
• Properties owned by a municipal • When the suit is on its face against a
corporation (LGU) in its proprietary capacity government officer but the case is such that
- may be seized and sold under execution ultimate liability will belong not to the officer
against such corporation. but to the government.
• Property held for public purposes - is not
subject to execution merely because it is SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT
temporarily used for private purpose. Once AGENCIES
wholly abandoned, it becomes subject to • Incorporated agency - has a charter of its
execution. own that invests it with a separate juridical
personality, e.g. SSS, UP, City of Cebu and
• Can consent (to be sued) be IMPLIEDLY City of Manila.
given by the State? • Unincorporated agency - has no
• When the government initiates the filing of separate juridical personality but is
a complaint for affirmative relief, is there a MERGED in the general machinery of the
waiver of immunity? government, e.g. Department of Justice,
• When is a suit considered a suit against DILG, and DOE.
the state?
• How do you distinguish an incorporated • When is an incorporated agency suable?
agency from an unincorporated agency? •When is an unincorporated agency suable?
SUIT AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED BAR EXAM QUESTION - 1989
AGENCY No, the government cannot invoke the
TEST OF SUABILITY is the nature of the doctrine of state immunity.
primary functions being discharged. Thus: Jurisprudence states that when the
• If performing GOVERNMENTAL government expropriates property for public
FUNCTIONS - immunity has been upheld in use without paying just compensation, it
its favor because its function is cannot invoke state immunity from the suit.
governmental. Otherwise, the right guaranteed under the
• If performing PROPRIETARY Constitution will be rendered nugatory.
FUNCTIONS - immunity has not been
upheld in its favor whose function was not in
pursuit of a necessary function of
government but was essentially a business.
(Air Transportation Office v. Spouses David,
G.R. No. 159402)

SUABILITY V. LIABILITY
• Suability depends on the consent of the
State to be sued; liability is based on the
applicable law and the established facts.
• When the State gives its consent to be
sued, all it does is to give the other party an
opportunity to show that the State is liable.
• Accordingly, the phrase "waiver of
immunity by the State does not mean a
concession of liability" means that by
consenting to be sued, the State does not
necessarily admit that it is liable. Liability is
not conceded by the mere fact that the
State has allowed itself to be sued.
• In such a case, the State is merely giving
the plaintiff a chance to prove that the State
is liable but the State retains the right to
raise

BAR EXAM QUESTION - 1989

A property owner filed an action directly in
court against the Republic of the Philippines
seeking payment for a parcel of land which
the national government utilized for a road
widening project?
Can the government invoke the doctrine of
state immunity?