MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D.; MOST REV.
DEOGRACIAS S. INIGUEZ, JR., Bishop-Emeritus of Caloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO,
CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., Kalikasan-PNE, MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO,
RENATO M. REYES, JR., Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER
COLMENARES, Bayan Muna Partylist, ROLAND G. SIMBULAN, PH.D., Junk VF A
Movement, TERESITA R. PEREZ, PH.D., HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, Kabataan
Party-list, PETER SJ. GONZALES, Pamalakaya, GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PH. D.,
Agham, ELMER C. LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN MAY E. SALVADOR, Gabriela,
JOSE ENRIQUE A. AFRICA, THERESA A. CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN A. GUAN,
NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ, Petitioners,
vs.
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, MARK A. RICE in
his capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, PRESIDENT BENIGNO S.
AQUINO III in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO, Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs,
HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, Office of the President, . HON.
VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, Secretary, Department of National Defense, HON. RAMON
JESUS P. P AJE, Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, VICE
ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M. ALANO, Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command, Armed
Forces of the Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO D. ISO RENA, Commandant, Philippine
Coast Guard, COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN EVANGELISTA, Philippine Coast Guard
Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO O. DOMINGO, Commandant of Armed Forces of the
Philippines Command and LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine Corps Forces.
Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206510 | September 16, 2014 | En Banc Decision |
Justice Villarama, Jr.
Political Law and International Law | Political Law | Constitutional Law | State
Immunity From Suit | Writ of Kalikasan | Visiting Forces Agreement
FACTS:
This is the case then when a USS Gaurdian was ran aground
the tubataha reefs, which was a big issue then. Subsequently
a writ of Kalikasan was filed against the fleet commander in
chief? So can they make a claim?
In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of
Proclamation No. 306 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on August 11,
1988. In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site.
Located in the middle of central sulu sea, 150 km southeast of Puerto
princessa City.
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067, otherwise
known as the “Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009” “to ensure
the protection and conservation of the globally significant economic,
biological, sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha
Reefs into perpetuity.”Tubataha lies at the heart of the coral triangle the global
center of marine biodiversity.
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US
Navy.
In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic
clearance for the said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the
Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine
ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.”
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of
call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting
the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the
Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was
injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift,
expressed regret for the incident in a press statement. Likewise, US
Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas, Jr., in a meeting at the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on February 4, “reiterated his regrets over
the grounding incident and assured Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del
Rosario that the United States will provide appropriate compensation for
damage to the reef caused by the ship.”
By March 30, 2013 the US Navy led salvage team had finished removing the
last piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef
On April 17, 2013, petitioners on their behalf and in representation of their
respective sector/organization and others, including minors or generations yet
unborn, filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for
the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under
Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (Rules).
Petitioners filed the petition against SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as
Commander of the US. 7th Fleet and MARK A. RICE in his capacity as
Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian. They were the US respondents. The
Philippine respondents, meanwhile, included President Aquino, the Secretary
of the DFA, the Secretary of DND, Secretary of DENR, Commandant of
Philippines Coast Guard, et al.
Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US
respondents 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]).
Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) which they want the SC to nullify for being unconstitutional.
Only the Philippine respondents filed their comment to the petition. The US
respondents did not submit any pleading or manifestation in this case.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not a Temporary Environmental Protection Order and or a
Writ of Kalikasan be issued?
First what is writ of Kalikasan: It is Rules of Procedures for
environmental cases involving violation of environmental laws and
regulation.
Decision: The petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of
Kalikasan was denied.
(2) Whether or not there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the VFA.
RULING:
(1) No. The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of
sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State, is expressly provided in
Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto, we discussed the principle of
state immunity from suit, as follows:
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in
Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally
accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the
law of our land under Article II, Section 2. x x x. Even without such affirmation,
we would still be 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. x x x x
In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals, we further expounded on the
immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows: The
precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a
longstanding rule of customary international law then closely identified with
the personal immunity of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the
emergence of democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the
head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its
sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign
government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic
personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be barred by
the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a
representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The
proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State, in
whose service he is, under the maxim -par in parem, non habet imperium -that
all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one
another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an
official would require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy
the award, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the
damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the
state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded. In the same case we
also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the privilege is not an
immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from
ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise of territorial
jurisdiction.
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto, one of the consolidated cases
therein involved a Filipino employed at Clark Air Base who was arrested
following a buy-bust operation conducted by two officers of the US Air Force,
and was eventually dismissed from his employment when he was charged in
court for violation of R.A. No. 6425. In a complaint for damages filed by the
said employee against the military officers, the latter moved to dismiss the
case on the ground that the suit was against the US Government which had
not given its consent.
The RTC denied the motion but on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed
before this Court, we reversed the RTC and dismissed the complaint. We held
that petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of their official
functions when they conducted the buybust operation against the
complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for
discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly
impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its
consent to be sued. This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a
State from being sued in the courts of another State without the former’s
consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes
sovereign and governmental acts (“Jure imperil”) from private, commercial
and proprietary acts (“Jure gestionis”).
Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends only to
acts Jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only
when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. However, 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. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without
authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It is a well-settled principle
of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad
faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. In this case, the US
respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of
the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its
crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of
the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they were performing
official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against
said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the
US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The
principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this
Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
(2) None. The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United
States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote “common
security interests” between the US and the Philippines in the region. It
provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and
further defines 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. The
invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper
considering that it is the VFA which governs disputes involving US military
ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of
the agreement. As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains
only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present
petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from
Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged
with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately: 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. In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on
the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the
VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the
USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a
writ of Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this point to determine
whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same vein,
we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the violation of
environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit
or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the same violation
of an environmental law.
[NOTE: The petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan
was denied.]
