Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Republic vs. Purisima Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Stef C G Sia-Con
    96 views1 page
    The document discusses the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, which holds that a sovereign state cannot be sued without its consent. It argues that this doctrine is a logical outgrowth of the concept that the state is the source of all law. It also claims that the doctrine does not inherently cause injustice, as private parties can still pursue statutory remedies to seek payment of claims through administrative and judicial review processes. The document concludes that, when balancing private and public interests, the doctrine of sovereign immunity should continue to be recognized as a fundamental constitutional principle.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, which holds that a sovereign state cannot be sued without its consent. It argues that this doctrine is a logical outgrowth of the concept that the state is the source of all law. It also claims that the doctrine does not inherently cause injustice, as private parties can still pursue statutory remedies to seek payment of claims through administrative and judicial review processes. The document concludes that, when balancing private and public interests, the doctrine of sovereign immunity should continue to be recognized as a fundamental constitutional principle.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    96 views1 page

    Republic vs. Purisima Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Stef C G Sia-Con
    The document discusses the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, which holds that a sovereign state cannot be sued without its consent. It argues that this doctrine is a logical outgrowth of the concept that the state is the source of all law. It also claims that the doctrine does not inherently cause injustice, as private parties can still pursue statutory remedies to seek payment of claims through administrative and judicial review processes. The document concludes that, when balancing private and public interests, the doctrine of sovereign immunity should continue to be recognized as a fundamental constitutional principle.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    The position of the Republic has been fortified with the explicit affirmation found in this provision of the

    present Constitution: "The State may not be sued without its consent." "The doctrine of non-suability recognized in this jurisdiction even prior to the effectivity of the [1935] Constitution is a logical corollary of the positivist concept of law which, to para-phrase Holmes, negates the assertion of any legal right as against the state, in itself the source of the law on which such a right may be predicated. Nor is this all, even if such a principle does give rise to problems, considering the vastly expanded role of government enabling it to engage in business pursuits to promote the general welfare, it is not obeisance to the analytical school of thought alone that calls for its continued applicability. Nor is injustice thereby cause private parties. They could still proceed to seek collection of their money claims by pursuing the statutory remedy of having the Auditor General pass upon them subject to appeal to judicial tribunals for final adjudication. We could thus correctly conclude as we did in the cited Providence Washington Insurance decision: "Thus the doctrine of non-suability of the government without its consent, as it has operated in practice, hardly lends itself to the charge that it could be the fruitful parent of injustice, considering the vast and ever widening scope of state activities at present being undertaken. Whatever difficulties for private claimants may still exist, is, from an objective appraisal of all factors, minimal. In the balancing of interests, so unavoidable in the determination of what principles must prevail if government is to satisfy the public weal, the verdict must be, as it has been these so many years, for its continuing recognition as a fundamental postulate of constitutional law." [Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Republic of the Philippines]

    You might also like