Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, et. al v. Scott H.

Swift in his capacity as Commander of the US 7 th Fleet,

Mark A. Rice in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling,
US Marine Corps Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director, et. al
GR No. 206510 | Sept. 16, 2014 | En Banc | J. Villarama Jr.
Digest by Aiza Liza P. Namingit
Facts:
After receiving diplomatic clearance from the Philippine Government, USS Guardian, an Avenger-class mine
countermeasures ship of the US Navy, arrived for routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty
at the port of Subic Bay. Thereafter, it departed Subic Bay on Jan. 15, 2013 for its next port of call in
Makassar, Indonesia. On Jan. 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on
the northwest side of the South Shoal of the Tubataha Reefs. Tubataha Reefs are considered part of
Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of Palawan.
On April 17, 2013, petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with a prayer for the
issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection Order (TEPO) for the alleged violations of domestic
environmental laws and regulations, specifically, provisions of RA No. 10067 or the Tubataha Reefs Natural
Park (TRNP) Act of 2008 in relation to the grounding of the USS Guardian over the Tubataha Reef. The
respondents included three (3) military officers of the United States.
Issue: W/N the Philippine Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the 3 US Military officials.
Held: The Court has no jurisdiction over the two US Military officials on the ground that their acts are
covered by the doctrine of sovereign state immunity from suit. However, the Court also concurred with J.
Carpios view that the US conduct in this case brings the matter into the ambit of Art. 31 of the UNCOS,
which created an exception to the rule that warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit where they fail to
comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the coastal States
internal waters and territorial sea. While the Court said that they expect the US to bear international
responsibility under Art. 31 of the UNCLOS in connection to the adverse effects of the grounding of the USS
Guardian to the Tubataha Reefs, the Court, in the end, held that it is deferring to the Executive Branch on the
matter of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels.
Ratio:
The doctrine of state immunity from suit exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State
without the formers consent or waiver. The Philippines adopted the restrictive rule of State immunity, which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private, commercial and proprietary acts
(jure gestionis) as evidenced by various jurisprudence. Under this rule, State immunity extends only to acts
jure imperii.
The immunity of the State from suit or doctrine of sovereign State immunity or the non-suibality of the State
is expressly provided In Art. XVI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution. It is one of the generally accepted
principles of international law adopted in the Constitution. And even without such affirmation in the
Constitution, the Philippines is bound by such principles of international law under the doctrine of
incorporation. Under this doctrine, 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. 1 In the case of Minucher v. CA,
the Court also held that 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 suits.
Here, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity. The alleged act or omission resulting in the
grounding of USS Guardian was committed while they were performing official military duties. Considering
that the satisfaction of 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 State and thus, barred by the principle of
State immunity.

1 United States of America v. Judge Guinto

Concurring Opinion of J. Leonen:

He is of the position that the doctrine on relative jurisdictional immunity of foreign state should be further
refined in that immunity does not necessarily apply to all foreign respondents. Considering the flexibility of
internal law and the doctrines the Philippines have evolved so far, he is of the view that those who have
directly and actually committed culpable acts or acts resulting from gross negligence resulting in the
grounding of a foreign warship in violation of Philippine laws defining a tortious act or one that protects the
environment which implement binding international obligations cannot claim sovereign immunity.
He notes that there appears to be a consensus among states that sovereign immunity as a concept is legally
binding. However, legal scholars observe that there remains to be a lack of agreement as to how it is to be
invoked in actual cases. This vagueness arises from the debate about the sources of international law for the
doctrine of sovereign immunity.
He views that the characterization of sovereign immunity as a principle is more appropriate in that the extent
to which foreign states are awarded immunity differs from state to state. As it stands, states are allowed to
draw the line in the application of sovereign immunity in cases involving foreign states and their agents. As a
principle of international law, it is deemed automatically incorporated in our domestic legal system as per Art.
II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution giving leeway to the Philippines to provide guidelines consistent with
international law, domestic legislation, and existing jurisprudence
He however clarified that this is not the proper case in laying down the doctrine he espoused. He voted to
dismiss the petition on the ground that it is already moot and academic, parties had no legal standing, and
they invoked the wrong remedy.