Myline Cordial

Full Text: arigo, et.al. v. swift arigo, et al vs. swift, et al., g.r. no. 206510, september 16, 2014arigo, et al vs. swift, et al., g.r. no. 206510, september 16, 2014_concur cj serenoarigo, et al vs. swift, et al., g.r. no. 206510, september 16, 2014 concur leonen

FACTS:

While transiting the Sulu Sea, the USS Guardian, a US Navy ship, ran aground on the South Shoal of Tubbataha Reefs, a restricted and marine protected area. The US Government provided compensation for the damaged caused and undertook salvage operations to remove the grounded ship from the coral reef.

Petition: 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. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of environmental laws and regulations in relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any pleading or manifestation in the case.
2. Whether or not there is a waiver of immunity from suit in the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) that would make the US respondents liable.

RULING:

1. Immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts

The inhibition to implead a foreign state in a local jurisdiction is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. That is, all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. 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 alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while the US respondents were performing official military duties and working as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The suit is deemed to be one against the US itself as the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government. Therefore, the principle of State immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.

2. 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. 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.

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 VF A which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.