10/14/21, 5:31 PM Case Digest: MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H.
SWIFT
by Xelly J
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT, GR No. 206510, 2014-09-16 (/juris/view/ce17e?
user=gMTA5WitXU3MwY1VPQlFhNE5SNG5Fckw0YVR3dGNlNGJqTnk5UXduWFNEND0=)
Facts:
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,[3] 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
for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the "no-take" policy, entry into the waters of
TRNP is strictly regulated and many human activities are prohibited and penalized or fined,... including
fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created the
Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole policy-making and permit-
granting body of the TRNP.
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 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 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."[6]
By March 30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship
from the coral reef.
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
this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.
Issues:
the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the
salvage... operations on the USS Guardian were already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and
substance; (3) the petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Philippines
and the United States of America; and (4) the determination of... the extent of responsibility of the US
Government as regards the damage to the Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch.
whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any pleading or
manifestation in this case.
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/ce17e?user=gMTA5WitXU3MwY1VPQlFhNE5SNG5Fckw0YVR3dGNlNGJqTnk5UXduWFNEND0= 1/4
10/14/21, 5:31 PM Case Digest: MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT
Ruling:
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file the present petition.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,[13] we recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a balanced
and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the
fundamental law." We... declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from
the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance... with intergenerational implications.
Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in
representation of their own and future... generations.
Their personality... to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet
unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases.
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the
State,[17] is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
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 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.
in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to
the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit... of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from
suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where
they fail to... comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's
internal waters and the territorial sea.
A foreign warship's unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to marine resources is
one situation in which the above provisions may apply.But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the
UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said
treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter's
territorial sea, the flag States shall be required to leave... the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/ce17e?user=gMTA5WitXU3MwY1VPQlFhNE5SNG5Fckw0YVR3dGNlNGJqTnk5UXduWFNEND0= 2/4
10/14/21, 5:31 PM Case Digest: MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT
and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any other
government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become moot in the sense
that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been accomplished when
petitioners sought recourse from this Court.
insofar as the... directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef structure and
marine habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these
reliefs notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS
Guardian from the coral reef.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation and
rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations
with another State in the context of common security... interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative "the political"--departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the
exercise of this... political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."... we cannot grant the additional
reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions
thereof... the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the
United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of... the United States
government. The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of
international law to abide by its terms and provisions.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.
Principles:
Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[10] Specifically, it is "a party's
personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of
the act being... challenged, and "calls for more than just a generalized grievance."[11] However, the rule on
standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like ordinary
citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public... interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of
the controversy is of transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount
public interest.
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.
the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that "there can be no legal
right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends."
In the case of the foreign state sought to be 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 of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171]
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/ce17e?user=gMTA5WitXU3MwY1VPQlFhNE5SNG5Fckw0YVR3dGNlNGJqTnk5UXduWFNEND0= 3/4
10/14/21, 5:31 PM Case Digest: MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it 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.
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.
We held that petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of their official functions... when they
conducted the buy-bust 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 imperii) from private,... commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis)
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.
It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to
law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or
officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or... violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule
of immunity of the State from suit.
it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State
department... on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and
property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he
does not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional... provision that the State may not be
sued without its consent."
The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing
the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It
is a branch of public international law,... regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the
oceans."
The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare clausum)
and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum).[29] The freedom to use the world's marine
waters is one of the oldest... customary principles of international law.[30] The UNCLOS gives to the coastal
State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2)
territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone,... and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal
States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/ce17e?user=gMTA5WitXU3MwY1VPQlFhNE5SNG5Fckw0YVR3dGNlNGJqTnk5UXduWFNEND0= 4/4
