Republic vs.

Sandoval (Consti1)
(Two petitions consolidated.) En Banc Campos, Jr., March 19, 1993 Topic: Sovereignty - Suit not against the State - Beyond the Scope of Authority Facts:

The heirs of the deceased of the January 22, 1987 Mendiola massacre (background: Wiki), together
with those injured (Caylao group), instituted the petition, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the orders of respondent Judge Sandoval (May 31 and Aug 8, 1988) in "Erlinda Caylao, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al." which dismissed the case against the Republic of the Philippines May 31 order: Because the impleaded military officers are being charged in their personal and official capacity, holding them liable, if at all, would not result in financial responsibility of the government Aug 8 order: denied the motions filed by both parties for reconsideration In January 1987, farmers and their sympathizers presented their demands for what they called "genuine agrarian reform" The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), led by Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems and demands such as: giving lands for free to farmers zero retention of lands by landlords stop amortizations of land payments Dialogue between the farmers and then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) began on January 15, 1987 On January 20, 1987, Tadeo met with MAR Minister Heherson Alvarez Alvarez was only able to promise to do his best to bring the matter to the attention of then President Cory Aquino during the January 21 Cabinet meeting Tension mounted the next day The farmers, on their 7th day of encampment, barricaded the MAR premises and prevented the employees from going inside their offices On January 22, 1987, following a heated discussion between Alvarez and Tadeo, Tadeo's group decided to march to Malacanang to air their demands On their march to Malacanang, they were joined by Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), League of Filipino Students (LFS), and Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod (KPML) Government intelligent reports were also received that the KMP was heavily infliltrated by CPP/NPA elements, and that an insurrection was impending Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola The marchers numbered about 10,000 to 15,000 at around 4:30 pm From CM Recto, they proceeded toward the police lines. No dialogue took place; "pandemonium broke loose" After the clash, 12 marchers were officially confirmed dead (13 according to Tadeo) 39 were wounded by gunshots and 12 sustained minor injuries, all belonging to the group of marchers Of the police and military, 3 sustained gunshot wounds and 20 suffered minor physical injuries The "Citizens' Mendiola Commission" submitted its report on the incident on February 27, 1987 as follows The march did not have any permit The police and military were armed with handguns prohibited by law The security men assigned to protect the government units were in civilian attire (prohibited by law) There was unnecessary firing by the police and military The weapons carried by the marchers are prohibited by law

It is not clear who started the firing The water cannons and tear gas were not put into effective use to disperse the crowd; the water cannons and fire trucks were not put into operation because: there was no order to use them they were incorrectly prepositioned they were out of range of the marchers The Commission recommended the criminal prosecution of four unidentified, uniformed individuals shown either on tape or in pictures, firing at the direction of the marchers The Commission also recommended that all the commissioned officers of both the Western Police District (WPD) and Integrated National Police (INP) who were armed be prosecuted for violation of par. 4(g) of the Public Assembly Act of 1985 Prosecution of the marchers was also recommended It was also recommended that Tadeo be prosecuted both for holding the rally without permit and for inciting sedition Administrative sanctions were recommended for the following officers for their failure to make effective use of their skill and experience in directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola: Gen. Ramon E. Montao Police Gen. Alfredo S. Lim Police Gen. Edgar Dula Torres Police Maj. Demetrio dela Cruz Col. Cezar Nazareno Maj. Filemon Gasmin Last and most important recommendation: for the deceased and wounded victims to be compensated by the government It was this portion that petitioners (Caylao group) invoke in their claim for damages from the government No concrete form of compensation was received by the victims On January, 1988, petitioners instituted an action for damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together with the military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola incident Solicitor general filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent Petitioners said that the State has waived its immunity from suit Judge Sandoval dismissed the case on the ground that there was no such waiver Motion for Reconsideration was also denied

Issues:

1. Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit (i.e. Whether or not this is a suit against the State with its consent) Petitioners argue that by the recommendation made by the Commission for the government to indemnify the heirs and victims, and by public addresses made by President Aquino, the State has consented to be sued 2. Whether or not the case qualifies as a suit against the State Holding: 1. No. 2. No. Ratio: 1. Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State may not be sued without its consent The recommendations by the Commission does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State The Commission was simply a fact-finding body; its findings shall serve only as cause of action for litigation; it does not bind the State immediately President Aquino's speeches are likewise not binding on the State; they are not tantamount to This is not a suit against the State with its consent.

a waiver by the State 2. Some instances when a suit against the State is proper: When the Republic is sued by name; When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government Although the military officers and personnel were discharging their official functions during the incident, their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority There was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms. Their main purpose in the rally was to ensure peace and order, but they fired at the crowd instead No reversible error by the respondent Judge found. Petitions dismissed.

DOCTRINE:
State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liability should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their authority 3 instances when suit is proper: 1. when sued by its name 2. when unincorporated government agency is sued 3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs to the government