Constitutional Law 1, Section 1-M, Thursday 11 July 2013

Lecture on the topic - Doctrine of State !!unity

1. As expressly provided in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Philippine
Constittion ! "#he St$te %$y not &e sed 'ithot its consent(.
)e$sons*
$+ It is o&vios th$t indiscri%in$te sits $,$inst the St$te 'ill reslt in
the i%p$ir%ent of its di,nity
&+ It is $ ch$llen,e to its spposed inf$lli&ility
c+ Another -stific$tion is the princip$l consider$tion th$t the
de%$nds $nd inconveniences of liti,$tion 'ill divert the ti%e $nd
resorces of the St$te fro% %ore pressin, %$tters de%$ndin, its
$ttention, to the pre-dice of the p&lic 'elf$re
d+ Accordin, to .stice /ol%es, the doctrine of St$te I%%nity is
&$sed not on any formal conception or obsolete theory but
on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal
rights against the authority which makes the law on which the
right depends
In Metran vs Paredes, 79 Phil 819 01918+, #he Spre%e Cort offered the
follo'in, -stific$tion2
"In $ rep&lic$n st$te, li3e the Philippines, ,overn%ent i%%nity fro%
sit 'ithot its consent is derived fro% the 'ill of the people
the%selves in freely cre$tin, $ ,overn%ent "of the people, &y the
people, $nd for the people(
A represent$tive ,overn%ent thro,h 'hich they h$ve $,reed to
exercise the po'ers $nd disch$r,e the dties of their soverei,nty for
the co%%on ,ood $nd ,ener$l 'elf$re
In so $,reein,, the people h$ve sole%nly ndert$3en to srrender
so%e of their priv$te ri,hts $nd interest to the ,overn%ent they
the%selves h$ve est$&lished, 'hich 'ere c$lcl$ted to conflict 'ith
the hi,her ri,hts $nd l$r,er interests of the people $s $ 'hole
4ne of those hi,her ri,hts $nd &$sed on l$r,er interest is the
i%%nity fro% sit of the St$te
Q - May a foreign State be sued in our local courts?
A5 6$sed on the %$xi% "p$r in p$re% non h$&et i%peri%(, 'hich liter$lly
%e$ns ! &et'een e7$ls, neither one c$n $ssert -risdiction over the other.
A forei,n st$te $lso en-oys i%%nity fro% sit here in the Philippines.
Si%ply &ec$se of the principle of soverei,n e7$lity of st$tes, nder 'hich
one soverei,n st$te c$nnot $ssert -risdiction over $nother soverei,n st$te.
Q Is the President of the Philippines enjoys immunity from suit?
A 5 #he President of the )ep&lic of the Philippines, $s /e$d of the St$te is
considered the personific$tion of the St$te, hence, inviol$&le, $nd ths $lso
en-oys i%%nity fro% sit.
In the c$ses of )e* 6er%de8, 119 SC)A 1:; $nd <or&es vs. Choco
#i$co, 1: Phil 931, the Spre%e Cort held th$t the sittin, President of the
)ep&lic of the Philippines is $lso i%%ne fro% civil li$&ility.
In the c$se of Soliven vs. =$3$is$r, 1:7 SC)A 393, the Spre%e Cort
held th$t 'hile the President is i%%ne fro% sit, he or she %$y not &e
prevented fro% instittin, $ sit $,$inst $ny person>s. #he President?s filin,
of $ sit does not necess$rily open hi%self>herself to $ conter sit fro%
the respondent.
@ot$&ly, in the c$se of ASA vs. President )ich$rd @ixon, the AS Spre%e
Cort decl$red th$t the President of the Anited St$tes of A%eric$ en-oys
i%%nity fro% sit &t "there is no $&solte n7$lified presidenti$l
privile,e of i%%nity fro% -dici$l process nder $ll circ%st$nces(.
C"#S$#T
Altho,h the doctrine of St$te i%%nity is so%eti%es c$lled "the
roy$l prero,$tive of dishonesty(, it %st &e o&served th$t the St$te does
not often $v$il itself of this rle to t$3e nde $dv$nt$,e of p$rties th$t %$y
h$ve le,iti%$te cl$i%s $,$inst it. #he St$te %$y, if it so desires, divest itself
of its soverei,n i%%nity $nd there&y volnt$rily open itself to sits. In fine,
the St$te %$y &e sed if it ,ives its consent.
1+ Bxpress consent c$n &e ,iven only &y $n $ct of the le,isl$tive
&ody, $nd %$y &e ,iven either thro,h $ ,ener$l l$' or speci$l
l$'2 Bx$%ples of ,ener$l l$' $re Co%%on'e$lth Act @o. 3;83,
decl$rin, th$t the ,overn%ent of Philippine isl$nds here&y
consents $nd s&%its to &e sed pon $ny %oneyed cl$i%
involvin, li$&ility $risin, fro% contr$ct, express or i%plied, 'hich
cold serve $s $ &$sis of civil $ction &et'een priv$te p$rties.
Also nder C.A. @o. 3C7 $s $%ended &y P.D. @o. 1119, $ cl$i%
$,$inst the ,overn%ent %st first &e filed 'ith the Co%%ission on
Adit, 'hich %st $ct pon it 'ithin sixty d$ys. )e-ection of the cl$i%
'ill $thori8e the cl$i%$nt to elev$te the %$tter to the Spre%e Cort
on certior$ri $nd in effect se the St$te 'ith its consent.
Bx$%ple of speci$l l$' is the c$se of =erritt vs. Eovern%ent of the
Philippine Isl$nds, 'here Con,ress en$cted $ l$' $llo'in, =erritt to
file $ cl$i% $,$inst the ,overn%ent for d$%$,es he sffered $s $
reslt of $ vehicl$r $ccident involvin, the ,overn%ent vehicle.
@ote* In the c$se of )ep&lic vs. Prisi%$, the Spre%e Cort rled th$t
the express consent of the St$te to &e sed %st &e e%&odied in $ dly
en$cted st$tte $nd %$y not &e ,iven &y $ %ere consel of the
,overn%ent, sch $s the '$iver %$de &y the l$'yer of the )ice $nd Corn
Ad%inistr$tion, $n $,ency of the ,overn%ent.
/o'ever, in the c$se of C$ll$do v. Intern$tion$l )ice )ese$rch Institte,
C11 SC)A C1;, the Spre%e Cort $ffir%ed the v$lidity of section 3 of P.D.
1:C;, 'hich provides th$t the I))I sh$ll en-oy i%%nity fro% $ny pen$l,
civil $nd $d%inistr$tive proceedin,s, except in so f$r $s th$t i%%nity h$s
&een expressly '$ived &y the Director of Eener$l of I))I.
M%L$D C"#S$#T # T&" '2( &)*S
1. Fhen the St$te thro,h its dly $thori8ed officers initi$tes $ liti,$tion
$,$inst $ priv$te p$rty, it descends fro% its privile,ed position to the
level of $ priv$te individ$l $nd there&y opens itself to 'h$tever
contercl$i%s or defences the priv$te p$rty %$y h$ve $,$inst the
St$te. A c$se in point is <roil$n v. P$n 4rient$l Shippin, Co, 'here it
'$s held th$t the Eovern%ent i%pliedly $llo'ed itself to &e sed
'hen it filed $ co%pl$int in intervention for the prpose of $ssertin, $
cl$i% for $ffir%$tive relief for the recovery of $ vessel.
6t in the c$se of Gi% v. 6ro'nell, 'here the Philippine ,overn%ent filed
$ co%pl$int in intervention to -oin the defend$nt in invo3in, the doctrine of
St$te i%%nity to secre the dis%iss$l of the %$in c$se, the Spre%e
Cort held th$t there '$s no i%plied '$iver of i%%nity here &ec$se the
Philippine ,overn%ent '$s not $s3in, for $ffir%$tive relief &t r$ther on the
contr$ry to resist the cl$i%.
C ! I%%nity fro% sit %$y $lso &e '$ived &y $n i%plied consent "'hen
the St$te or its ,overn%ent enters into $ contr$ct 0jure gestionis or
proprietary+, thro,h its officers or $,ents, in frther$nce of $ le,iti%$te $i%
$nd prpose $nd prs$nt to $ le,isl$tive $thority, 'here&y %t$l or
reciproc$l &enefits $ccre $nd ri,hts $nd o&li,$tions $rise there fro%, the
St$te %$y &e sed &ec$se &y enterin, into $ contr$ct the soverei,n st$te
h$s descended to the level of the citi8en $nd its consent to sed is i%plied
fro% the very $ct of enterin, into sch contr$ct.
/o'ever, 'here the contr$ct is in prsit of $ soverei,n $ctivity, there
is no '$iver of i%%nity, $nd no i%plied consent %$y &e derived there
fro%.
Fhere the contr$ct is in the n$tre of $ &siness or propriet$ry
$ctivities, sch $s the oper$tion of $ rest$r$nt or &$r&ershop, the St$te
%$y &e s$id to h$ve descended to the level of $n individ$l $nd ths c$n
&e dee%ed to h$ve t$citly ,iven its consent to &e sed.
@o' if there is no consent, either express or i%plied &t yo h$ve $ cl$i%
$,$inst the St$te, yo %$y initi$te $ co%pl$int $,$inst $ P&lic 4fficer>s
Rules on a suit against a public officer
1. It is i%port$nt to deter%ine if the St$te is the re$l p$rty in interest, th$t
is, th$t the cl$i% if proved 'ill &e $ direct li$&ility of the St$te $nd not
%erely of the officer i%ple$ded.
C. Ass%in, $ decision is rendered $,$inst the p&lic officer i%ple$ded,
enforce%ent of the -d,%ent thereof 'ill re7ire $n $ffir%$tive $ction
fro% the St$te, sch $s the $ppropri$tions of fnds to s$tisfy the
$'$rds, the sit is $,$inst the St$te, hence, St$te i%%nity %$y &e
invo3ed.
3. If, on the other h$nd, the officer i%ple$ded %$y &e hi%self $lone
co%ply 'ith the decision of the cort 'ithot the necessity of
involvin, the St$te, then the sit c$n prosper $,$inst the p&lic officer
$nd 'ill not &e considered $ cl$i% $,$inst the St$te.
1. Fhere the p&lic offici$l is sed in his person$l c$p$city, the doctrine
of st$te i%%nity 'ill not $pply.
9. Fhere $ p&lic officer h$s co%%itted $n ltr$ vires $ct, or 'here
there is $ sho'in, of &$d f$ith, %$lice or ,ross ne,li,ence, the officer
c$n &e held person$lly $ccont$&le, even if sch $cts $re cl$i%ed to
h$ve &een perfor%ed in connection 'ith offici$l dties.
S+T ),)#ST ,"-$.#M$#T ),$#C$S
1. Fhere sit is filed $,$inst $ ,overn%ent $,ency, it %st first &e
$scert$ined 'hether or not the St$te, $s the princip$l th$t %$y
lti%$tely &e held li$&le, h$s ,iven its consent to &e sed. #his
$scert$in%ent 'ill depend in the first inst$nce 'hether the
,overn%ent $,ency is incorpor$ted or nincorpor$ted.
C. An incorpor$ted $,ency h$s $ ch$rter of its o'n th$t is possessed of
$ sep$r$te -ridic$l person$lity, $nd the test of its s$&ility is fond in
its ch$rter or the l$' th$t ,ives &irth to the $,ency.
3. #he si%ple rle is th$t, $n incorpor$ted ,overn%ent $,ency is s$&le
if its ch$rter so provides, $nd this is tre re,$rdless of the fnctions it
is perfor%in,. Bx$%ple of this 3ind $re the %nicip$l corpor$tions
'ho $re considered en,$,ed in ,overn%ent$l fnctions $nd therefore
shold en-oy i%%nity, nevertheless, they $re s&-ect to sit &ec$se
their ch$rter provides th$t they c$n se $nd &e sed.
1. If the $,ency is nincorpor$ted, th$t is, it h$s no sep$r$te -ridic$l
person$lity &t is %er,ed in the ,ener$l %$chinery of the
,overn%ent, $ny sit filed $,$inst it is necess$rily $n $ction $,$inst
the St$te, hence, it is necess$ry to deter%ine the n$tre of the
P)I=A)H fnctions in 'hich the $,ency is en,$,ed ! if propriet$ry,
then s$&le2 $nd if ,overn%ent$l, not s$&le.
9. #he non5s$&ility of the St$te is $v$il$&le to $ ,overn%ent $,ency
even if it is sho'n th$t it is en,$,ed not only in ,overn%ent$l
fnctions &t $lso en,$,ed in &siness $ctivities 'hich $re incident$l
to its pri%$ry ,overn%ent$l fnctions. C$ses ! 6re$ of Printin, v.
6P B%ployees Associ$tion, $nd =o&ile Philippines Bxplor$tion, Inc v.
Csto%s Arr$stre Service
S+)/LT* #"T $0+)T$D &T1 "+T.,1T L)/LT*
1. #he %ere f$ct th$t the St$te is s$&le does not %e$n th$t it is li$&le.
C. F$iver of i%%nity does not %e$n concession of its li$&ility
3. Fhen the St$te $llo's itself to &e sed, $ll it does in effect is to ,ive
the other p$rty the opportnity to prove, if it c$n, th$t the St$te is
li$&le.
1. Gi$&ility is deter%ined $fter he$rin, on the &$sis of relev$nt l$'s $nd
est$&lished f$cts
SC"%$ "2 C"#S$#T
Consent to &e sed does not inclde consent to the exection of
-d,%ent. Sch exection 'ill re7ire $nother '$iver, &ec$se the po'er
of the cort ends 'hen the -d,%ent is rendered, since ,overn%ent fnds
$nd properties %$y not &e sei8ed nder 'rits of exection or ,$rnish%ent,
nless sch dis&rse%ents is covered &y the correspondin, $ppropri$tion
$s re7ired &y l$'.
$3$M%T"#S 2."M L$,)L .$0+.$M$#T
1. St$te is not re7ired to pt p &ond for d$%$,es, or $n $ppe$l &ond,
since it c$n &e $ss%ed th$t it is $l'$ys solvent.
C. St$te is not $lso re7ired to p$y le,$l fees or costs of sit.
3. @ot s&-ect to interest
1. @o st$ttes of li%it$tion, except if en,$,ed in &siness.