DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
activities of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency,
Republic of Indonesia vs Vinzon
FACTS: Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia, represented by its
Counsellor, Siti Partinah, entered into a Maintenance
Agreement with respondent James Vinzon, sole proprietor of
Vinzon Trade and Services. The equipment covered by the
Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units and was to
take effect in a period of four years.
When Indonesian Minister Counsellor Kasim assumed the
position of Chief of Administration, he allegedly found
respondents work and services unsatisfactory and not in
compliance with the standards set in the Maintenance
Agreement. Hence, the Indonesian Embassy terminated the
agreement.
The respondent claims that the aforesaid termination was
arbitrary and unlawful. Hence, he filed a complaint against the
petitioners which opposed by invoking immunity.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic of Indonesia can invoke
the doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit.
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the republic of
Indonesia cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity to
suit. The mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a
private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of
whether or not it is an act juri imperii or juri gestionis. Such act
is only the start of the inquiry. There is no dispute that the
establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act juri imperii. The
state may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain
the premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy. The
Republic of Indonesia is acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity
when it entered into a contract with the respondent. The
maintenance agreement was entered into by the Republic of
Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions. It
cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.
KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and ARTHUR SCALZO
Facts: Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was
filed against Minucher following a buy-bust operation
conducted by Philippine police narcotic agents accompanied
by Scalzo in the house of Minucher, an Iranian national, where
heroin was said to have been seized. Minucher was later
acquitted by the court.
Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up
charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo.
Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge
of his official duties as being merely an agent of the Drug
Enforcement Administration of the United States Department
of Justice.
Scalzo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that, being a special agent of the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic
immunity.
ISSUE:Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to
diplomatic immunity.
RULLING: YES. A foreign agent, operating within a territory,
can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long as it can be
established that he is acting within the directives of the sending
state.
The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the
however, can be gleaned from the undisputed facts in the
case.
The official exchanges of communication between
agencies of the government of the two countries
Certifications from officials of both the Philippine
Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States
Embassy
Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics
Command in the buy-bust operation conducted at
the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo
These may be inadequate to support the diplomatic status of
the latter but they give enough indication that the Philippine
government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the
activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the
United States Drug Enforcement Agency.
The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct
surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and, after having
ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who would
then be expected to make the arrest.
In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting
as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then
becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against
Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the
scope of his official function or duties.
DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT TECHNISCHE
ZUSAMMENARBEIT (GTZ) v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: The Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of
the Philippines ratified and agreement which lead to the Social
Health InsuranceNetworking and Empowerment (SHINE)
program wherein the program seeks to provide health care to
Filipino families, especially the poor. The Republic of Germany
assigned the GTZ as the implementing corporation for the
program, while the Philippines designated the Department of
Health and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.
Private respondents, as employed by GTZ for the
implementation of the SHINE, had a misunderstanding with the
Project Manager of SHINE. This lead to an exchange of letters
which was interpreted to be the resignation of the private
respondents. Private respondents then filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal to the labor arbiter. GTZ contends that it is
immune from suit as it is the accredited agency of the Federal
Republic of Germany.
ISSUE: Whether or not the GTZ is immune from suit.
RULING: No. , GTZ has failed to establish that under German
law, it has not consented to be sued despite it being owned by
the Federal Republic of Germany. We adhere to the rule that in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a
particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the
Philippines, and following the most intelligent assumption we
can gather, GTZ is akin to a governmental owned or controlled
corporation without original charter which, by virtue of the
Corporation Code, has expressly consented to be sued. At the
very least, like the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals,
this Court has no basis in fact to conclude or presume that
GTZ enjoys immunity from suit.
However, had GTZ obtained such certification from the DFA, it
would have provided factual basis for its claim of immunity that
would, at the very least, establish a disputable evidentiary
presumption that the foreign party is indeed immune which the
opposing party will have to overcome with its own factual
evidence.
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
FACTS: Rubrico, in her petition, said she was abducted on
April 3, 2007 by armed men belonging to the 301st Air
Intelligence and Security Squadron, based at the Philippine Air
Force Field Station at Fernando Air Base in Lipa City,
Batangas. During her detention, the petitioner added, her
daughters Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel and Jean Rubrico
Apruebo were harassed by Senior Insp. Arsenio Gomez and
that there were also armed men following them. The
petitioners prayed that a writ of amparo be issued, ordering the
individual respondents to desist from performing any
threatening act against the security of the petitioners and for
the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to immediately file an
information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating
circumstance of gender of the offended party. It also prayed for
damages and for respondents to produce documents
submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes.
The respondents then filed a joint return on the writ specifically
denying the material inculpatory averments against them.
Respondents interposed the defense that the President may
not be sued during her incumbency. Petitioners pleaded back
to be allowed to present evidence ex parte against the
President, et al. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the
President as respondent in the case .
ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility
is applicable in an amparo petition.
RULING: There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal
liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility While
there are several pending bills on command responsibility,
there is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability
under that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that
command responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police
commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced
disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this
jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility
doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or
customary international law in accordance with the
incorporation clause of the Constitution. Still, it would be
inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of
command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a
form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual
respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the
reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in
such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if
incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule
may have been committed.
TREATY
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary
Facts:
On December 28, 2000, the Philippines through the Charge d
Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the
United Nations, signed the Rome Statute which established
the International Criminal Court. Thus, herein petitioners filed
the instant petition to compel the respondents the Office of
the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs
to transmit the signed text of the treaty to the Senate of the
Philippines for ratification. Petitioners contend that ratification
of a treaty, under both domestic and international law, is a
function of the Senate, hence it is the duty of the Executive
Department to transmit the signed copy to the senate to allow
it to exercise its discretion.
Issue: Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the
Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to
transmit to the Senate for ratification the copy of the Rome
Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission to the
United Nations even without the signature of the President.
Held: The Supreme Court rule in the negative.
The President, being the head of state, is regarded as
the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the
countrys sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief
architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the countrys
mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the
President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states
and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain
diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact
the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making,
the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other
states.
It should be emphasized that under the Constitution,
the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the
concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is
limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or
concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority
of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or,
having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it.
LIM VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Facts: Beginning January of year 2002, personnel from the
armed forces of the United States of America started arriving in
Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine
military, in Balikatan 02-1. They are a simulation of joint
military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty a
bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines
and the United States in 1951. Its aim is to enhance the
strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces
through joint training with its American counterparts; the
Balikatan is the largest such training exercise directly
supporting the MDTs objectives. It is this treaty to which the
VFA adverts and the obligations thereunder which it seeks to
reaffirm.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P.
Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition,
attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.
Issue: Whether Balikatan 02-1 activities covered by the
Visiting Forces Agreement?
Ruling: To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself.
The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an
impermanent basis, in activities, the exact meaning of which
was left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its
definition is couched in the negative, in that United States
personnel must abstain from any activity inconsistent with the
spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political
activity.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and
32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international
agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of
interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is
presumed to verbalize the parties intentions. The Convention
likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the
meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty,
as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside
the aforesaid context.
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the
meaning of the word .activities arose from accident. It was
deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain
leeway in negotiation. In this manner, visiting US forces may
sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military.
As conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new
techniques of patrol and surveillance to protect the nations
marine resources, sea search-and-rescue operations to assist
vessels in distress, disaster relief operations, civic action
projects such as the building of school houses, medical and
humanitarian missions, and the like.
Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as
privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations
constituting no exception. It bears emphasis, however, that
such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita
holds, recognizing a type of information as privileged does not
mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only
after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made
may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for
the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to
overcome its traditionally privileged status.

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current

Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that .Balikatan
02-1, a mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training
exercise, falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable
activities in the context of the agreement.

AKBAYAN VS AQUINO

Facts: Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full text

of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement
(JPEPA) including the Philippine and Japanese offers
submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent
attachments and annexes thereto.The JPEPA, which will be
the first bilateral free trade agreement to be entered into by the
Philippines with another country in the event the Senate grants
its consent to it, covers a broad range of topics which includes
trade in goods, rules of origin, customs procedures, paperless
trading, trade in services, investment, intellectual property
rights, government procurement, movement of natural
persons, cooperation, competition policy, mutual recognition,
dispute avoidance and settlement, improvement of the
business environment, and general and final provisions.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine and Japanese offers

during the negotiation process are privileged

RULING:
The privileged character of diplomatic negotiations
has been recognized in this jurisdiction. In discussing valid
limitations on the right to information, the Court in Chavez v.
PCGG held that information on inter-government exchanges
prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements
may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of
national interest.

Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is

clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept
perpetually confidential since there should be ample
opportunity for discussion before [a treaty] is approved the
offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations
continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It
is reasonable to conclude that the Japanese representatives
submitted their offers with the understanding that historic
confidentiality would govern the same. Disclosing these offers
could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with
Japan but with other foreign governments in future
negotiations.

A ruling that Philippine offers in treaty negotiations should not

be open to public scrutiny would discourage future Philippine
representatives from frankly expressing their views during
negotiations. While, on first impression, it appears wise to
deter Philippine representatives from entering into
compromises, it bears noting that treaty negotiations, or any
negotiation for that matter, normally involve a process of quid
pro quo, and oftentimes negotiators have to be willing to grant
concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to obtain
more favorable terms in an area of greater national interest.