Arigo vs Swift
II of the Philippine
Facts:
December 2012 - the US Embassy in the Philippines
requested diplomatic clearance for USS Guardian, an
Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US
Navy, 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. The diplomatic clearance was for entry
and exit of such vessel was granted.
January 13, 2013 – Arrival of the USS Guardian
January 17, 2013 – At 2:20AM while transiting Sulu Sea,
the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South
Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs
January 20, 2013 – Vice Admiral Scott Swift, US 7 th Fleet
Commander expressed regret for the incident in a press
statement. The US Ambassador to the Philippines, Harry
K. Thomas Jr., reiterated his regrets over the grounding
incident and assured the DFA Sec of the Philippines
(Albert Del Rosario) that the US will provide appropriate
compensation for damage to the reef caused by the
ship.
April 17, 2013 – a petition was filed against the officers
of the USS Guardian and several public officials in the
Philippines
The petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and
post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause
and continue to cause environmental damage of such
magnitude as affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique,
Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros
Oriental, Zamboanga Del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-
Tawi. And such events violate their constitutional rights
to a balanced and healthful ecology. They also seek a
directive from this court for the institution of civil,
administrative, and criminal suits for acts committed in
violation of environmental laws and regulations in
connection with the grounding incident. Petitioners also
assail certain provisions of the VFA to be declared
unconstitutional. Specifically, the grant of immunity as
to criminal jurisdiction of the VFA be declared
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
and/or for violating the preemptory norm of non-
discrimination incorporated as part of the law of the
land under Section 2, Art.
Constitution.
Violations committed by US respondents under R.A. No.
10067:
 Unauthorized entry
 Non-payment of conservation fees
 Obstruction of law enforcement officer
 Damages to the reef
 Destroying and disturbing resources
Hence, this petition is for the issuance of Writ of
Kalikasan with prayer for issuance of TEPO.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the State Immunity will be applied in
this case.
2. Whether or not the specific provisions mentioned in
the VFA is unconstitutional and therefore, must be
declared void.
Held:
1. YES. In this case, the US respondents were sued in
their official capacity as commanding officers of the US
Navy who had control and supervision of the USS
Guardian and its crew. The respondents are acting in
their official military duties while the offense was
committed, therefore, the suit is deemed to be one
against the US itself. The principle of state immunity
bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
persons of respondents, Swift, Rice and Robling.
2. The court cannot grant the petition to order a review
of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions
thereof, because such is within the conduct of foreign
relations which is lodged in the executive and legislative
branch. Furthermore, 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.
The issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan was DENIED.
Review Questions:
1. What is State Immunity?
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Art.
XVI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution)
- A sovereign is exempt from suit on the logical and
practical ground that there can be no legal right to as
against the authority that makes the law on which the
right depends.
- Even without an express stipulation in the
Constitution, the Philippines would still be bound by the
generally accepted principles of public international law
under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this
doctrine, 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. Thus, the state is automatically obligated to
comply with these principles in its relation with other
states
- It is also in accordance with the maxim “par in parem
non habet imperium” which means equals have no
sovereignty over each other

2. What is the claim of the Petitioners Arigo et al.

against Swift and the other Filipino public officers?
- The petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and
post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause
and continue to cause environmental damage of such
magnitude as affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique,
Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros
Oriental, Zamboanga Del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-
Tawi. And such events violate their constitutional rights
to a balanced and healthful ecology

3. Did the SC grant the claim of the petitioners? Why?

- NO, the US respondents were sued in their official
capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who
had control and supervision of the USS Guardian and its
crew. The respondents are acting in their official military
duties while the offense was committed, therefore, the
suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The
principle of state immunity bars the exercise of
jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of
respondents, Swift, Rice and Robling.