10/16/2020 Death by digests: Republic vs.

Sandoval (Consti1)

Higit Pa

Death by digests
Saturday, June 23, 2012 Blog Archive
▼ 2012 (34)
Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1) ▼ June (34)
Shauf v. CA (consti1)
(Two petitions consolidated.)
Co v. HRET (Re: Citizenship issue only)
[consti1]
En Banc
Roa v. Collector of Customs (Consti1)
Campos, Jr., March 19, 1993 Amigable v. Cuenca (Consti1)

US v. Ruiz (Consti1)
Topic: Sovereignty - Suit not against the State - Beyond the Scope of Authority
Facts: Malong v. PNR (Consti1)

The heirs of the deceased of the January 22, 1987 Mendiola massacre People v. Echegaray (CRIM1)
(background: Wiki), together with those injured (Caylao group), instituted the
Magno vs. CA (Crim1)
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 People vs. Oanis (Crim1)
the Philippines, et al." which dismissed the case against the Republic of the
People v. De La Cruz (Crim1)
Philippines
May 31 order: Because the impleaded military officers are being People of the Philippines v. Carlos
(CRIM1)
charged in their personal and official capacity, holding them liable, if
at all, would not result in financial responsibility of the government Adiong v. COMELEC (CRIM1)
Aug 8 order: denied the motions filed by both parties for
US vs. Guinto (Consti1)
reconsideration
Republic vs. Villasor (Consti1)
In January 1987, farmers and their sympathizers presented their demands for
what they called "genuine agrarian reform" EPG Construction Co. vs. Vigilar
The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), led by Jaime Tadeo, presented their (Consti1)
problems and demands such as: Republic vs. Feliciano (Consti1)
giving lands for free to farmers De Los Santos vs. IAC (Consti1)
zero retention of lands by landlords
Lansang vs. Court of Appeals (Consti1)
stop amortizations of land payments
Dialogue between the farmers and then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) began Harden vs. Director of Prisons (Crim1)
on January 15, 1987 People vs. Ferrer (Crim1)
On January 20, 1987, Tadeo met with MAR Minister Heherson Alvarez
US vs. Diaz-Conde (Crim1)
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 People vs. Formigones (Crim1)
Tension mounted the next day Gascon vs. Arroyo (Consti1)
The farmers, on their 7th day of encampment, barricaded the MAR premises and
Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1)
prevented the employees from going inside their offices
On January 22, 1987, following a heated discussion between Alvarez and Tadeo, Commissioner of Public Highways vs.
Burgos (Consti1)
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), Republic vs. Nolasco (Consti1)
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), League of Filipino Students (LFS), and
Republic vs. Judge, Branch XV (Consti1)
Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod (KPML)
Government intelligent reports were also received that the KMP was heavily Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1)
infliltrated by CPP/NPA elements, and that an insurrection was impending Padilla vs. Dizon (Crim1)
Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola
US vs. Ah Chong (Crim1)
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; People vs. Puno (Crim1)
"pandemonium broke loose" People vs. Talingdan (Crim1)
After the clash, 12 marchers were officially confirmed dead (13 according to
People v. Rosenthal & Osmena (Crim1)
Tadeo)
39 were wounded by gunshots and 12 sustained minor injuries, all belonging to People vs. Silvestre and Atienza (Crim1)
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
About Me
February 27, 1987 as follows Unknown
The march did not have any permit View my complete
The police and military were armed with handguns prohibited by law profile
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

diegestd16.blogspot.com/2012/06/republic-vs-sandoval-consti1.html 1/3
10/16/2020 Death by digests: Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1)
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. Montaño
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.
This is not a suit against the State with its consent.
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 a waiver by the State
2. Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
3. 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

diegestd16.blogspot.com/2012/06/republic-vs-sandoval-consti1.html 2/3
10/16/2020 Death by digests: Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1)
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.

Posted by Unknown at 6:25 PM

Labels: consti1

No comments:

Post a Comment
Enter your comment...

Comment as: mariaisabella.m Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.

diegestd16.blogspot.com/2012/06/republic-vs-sandoval-consti1.html 3/3