II.

The Philippines as a State

1. National Territory (Article I)
The national territory comprises of the Philippine Archipelago,
With all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
Territories over which the Philippines has sovereignity or jurisdiction,
Consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its
Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago
Form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

a. Territorial waters
A belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline
(usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the
sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (civilian) are allowed innocent passage
through it, or transit passage for straits; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and
seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law, maritime
delimitation. (Art. III, UNCLOS III)

b. Archipelagic Doctrine
“The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.” Based on the
principle that an archipelago, which consists of a number of islands separated by bodies of
water, should be treated as one integral unit.
Three parts of National Territory:
1. The Philippine Archipelago
Archipelagic States
Archipelagic Doctrine
Normal Baseline Method
Straight Baseline Method
Archipelagic Waters
-Right of innocent passage

Magallona v Ermita – question legality of Straight Baseline

*Carpio – within enclosure of archipelagic waters can innocent passage
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignity or jurisdiction

3. Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas

1982 Unclos Philippine Water Regime

 Baseline – low water mark
 Territorial Sea – 12nm from Baseline (Philippines exercise sovereignty exp right of innocent
passage)
 Contiguous Zone – 24 nm from Baseline (Sovereign Rights only, criminal, fiscal, coinage, sanitary,
customs law only)
 EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone – 200nm from baseline (Sovereign Rights only, right to
explore/exploit natural resources, above the water)
 Continental/Insular shelves – 200nm seabed subsoil extend beyond territorial sea.
 Extended Continental shelves – theoretically 350nm
Requirements: there must be natural prolongation beyond 200nm, must be submitted to
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
Q: What are the components of Philippine Archipelago
Ans: Terrestrial, Fluvial and Aerial Domains

Territories Outside PH Archipelago

1. The PH then had sovereignty or jurisdiction (Kalayaan GoI, Sabah)
2. The PH might establish sovereignty or jurisdiction in the future
 discovery, occupation
 prescription
 cessation
 accretion
West Philippine Sea/ South China Arbitration:
Involves dispute on 3 objects:
1. Island (high tide elevation) has territorial sea, cz, eez
 2. Rock (high tide elevation) has 12nm territorial sea, cz but no eez,
3. Low-tide Elevation exist only when water is low
Scarborough as a rock, if we lost, wont overlap with PH territory.
Q: How determine if island, rock?
Ans: Rock can’t grow vegetation. Development can’t turn rock to island.

2. Doctrine of State Immunity (Art. XVI, Section 3)

1) The State cannot be sued without its consent.
2) When considered a suit against the State
a). The Republic is sued by name;

b). Suits against an un-incorporated government agency (no original charter);

 if performing non proprietary function – not suable
 if performing proprietary function – suable (Civil Aero Authority v CA)

c). Suit is against a government official, but is such that ultimate liability shall devolve on the
government (Arigo v. Swift,
i.  When a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority, he can be held
personally liable for damages.
ii.  BUT:  If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice, negligence, or bad faith, they
are not personally liable, and the suit is really one against the State.
3) This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor of foreign states, international
organizations (SEAFDEC vs.
4) The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with the State as one of the defendants
being compelled to interplead.

Consent to be sued
A. Express consent:
1). The law expressly grants the authority to sue the State or any of its agencies.
2). Examples: Merrit v Govt of Philippine Islands
a). A law creating a government body expressly providing that such body “may sue or be sued.”
b). Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which creates liability against the State when it acts through a special
agent.
B. Implied consent:
1). The State enters into a private contract.
a). The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his authority.
b). UNLESS:  The contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function.
2). The State enters into an operation that is essentially a business operation.
a). UNLESS:  The operation is incidental to the performance of a governmental function (e.g. arrastre
services)
b). Thus, when the State conducts business operations through a GOCC, the latter can generally be
sued, even if its charter contains no express “sue or be sued” clause.
3). Suit against an incorporated government agency (with an original charter w/suability clause.)
a) This is because they generally conduct propriety business operations and have charters which grant
them a separate juridical personality.
4). The State files suit against a private party.
UNLESS:  The suit is entered into only to resist a claim.
 
a. Entitlement of immunity, justiciable or political question?
Summary:
 If state or instrumentality – a political question conclusive upon the courts (HolySee v Rosario)
 If Individual – DFA determination is only preliminary and has no binding effect upon the courts--
justiciable question. (Liang v People)
xpn: if has adverse effect on treasury, disbursement of public fund or loss of govt
property.

1. The Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524, Dec. 1, 1994

 
(United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor-Santiago,
Public International Law
194 [1984])
 
2. Liang v. People, GR No. 125865, 28 January 2000
b. When a suit is against a state and when it is not
i. Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014

c. Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies

i. SEAFDEC v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580
d. Immunity of government agencies
i. Incorporated
1. Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486 (1989)
ii. Unincorporated
1. Governmental function
a. Farolan v. CTA, 217 SCRA 298 (1993)
2. Proprietary function
a. China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Judge
Santamaria, GR No. 185572, 7 February 2012
b. Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA, GR No. L-51806, 8
November 1968
e. Suability not outright liability
i. Meritt v. Gov’t. Of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311, No. 11154, 21 March 1916)
f. Waiver of state immunity
i. Express consent (Suit against the Philippine government)
Read: Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424
1. General law
a. Act No. 3083 in relation with CA 327, as amended by Secs. 49-50,
PD 1445
i. Procedure to collect money claims arising from contracts
ii. UP v. Dizon, GR No. 171182, August 23, 2012
iii. Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. COA, G.R. No. 238671,
June 2, 2020
2. Special Law
a. Arts. 2180 and 2189 of the new Civil Code
i. Manila v. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, 29 January 1968
b. How to claim?
ii. Implied consent
1. By entering into a business contract (Suit against foreign government)
a. Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity
b. USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
2. By commencing a suit (Suit against private individual)
a. Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, 30 September
1950
g. Consent to be sued does not include consent to execution
i. Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56
ii. Municipality of Makati v. CA, 190 SCRA 206
h. Suit against public officers
i. Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
i. Immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen
i. Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357 (1992)
COVERAGE OF ASSIGNED READINGS: MEETING NO. 2
 The Philippines as a State
1. National Territory (Art. I)
The national territory comprises of the Philippine Archipelago,
With all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
Territories over which the Philippines has sovereignity or jurisdiction,
Consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its
Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago
Form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
a. Territorial waters
A belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline
(usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the
sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (civilian) are allowed innocent passage
through it, or transit passage for straits; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and
seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law, maritime delimitation.
(Art. III, UNCLOS III)

b. Archipelagic Doctrine
“The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.” Based on the principle
that an archipelago, which consists of a number of islands separated by bodies of water, should be
treated as one integral unit.

Three parts of National Territory:

1. The Philippine Archipelago
Archipelagic States
Archipelagic Doctrine
Normal Baseline Method
Straight Baseline Method
Archipelagic Waters
-Right of innocent passage

Magallona v Ermita – question legality of Straight Baseline

*Carpio – within enclosure of archipelagic waters can innocent passage

2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignity or jurisdiction
Territories Outside PH Archipelago
1. The PH then had sovereignty or jurisdiction (Kalayaan GoI, Sabah)
2. The PH might establish sovereignty or jurisdiction in the future
 discovery, occupation
 prescription
 cessation
 accretion
West Philippine Sea/ South China Arbitration:
Involves dispute on 3 objects:
1. Island (high tide elevation) has territorial sea, cz, eez
2. Rock (high tide elevation) has 12nm territorial sea, cz but no eez,
3. Low-tide Elevation exist only when water is low
Scarborough as a rock, if we lost, wont overlap with PH territory.

Q: How determine if island, rock?

Ans: Rock can’t grow vegetation. Development can’t turn rock to island.

3. Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas
1982 Unclos Philippine Water Regime
 Baseline – low water mark
 Territorial Sea – 12nm from Baseline (Philippines exercise sovereignty exp right of innocent
passage)
 Contiguous Zone – 24 nm from Baseline (Sovereign Rights only, criminal, fiscal, coinage,
sanitary, customs law only)
 EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone – 200nm from baseline (Sovereign Rights only, right to
explore/exploit natural resources, above the water)
  Continental/Insular shelves – 200nm seabed subsoil extend beyond territorial sea.
 Extended Continental shelves – theoretically 350nm
Requirements: there must be natural prolongation beyond 200nm, must be submitted to
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

Q: What are the components of Philippine Archipelago

Ans: Terrestrial, Fluvial and Aerial Domains

2. Doctrine of State Immunity (Art. XVI, Section 3)

General Rules:
1) The State cannot be sued without its consent.

2) When considered a suit against the State: NUGO - Name, Unincorporated, Govt Official
a). The Republic is sued by name;

b). Suits against an un-incorporated government agency (no original charter);

An unincorporated agency has no juridical personality independent of the government. To determine its
suability, one has to inquire into the principal functions of the agency.

 if performing non proprietary /government function – not suable

 Farolan v. CTA, 217 SCRA 298 (1993)
 if performing proprietary function – suable
 China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Judge Santamaria, GR
No. 185572, 7 February 2012
 Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA, GR No. L-51806, 8 November 1968

c). Suit is against a government official, but is such that ultimate liability shall devolve on the
government
i.  When a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority, he can be held
personally liable for damages.
ii.  BUT:  If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice, negligence, or bad faith, they
are not personally liable, and the suit is really one against the State.
 Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014

Note: Immunity of government agencies

1. Incorporated -- suable
If the charter provides that the agency can sue and be sued, then the suit
will lie, including one for tort. The provision in the charter constitutes
express consent on the part of the State to be sued.
NOTE: If the charter is silent, apply the rule on unincorporated agencies
(whether governmental or proprietary).

 Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486 (1989)

2. Unincorporated – not suable
2. Governmental function – not suable
 Farolan v. CTA, 217 SCRA 298 (1993)
3. Proprietary function -- suable
 China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Judge Santamaria, GR
No. 185572, 7 February 2012
 Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA, GR No. L-51806, 8 November 1968

3) This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor of foreign states, international
organizations (SEAFDEC vs. CA)

4) The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with the State as one of the defendants
being compelled to interplead.

Waiver of State Immunity

A. Express waiver: (General / Special law)
1. General law
a. Act No. 3083 in relation with CA 327, as amended by
Secs. 49-50, PD 1445
Requires that all money claims against the government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA)
before suit is instituted in court. The Department of Agriculture may be sued for money claims based on a
contract entered into in its governmental capacity, because of the express consent contained in Act No. 3038,
provided that the claim be first brought to the Commission on Audit in accordance with CA 327, as amended.

b. Procedure to collect money claims arising from contracts

NOTE:
(1) Seek claim from COA;
(2) COA will submit claim to DBM;
(3) DBM will ask Congress to include claim in its GAA for the following year;
(4) Congress will include claim in its GAA.

Remedies:
(1) If Congress will not give due course, file mandamus;
(2) If not approved by the COA, certiorari to SC as decision of COA is reviewable by SC on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion, likewise if there is no COA decision within 30 days, file certiorari
within 30 days;
(4) If SC grants certiorari against COA, go to DBM; if disapproved, file mandamus;

2. Special Law
(NOTE: Remedy is to go to regular courts.)
a. Arts. 2180 and 2189 of the new Civil Code
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxxx

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a

special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.

Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable

for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person
by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision.

B. Implied waiver:
1). The State enters into a private/business contract.
a). The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his authority.
b). UNLESS:  The contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function.
 Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity – applies to foreign states
 USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
If govt function – not suable
If private/ business function -- suable

2). The State enters into an operation that is essentially a business operation.
a). UNLESS:  The operation is incidental to the performance of a governmental function (e.g.
arrastre services)
b). Thus, when the State conducts business operations through a GOCC, the latter can generally
be sued, even if its charter contains no express “sue or be sued” clause.
3). Suit against an incorporated government agency (with an original charter w/suability clause.)
a) This is because they generally conduct propriety business operations and have charters which
grant them a separate juridical personality.
4). The State files suit against a private party.
UNLESS:  The suit is entered into only to resist a claim.
 Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, 30 September 1950

5) Consent to be sued does not include consent to execution

 Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56
 Municipality of Makati v. CA, 190 SCRA 206

6) Suit against public officers – if it devolves to govt funds or property – not suable
 Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
7) Immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen – Just compensation and
expropriation, officer is ultra vires (act of bad faith)
 Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357 (1992)

Important: Suability not outright liability – suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued,
liability on the applicable law and established facts
 Meritt v. Gov’t. Of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311, No. 11154, 21 March 1916)

b. Entitlement of immunity, justiciable or political question?

 If state or instrumentality – a political question conclusive upon the courts (HolySee v Rosario)
 If Individual – DFA determination is only preliminary and has no binding effect upon the courts--
justiciable question. (Liang v People)
xpn: if has adverse effect on treasury, disbursement of public fund or loss of govt property.
1. The Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524, Dec. 1, 1994
2. Liang v. People, GR No. 125865, 28 January 2000
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly
established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without
its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the
newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with
regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts
or acts jure gestionis

a. When a suit is against a state and when it is not – devolves to public funds, treasury
1. Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206501, 16 September 2014
b. Immunity of International Organizations and Agencies
1. SEAFDEC v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580
c. Immunity of government agencies
3. Incorporated -- suable
 Fontanilla v. Maliaman, 194 SCRA 486 (1989)
4. Unincorporated – not suable
2. Governmental function – not suable
 Farolan v. CTA, 217 SCRA 298 (1993)
3. Proprietary function -- suable
 China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. (Group) v. Judge Santamaria, GR
No. 185572, 7 February 2012
 Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA, GR No. L-51806, 8 November 1968
d. Suability not outright liability -
e. Meritt v. Gov’t. Of the Phil. Islands, 34 Phil 311, No. 11154, 21 March 1916)

f. Waiver of state immunity

Express consent (Suit against the Philippine government)
1. . Express consent (Suit against the Philippine government)
Read: Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424
1. General law
2. Act No. 3083 in relation with CA 327, as amended by Secs. 49-50,
PD 1445
i. . Procedure to collect money claims arising from contracts
ii. UP v. Dizon, GR No. 171182, August 23, 2012
iii.Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. COA, G.R. No. 238671, June 2, 2020
3. Special Law
 Arts. 2180 and 2189 of the new Civil Code
i. Manila v. Teotico, G.R. No. L-23052, 29 January 1968
 How to claim?
2. Implied consent
1. By entering into a business contract (Suit against foreign government)
 Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity
 USA v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487
2. By commencing a suit (Suit against private individual)
 Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, GR No. L-6060, 30 September 1950