Association of Medical Clinic for Overseas Workers Inc. v.

GCC Approved Medical

Center Association
GR 207132, 6 December 2016
FACTS:

DOH issued Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2001 which directed the decking or equal
distribution of migrant workers among the several clinics who are members of GAMCA.
Subsequently, RA No. 10022 lapsed into law without the President's signature.

Section 16 of RA No. 10022, the DOH, directed GAMCA to cease and desist from
implementing the referral decking system and to wrap up their operations within three (3)
days from receipt thereof.

GAMCA filed a petition before the RTC for grave abuse of discretion on the part of DOH and
praying to declare Section 16 of RA No. 10022 as unconstitutional. It noted that the referral
decking system is part of the application procedure in obtaining visas to enter the GCC States,
a procedure made in the exercise of the sovereign power of the GCC States to protect their
nationals from health hazards, and of their diplomatic power to regulate and screen entrants to
their territories.

ISSUE:

1. What is the principle of sovereign independence and equality?

2. Does the prohibition against the referral decking system against GAMCA violate the
principle of sovereign equality and independence?

HELD:
1. It is used as a principle to justify the recognition of the principle of sovereign immunity
which exempts the State - both our Government and foreign governments - from suit.

The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the
principles of independence and equality of States. As enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II,
the practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal
right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. In the case of
foreign States, the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, as
expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and
cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.

2. No. The Court has even adopted a restrictive approach in recognizing state immunity, by
distinguishing between a State's jus imperii and jus gestionis. It is only when a State acts in
its jus imperii function that we recognize state immunity.

GAMCA has not adduced any evidence in the court below, nor has it presented any argument
before us showing that the principle of sovereign equality and independence has developed
into an international custom shielding state agents from compliance with another state's
domestic laws.