Article XVI- General Provisions: Sec. 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

Objective:
To define and explain the nature of state immunity;
To explain the principles of the non-suability of the state;
To identify the bases of the principles of the non-suability of the state;
To emphasize when suit against the state is permissible by providing examples of previous cases;
and
To explain the nature of immunity waiving
Group Members:
Cabansag, M., Dandoy, V., Gemony, K., Herminado, K., Jagonos, G., Lobitana, C., Pipino, R., Polo, E.

STATE IMMUNITY

State immunity is a principle of international law that is often relied on by states to claim that the particular
court or tribunal does not have jurisdiction over it, or to prevent enforcement of an award or judgment
against any of its assets. If a state is able to claim immunity from suit or enforcement, it will be difficult for
a commercial party to enforce its contractual rights against that state. A successful plea of state immunity
will mean that either the courts will refuse to hear the dispute or they will be unable to give effect to any
judgment or award made against the state (www.ashurt.com).

A suit is against the state in the following instances:

● When the Republic is sued by its name

● When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
● When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability
will belong not to the officer but the government.
In all the above instances, suability depends on whether the State has consented to be sued.

(A) Principles of Non-suability of the state

1. A manifestation of republican government

• The principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that
there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends.
• Citizens have solemnly undertaken to surrender some of their private rights and interests
when they conflict with the higher rights and larger interests of the people as a whole.
• A suit against the State by its citizens is, in effect, a suit against the rest of the people
represented by their common government.

2. Wrongful Acts not Condoned

• The freedom of the State before its own courts from legal responsibility for its own actions
• It is not an approval of the ancient maxim that “the King can do no wrong.”
• The state may not be sued without its consent reflects nothing less than recognition of the
sovereign character of the state and an expressed affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of the courts

3.) Scope
• The principle extends to suits against foreign states and local governments
• They may not be held civilly liable for acts they may have committed without the consent
of the state
Foreign states
Art. II, Sec. 2
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
• Foreign states are not allowed to sue another state unless the former has given the
consent to do so for the reason of sovereign.
Local Government
Art. X, Sec. 1
The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the
provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
• Local government units are not suable unless written and stipulated in the accepted law
of the state. In the Philippines, Local Government Code stipulates that one of the

PolSci69 Political Law | State Immunity

 corporate powers of the Local government is being able to sue and be sued (Chapter 2
Sec. 22, LGC)

(B) Bases of the Principles

✓ Upon reason of public policy

- Public services will be disrupted if the state is sued.

✓ Upon the very essence of sovereignty

- A state is sovereign and therefore entitled to supreme authority in which no legal rights
are allowed to be filed against.

(C) When suits against the State are permissible?

The State (Government) may be sued only with its consent. Consent may be given:

1. Expressly - this is applied through duly enacted statute. There is express consent when there
is a law expressly granting authority to sue the State or any of its agencies. Express consent
may be made through a general law or a special law.

✓ Under a special law, consent to be sued may come in the form of a private bill authorizing
a named individual to bring suit on a special claim. A special law was passed to enable a
person to sue the government for an alleged tort.
✓ Under a general law, consent may be given if there is a particular law stipulates that a state
and its agencies can be sued.

2. Impliedly- is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a
counterclaim or when it enters into a contract.

✓ When it involves money claims as stipulated in Act No. 3083.

✓ When the state engages in commercial business or enters into a contract.

Example 1: G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993 Department of Agriculture vs. The National
Labor Relations Commission

Conclusion: State (Department of Agriculture) has impliedly waived its immunity and can be sued.

The Department of Agriculture has waived its immunity to be sued firstly because they
enter into a contract with the Sultan Security Agency. Secondly, the case involves money
claim referring to the unpaid duties of the security personnel from the SSA. Thus, the
immunity is impliedly waived. However, it doesn’t mean that the state is liable for the
claims of the respondents.

Example 2: G.R. No. 102667 February 23, 2000 Amado J. Lansang vs. Court of Appeals, General
Assembly of The Blind, Inc., and Jose Iglesias

Conclusion: Amado Lansang of the NPDC cannot be sued because there was no consent given.

The NPDC new chairman, Lansang, cannot be sued for terminating the so-called verbal
contract between the past NPDC administrator and the General Assembly of the blind in
the person of Iglesia because there was no consent given (not expressly nor impliedly). No
written contract was made and there was no money claim involve. Thus, the principle of
state immunity is sustained.

According to the doctrine of state immunity, the lawsuit must be viewed as one against the state
because satisfying the judgment against the public official in question would require the state to
take proactive action, including allocating the funds required to pay the plaintiff's damages. When
a public official is accused of doing illegal activities or violating the rights of others while acting
in the course of his or her official duties, the rule does not apply. Public officials are not immune
from responsibility for actions taken in bad faith in their individual capacities. Neither does its
apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal
capacity.

PolSci69 Political Law | State Immunity

(D) Immunity waiving is not an admission to liability

The waiver of immunity means both the existence of immunity and the volition of the defendant
state not to claim it. This means that the waiver of immunity merely permits the opposition to
establish the existence of any state culpability; it does not automatically amount to an
acknowledgment of liability.

PolSci69 Political Law | State Immunity