Arigo vs.

Swift, 735 SCRA 102, September 16, 2014

Case Nature : PETITION for issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.

Division: EN BANC
Docket Number: G.R. No. 206510
Counsel: Anthony Edsel Conrad F. Tupaz and National Union of People’s Lawyers for
petitioners.
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR.,   J.

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby
DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs.

Facts of the case:

The case involves a petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. The petitioners claim that violations of environmental laws and regulations occurred
when the USS Guardian, a US Navy ship, ran aground on the Tubbataha Reefs. The
Tubbataha Reefs is a National Marine Park and World Heritage Site. Republic Act (R.A.) No.
10067, also known as the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009, was passed to
protect and conserve the area. The petitioners allege that the US respondents committed
several violations under the TRNP Act, including unauthorized entry and damages to the
reef. They also challenge certain provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and seek
their nullification for being unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a petition seeking various
reliefs, including a TEPO and/or a Writ of Kalikasan, demarcation of the damaged area,
cessation of operations, and payment of damages. The Philippine respondents filed their
comment, while the US respondents did not. The respondents argue that the salvage
operations have been completed, rendering the request for a TEPO or a writ of Kalikasan
moot. They also claim that the petition is defective in form and substance and improperly
raises issues regarding the VFA, asserting that the responsibility for the damage rests with
the executive branch.

Issue/s:
Whether the petitioners have legal standing to file the present petition.
1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any
pleading or manifestation in this case.
2. Whether the State can be sued without its consent.
3. Whether the State is immune from suit for acts done by its officials.
4. Whether the State's immunity extends to acts jure imperii only.
5. Whether or not the principle of state immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by
the court over the US respondents.
6. Whether or not the conduct of the US warship in this case brings the matter within
the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).
 7. Whether or not the UNCLOS provisions on warships apply to a non-party to the
UNCLOS, such as the US.
8. Whether the US respondents are liable for negligence, trespass, and nuisance.
9. Whether the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the petition for a writ of Kalikasan.

Ruling:
1. The petitioners have legal standing to file the present petition. The rule on standing
is a procedural matter that this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs when
the public interest requires it, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is
of transcendental importance or of paramount public interest. In this case, the
petitioners assert their right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which is a public
right with intergenerational implications. They can sue not only for themselves but
also on behalf of future generations, in accordance with the concept of
intergenerational responsibility. Furthermore, the Rules now allow the filing of a
citizen suit in environmental cases, which collapses the traditional rule on personal
and direct interest.
2. The Court does not have jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit
any pleading or manifestation in this case. The doctrine of sovereign immunity or
non-suability of the State, as provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution,
prohibits the State from being sued without its consent. This principle of state
immunity from suit is a generally accepted principle of international law that has
been adopted as part of Philippine law. Even without the explicit provision in the
Constitution, the doctrine of incorporation would still bind the state to comply with
the generally accepted principles of international law in its relations with other states.
The doctrine of state immunity is based on the principle that there can be no legal
right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends, and also
on the practical reason that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another.
3. Yes, the State cannot be sued without its consent.
4. No, the State is not immune from suit for acts done by its officials if such acts are
unauthorized and contrary to law.
5. No, the State's immunity extends only to acts jure imperii.
6. Yes, the principle of state immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the court over
the US respondents. The suit against the US respondents is deemed to be one
against the US itself as the respondents were sued in their official capacity as
commanding officers of the US Navy.
7. No, the conduct of the US warship in this case does not bring the matter within the
ambit of Article 31 of the UNCLOS. The US, as a non-party to the UNCLOS, is not
bound by its provisions.
8. The UNCLOS provisions on warships do not apply to a non-party to the UNCLOS,
such as the US. While the majority of nation states are members of the UNCLOS, the
US, as the world's leading maritime power, has not ratified it.
 9. The US respondents are not liable for negligence, trespass, and nuisance. The VFA
governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters,
and thus it is the VFA that defines the rights and liabilities of the United States in
such cases.
10. The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and
does not extend to special civil actions like the petition for a writ of Kalikasan. The
filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of Kalikasan does not preclude the
filing of separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions.

Principles:
1. The State cannot be sued without its consent.
2. The State is immune from suit for acts done by its officials if such acts are authorized
and done in the performance of their official functions.
3. The State's immunity extends only to acts jure imperii, and does not apply to acts
jure gestionis.
4. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an
injustice.
5. The principle of state immunity applies, barring the exercise of jurisdiction by the
court over a public official sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary
citizen.
6. A public official may be held liable in his personal private capacity for damage
caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his
authority or jurisdiction.
7. The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty governing the uses of the sea and the exercise of
jurisdiction over maritime regimes.
8. The UNCLOS gives coastal States sovereign rights over different zones of the sea,
subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law.
9. Warships enjoy sovereign immunity, subject to exceptions such as non-compliance
with the laws and regulations of the coastal State and responsibility for damage
caused.
10. Recognition of the rights of other states in their waters as reflected in UNCLOS.
11. Acceptance of customary international rules on navigation.
12. Non-membership in UNCLOS does not exempt a state from its obligations under
UNCLOS.
13. Immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of coastal states while navigating
territorial seas, but liable for damages caused if they flout the laws and regulations of
the coastal state.
14. Relevance of UNCLOS in upholding the protection and preservation of the marine
environment.
15. The VFA governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine
waters.
16. The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and
does not extend to special civil actions.
 17. The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of Kalikasan does not preclude the
filing of separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions.
18. The court defers to the Executive Branch on matters involving compensation and
rehabilitation measures that impinge on relations with another State.
19. The conduct of foreign relations is committed to the executive and legislative
departments and is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.
20. The validity and binding nature of a treaty or agreement, such as the VFA, requires
parties to abide by its terms and provisions.
21. The present petition is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of
provisions of the VFA.

Further lecture:
International Law; International Law of the Sea; Words and Phrases; The international law of
the sea is generally defined as “a body of treaty rules and customary norms governing the
uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over
maritime regimes.-
—The international law of the sea is generally defined as “a body of treaty rules and
customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and the
exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public international law,
regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the oceans.” The UNCLOS is a
multilateral treaty which was opened for signature on December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay,
Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines in 1984 but came into force on November 16,
1994 upon the submission of the 60th ratification.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; The United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over
the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous
zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or
less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.-
—The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State
sovereignty (mare clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum).
The freedom to use the world’s marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of
international law. The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees
over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3)
contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal
States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is
located.