Arigo v.

Swift

DOCTRINECONSTITUTIONAL LAW – If the judgement against such officials will require the state
itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.

FACTS
In January 2013, the USS Guardian ran aground the South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reef in Palawan.
Thereafter, the US Navy-led salvage team proceeded in salvaging the ship around the reef. In April
2013, the Petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan before the Supreme
Court. They impleaded Respondent Scott Swift, who was the 7th US Fleet Commander, and some
others in the Petition.
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging, and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian
cause and continue to cause environmental damage in different provinces surrounded by the Sulu
Sea, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. They also
sought a directive for the institution of civil, criminal and administrative suits for acts committed in
violation of environmental laws in connection with the grounding incident. Ultimately, they wanted
particular provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) be declared unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the Respondents asserted that the issuance of a Writ of Kalikisan has
become fait accompli because the salvaging operations on the USS Guardian has been completed.
Further, the petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the US Respondents.

RULING
NO. The Supreme Court held that while the doctrine of state immunity prohibits only suits against
the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for
acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgement
against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, the
suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.
In the present case, the US Respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding
officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian. The grounding
incident took place while they were performing official military duties. Considering the satisfaction of
a judgement against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriations of funds by the
US Government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. Therefore, the principle of state
immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the US Respondents.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition is DENIED.