TikTok Issue

- In this viral TikTok video, this Filipina traveller/blogger (Cham Tanteras) shared her story of how
she missed her flight to Israel after a lengthy immigration interview.
- She arrived at the airport hours earlier than her scheduled flight to avoid missing it due to heavy
traffic.
- The officer asked her irrelevant questions such as the status of her parents’ relationship, asking
for her school yearbook, and requesting her to write an essay regarding her freelance job.
- As a result, when the officer finished the interview, the gates have already closed, and she
missed the flight, which cost her P19, 000.
- The next day, she was able to fly out to Israel after buying a P27, 000 ticket.
- The Bureau of Immigration explained that the purpose of asking such questions is to further
inspect and combat the issue of human trafficking and illegal recruitment, where various
individuals present fake documents to fly outside the country and that this reason wasn’t
explained well before conducting the interview.
- If ever Ms. Tanteras proceeds with her claim of reimbursement of her plane ticket from the
government, such action will prosper.
- In the doctrine of state immunity, there is a topic of express consent which refers to the
instances where state can be sued when the consent of the state was made either through a
general law or special law.
- Express consent was provided for by Act No. 3083, which states that "the Philippine government
consents and submits to be sued upon any money claims involving liability arising from contract,
express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties." And as
cited earlier, money claims against the Government should be filed before the Commission on
Audit (Rule II, Section 1, Paragraph b of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission
On Audit states “Money claims due from or owing to any government agency” is included in the
jurisdiction of this commission.
- While the doctrine appears to prohibit 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 judgment against such officials will require
the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the
amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against
the state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.
- It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts
contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal
acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of govt officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an
action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such
acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice.
Grace Poe’s issues re her roots

1 – 10

2–5

3–0

4–0

5–5

6 – 10

7 – 10

8 – 10

9–0

10 – 0

11 – 5

12 – 10

13 – 0

14 – 5

15 – 0

16 - 5