MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, et al. v. SCOTT H. SWIFT, et al.

G.R. No. 206510, 16 SEPTEMBER 2014 EN BANC (Villarama, Jr., J.)

In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of
compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. It is settled that “the
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive
and legislative—“the political”--departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be
done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.”

The USS Guardian, the United States avenger class mine counter-measures
ship, from its routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty in Subic
Bay damaged the Tubbataha reef on its way to Sulu Sea. The Fleet Commander,
Vice Admiral Scott Swift and US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas,
Jr expressed their regret over the incident andassured Foreign Affairs Secretary
Albert F. del Rosario that the United States will provide appropriate compensation
for damage to the reef caused by the ship. Petitioners claim that the grounding,
salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian caused and continue
to cause environmental damage that affected the provinces of Palawan, Antique,
Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del
Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which violate their constitutional rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology. They also seek a directive from this Court for the
institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation
of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding incident.
Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents
under R.A. No. 10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of
conservation fees (Section 21); obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section 30);
damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and disturbing resources (Section
26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

1. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over US respondents who did
not submit any pleading or manifestation?

2. Will the unauthorized entry of the Foreign Warship of the US with resulting
damage to marine resources bear an international responsibility under the
UNCLOS when the said flag state is not a signatory to the same
convention?

3. Does the grounding of the USS Guardian, which adversely affected the
Tubbataha reef, make the crew liable to the Philippines as provided by the
VFA?

4. May the Writ of Kalikasan be validly implemented as a proper remedy for the
situation at hand?

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

RULING:

1. No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over US respondents who

did not submit any pleading or manifestation.

The matter deals with a sovereign nation and in the maxim “par in parem, non
habet imperium” where all sovereign states are equals and thus cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another in which assertion of jurisdiction may vex the peace
among nations, the matter is one that should be dealt with the executive department
due to its nature of dealing with another sovereign nation thus may not be dealt with
judicially and the judiciary may not have jurisdiction concerning the US respondents
who did not submit any pleading or manifestation

2. Yes, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US

will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a coastal state over its
internal waters and territorial sea

The Court thus expects the US to bear “international responsibility” under Art.
31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the
Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading
partner, which has been actively supporting the country’s efforts to preserve our
vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the damage
caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. Much less can the Court
comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling
to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task
to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197, viz:

Article 197 - Cooperation on a global or regional basis

States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate,
on a regional basis, directly or through competent
international organizations, in formulating and elaborating
international rules, standards and recommended practices
and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the
protection and preservation of the marine environment,
taking into account characteristic regional features.

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is

beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from
the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter’s territorial sea, the flag
States shall be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws
and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by
their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial
purposes under Article 31.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 3. No, for in the VFA the US only waives its immunity concerning
criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions as is
implemented in this case

The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops
and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote “common security interests”
between the US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to
govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United
States and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common
law is thus improper considering that it is the VFA which governs disputes
involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of
the objectives of the agreement.As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the
VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the
present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.

4. No, for the concept of state immunity from suit does not allow
another state to sue another state without its consent. Also the VFA
only provides that the US will only waive its immunity concerning
criminal jurisdiction and the writ of Kalikasan which was
implemented in this situation is a special civil suit, which the US is
immune from.

The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance
of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the
Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately:

Sec. 17. Institution of separate actions.—The

filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ
of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of
separate civil, criminal or administrative
actions.

In any case, it is our considered view thata ruling on the application or non-
application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may
be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it
unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted
from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
damages, including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a
separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the
same violation of an environmental law.

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

 ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA, JR.v. DR. SANGCAD D. BENITO
G.R. NO. 181760, 14 October 2014, EN BANC, (LEONEN, J.)

The Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)

has the power to appoint officers in the region's civil service. However, if there is no regional law
providing for the qualifications for the position at the time of appointment, the appointee must
satisfy the civil service eligibilities required for the position in the national government to be
appointed in a permanent capacity.

Regional Governor Dr. Parouk S. Hussin of the ARMM appointed Dr.

Sangcad D. Benito as Assistant Schools Division Superintendent of the Department
of Education (DepEd) Division on Lanao del Sur in a temporary capacity. In 2005,
Hussin reappointed Dr. Benito in the same position but in a permanent capacity.
Hussin requested the Civil Service Commission Regional Office of the ARMM to
attest to Dr. Benito’s appointment. However, Regional Director Anacleto B. Buena
(Buena) declined on the ground that Dr. Benito did not possess the career executive
service eligibility required for the said position. The latter filed a petition for
Mandamus before the Regional Trial Court to compel the Regional Office to attest
to his permanent appointment arguing that the position does not belong to the
Career Executive Service under the Administrative Code of 1987, thus, the position
does not require Career Executive Service eligibility. He further claimed that under
RA 9054, Regional Governor of the ARMM is the appointing authority for
positions in the civil service in the region. Since Hussin already exercised his
discretion, the Regional Office had no choice but to attest to his appointment.

Buena claimed that the permanent appointee must have career executive
service eligibility. According to Buena, the Regional Office recognizes the autonomy
of the ARMM. However, until the region enacts its own regional civil service law,
the Regional Office shall carry on with the Civil Service Commission’s mandate
under the Constitution to promote and enforce civil service laws and rules.

ISSUE:

Is Dr. Benito validly appointed as Assistant Schools Division

Superintendent in a permanent capacity by the Regional Governor of ARMM?

RULING:

No. The position of Assistant Schools Division Superintendent belongs to

the Career Executive Service. Appointment to the position is based on merit and
fitness and gives the appointee an opportunity for advancement to higher career
positions, such as Schools Division Superintendent. If permanently appointed, the
appointee is guaranteed security of tenure. The position is above Division Chief.
An Assistant Schools Division Superintendent has a salary grade of 25. As to
functions and responsibilities, the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent assists
the Schools Division Superintendent in performing executive and managerial
functions under Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. In fact, the law
recognizes that the position of Assistant Schools Division Superintendent belongs
to the Career Executive Service. Section 7 of the said law explicitly provides that an
appointee to the position must be a career executive service officer. In this case, Dr.
Benito does not possess the required career executive service eligibility. He,
therefore, cannot be appointed to the position of Assistant Schools Division
Superintendent in a permanent capacity. The Civil Service Commission cannot be
compelled to attest to the permanent appointment of Dr. Benito.

The Regional Governor has the power to appoint civil servants in the
ARMM under Republic Act No. 9054. In Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No.
279 or the ARMM Basic Education Act of 2010, the Regional Assembly set the
qualification standards of Assistant Schools Division Superintendents of Divisions
of the Department of Education in the Autonomous Region. Nevertheless, when
Dr. Benito was appointed Assistant Schools Division Superintendent in 2005, there
was yet no regional law providing for the qualifications for the Assistant Schools
Division Superintendents of Divisions of the Department of Education in the
Autonomous Region.