Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

 Embodied in Sec. 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution – “The State may NOT be SUED WITHOUT its CONSENT.”
o REASON: Based on the essence of sovereignty, and on practical ground, that there can be NO legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends. (Republic vs Sandoval, GR No. 84607, March 19, 1993).

 It is based on POLITICAL TRUISM that the STATE, as a SOVEREIGN, can do NO WRONG. [Air Transportation Office vs. Sps. David (Feb. 23, 2011)].

 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION dictates the establishment of an IMMUNITY from suit in favor of the State. Otherwise:
1. the State is SUABLE AT THE INSTANCE OF EVERY INDIVIDUALS;
2. GOVERNMENT SERVICE = SEVERELY OBSTRUCTED
3. PUBLIC SAFETY endangered because of the number of suits that the State has to defend against. [Air Transportation Office vs. Sps. David
(2011)]

 It also rest on the reasons of PUBLIC POLICY and INCONVENIENCE and danger which would flow from a different rule. “It is obvious that PUBLIC SERVICE
would be HINDERED, and PUBLIC SAFETY ENDANGERED, if the SUPREME AUTHORITY could be subject to suits at the instance of every citizen, and
consequently, controlled in the use and disposition of the means required for proper administration of the government.” (Veterans Manpower and Protective
Services Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 91359, Sept. 25, 1992).

 WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
 The doctrine is sometimes derisively called “THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF DISHONESTY” because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any
legitime claims aginst it or by simply invoking its non-suability. The state is NOT an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. (US
vs. Guinto)

 Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, must be CONSTRUED STTRICTISSIMI JURIS. (Republic vs. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424,
No. L-70853, March 12m 1987). In Republic vs. Feliciano, the SC held that consent of the Republic CANNOT be derived from proclamation which
is NOT a legislative act and must emanate from statutory authority and waiver can only be made by act of legislative body.

 INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCEPT – The rule that the State may not be sued without its consent, expressed in Art. XVI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution, is
one of the GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES of INTERNATIONAL LAW that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article 2, Sec. 2 of
the 1987 Constitution (under the Doctrine of Incorporation). [M.H. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357, No. 74135 (May 28, 1992)]

 The doctrine is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that “there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which
the right depends.” In case of a foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the legal maxim “par in
parem not habet imperium” (all State are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another). The contrary disposition whould, in the
language of a celebrated case (Underhill vs. Hernandez, 168 US 250[1987]), “unduly vex the peace of nations”. (US v. Guinto, GR No. 76607, Feb.
26, 1990).

 This is also known as the PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES.

 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 damage awarded against them, the suit must be regarded
as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it
has been filed without its consent. [Found in US v. Guinto; Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. vs. Court of Appeals]

1|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)

 Under the recognized principles of International Law and system of separation of power that diplomatic immunity is essentially a POLITICAL QUESTION and courts refuse to look
beyond a determination by the Executive branch of the Government. Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the Executive branch of government, it is the duty
of the court to accept a claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, such as the Solicitor General or other officers acting under
his discretion. Hence, in adherance to the settled principle that the courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction xxx so as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in
conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that “in such cases the judicial department of government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the
latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction. [Liang vs. People (323 SCRA 692, January 28, 2000); DFA vs. NLRC (262 SCRA 39 (September 18, 1996) citing WHO
vs. Aquino (48 SCRA 242)]

o EXCEPTION:
 The doctrine is NOT ABSOLUTE and does NOT say that the State may NOT be sued under any circumstances –it may be sued if it consents. (US v. Guinto, GR
No. 76607, Feb. 26, 1990)
 Suit against State is proper when:
1. When the REPUBLIC IS SUED by its name
2. When the suit is against an UNINCORPORATED GOVERNMENT AGENCY
3. When the suit is on its face against the government officer but the case is such that ULTIMATE LIABILITY will belong NOT to the OFFICER but
to the GOVERNMENT. (Republic vs. Sandoval, ibid.)

 WAIVER of the State’s immunity from suit, being a derogation of sovereignty, will NOT be lightly inferred but must be construed strictissimi juris. (Veterans
Manpower and Protective Services Inc. vs. Court of Appeals; Republic vs. Feliciano)

 CONSENT may be EXPRESS or IMPLIED. (US v. Guinto; Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Hon. Firme)
 EXPRESS – may be embodied in a general or a special law.
o General Law – Act no. 3083 – general law waiving immunityof the State under which the PH Gov “ consents and submits to be sued upon
any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, epress or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private
parties.

o Special Law – may be passed to enable a person to sue the government for an alleged quasi-delict, as in the case of Meritt vs. Gov of the
Philippine Islands.

o QUALIFICATIONS:
 EXPRESSED CONSENT is effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly enacted statute. Not all
contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must be made between its
sovereign and proprietary acts. (US v. Guinto, ibid.)
 The consent of the State must emanate from statutory authority, hence, from a legislative act, NOT from a mere
memorandum. [Callado vs. International Rice Research Institute, 244 SCRA 210, May 22, 1995]

 IMPLIED – when (1) the government enters into BUSINESS CONTRACTS (PROPRIETARY), they are descending to the level of the other
contracting parties/ordinary party; and when (2) the STATE COMMENCES LITIGATION/FILES A COMPLAINT itself, thus opening itself to
counterclaims. (CASE BASIS: Mun. of San Fernando v. Firme, 195 SCRA 692, April 8, 1991; US v. Guinto, GR No. 76607, Feb. 26, 1990) As
of filing of the complaint by the government, suability wil result only where the government is claiming affirmative relief. [M.H. Wylie vs. Rarang,
209 SCRA 357, No. 74135 (May 28, 1992)] Also, filing by the government of a complaint in intervention is in effect a waiver of its right of non-
suability. [Fernando Froilan (plaintiff-appellee)vs. Pan Oriental Shipping, Co. (defendant-appellant) and Republic as Intervenor-
appellee) 95 Phil 905 (September 30, 1954)]

2|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)
 DISTINCTIONS:
o Sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). (USA vs. Ruiz, GR No. L-35645, May 22,
1985)
o Not all contracts entered into by the government will operate as waiver of its non-suability. [M.H. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357, No. 74135 (May 28, 1992)]
o GENERAL RULE: (Restrictive application)
 State Immunity extends to acts jure imperii.
 Municipality cannot be held liable for torts committed by its regular employee, who was the engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. (Mun.
of San Fernando vs. Hon. Firme, 195 SCRA 692, April 8, 1991)
o EXCEPTIONS:
 On GOVERNMENTAL ACTS:
 A public official may be sometimes be held liable in his personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction. (Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, ibid.)
o REASON: An officer cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office when his acts are wholly
without authority.
o Doctrine cannot institutionalize irresponsibbility and non-accountability nor grant privilege status not claimed by any other official by the
Republic. (Republic vs. Sandoval, ibid.)
o The court has made it quite clear that even a high position in the government does NOT confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure
another.

 Ordinarily, the officer or employee committing the torts is personally liable therefor and may be sued as any other citizen and held answerable for
whatever injury or damage results from his tortious acts.

 Agency of the government not performing purely governmental sovereign function or those activity that was NOT the exclusive prerogative of the state
in its sovereign capacity. (Air Transportation Office vs. Sps. David, GR No. 159402, Feb 23, 2011)

 The Principle of State Immunity from suit does NOT APPLY, as in this case, when a relief demanded by the suit REQUIRED NO AFFIRMATIVE OFFICIAL
ACTION on the part of the STATE nor the AFFIRMATIVE DISCHARGE of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political capacity, even though
the officer or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or act only by virtue of a title of the State and its agents and servants. (Republic vs.
Sandoval, ibid.)

 On PRORIETARY ACTS:
 If said non-governmental function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is NO WAIVER thereby of the sovereign
immunity from suit extended to such government entity. (Bureau of Printing, et al. vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association, et al., GR
No. L-15751, January 28, 1961).

WHEN SUIT IS AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL/OFFICERS:

 RULE: State may NOT be sued without its consent. This is also applicable to complainant against officials of the State for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their
duties [US vs. Reyes, March 1, 1993]
 RULE: If PO acted within authority in the discharge of official duty, NO SUIT. (Restrictive Rule on Non-suability applies)

 EXCEPTION: If PO is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the right of plaintiff. [US vs. Reyes]

3|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)
o Officer-executive, administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial or otherwise who acts OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS JURISDICTION and WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OF
LAW may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit. If he execeeds the power conferred on him by law, he CANNOT shelter himself by the plea
that he is a public agent, acting under the color of his office, and not personally. In the eye of the law, his acts then are WHOLLY WITHOUT AUTHORITY. (Festejo vs.
Fernando, GR No. L-5156, March 11, 1954)

o In as much as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of the government officials or officers by one whose right have been invaded or
violated by such act, for the protection of his rights, is NOT a suit against the state within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said
that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or
invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is NOT a suit against
the State within the consitutional provision that the State may not sue without its consent. [Angel Ministerio and Asuncion Sadaya vs. CFI of Cebu Fourth Branch,
Presided by Hon. Judge Jose Borromeo, the Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General, l-31635, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 464]

o Public officials or officer can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in in connection with official duties where they have acted untra vires
or where there is showing of bad faith. [M.H. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357, No. 74135 (May 28, 1992)]
 TAKE NOTE: LIMITED LIABILITY: In Meritt vs. Government of Philippine Islands, a special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission foreign to the
exercise of duties of his office if he is a special official xxx executes the trust confided to him. Limited Liability of the State if it acts through special agents.

SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

 GR: Municipal Corporations generally enjoys immunity from suit.


EXC: Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such function if their character provides that they can sue and be sued. (Mun. of San Fernando vs. Hon.
Firme, 195 SCRA 692, April 8, 1991)

 Where a suit is filed NOT AGAINST the GOVERNMENT itself or its OFFICIALS BUT AGAINST one of its ENTITIES, it must be ascertained WON the State, as the principal that
may ultimately be held liable, has given its consent to be sued. The ascertainment will depend in the first instance on WON the government agency impleaded is INCORPORATED
or UNINCORPORATED.
o INCORPORATED AGENCY – has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridical personality (e.g. SSS, University of the Philippines, City of Manila, City of
Baguio, etc.)
 If INCORPORATED, the TEST of its SUABILITY is found in its charter. The simple rule is that it is suable if its charter says so, REGARDLESS OF THE
FUNCTIONS IT IS PERFORMING, e.g. if it provides it can SUE and BE SUED.
 CASE APPLICABLE: Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan involving NAPOCOR.

o UNINCORPORATED AGENCY – has NO SEPARATE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY but is merged in the general machinery of the governent, e.g. the DOJ, Bureau of
Mines, Government Printing Office (Bureau of Printing).
 NO TEST available as there would be NO CHARTER TO CONSULT.
 Since it has no separate juridical personality, any suit filed against it (the UNINCORPORATED AGENCY) is necessarily an action against the
Philippine Government of which it is a part.
 This being so, it is necessary to determine the nature of the functions in which the agency is engaged, so as to hold it suable if proprietary and NOT suable if
governmental.
 The TEST in every case is the NATURE OF THE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS being DISCHARGED.
 The NON-SUABILITY is available to the agency even if it is shown that it engaged not only in governmental functions but also, as a sideline, or incidentally, in
proprietary enterprises.
 CASE: Bureau of Printing vs BPEA case;
 Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service;

4|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)
 Farolan vs. CTA (BOC is an unincorporated government agency without a separate juridical personality, performing governmental function of collecting
revenues.

 On ORGANIZED ENTITIES
o Immunity from suit is DETERMINED by the character of the object for which the entity was organized. Not all government entity, corporated or non-corporated, are
immuned from suit. (Civil Aeoronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals, Nov. 8, 1988)

o When the government engages in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, it divests (deprive or takes away) itself to pro hac vice of its sovereign
character, so as to subject itself to the rules governing private corporations. (PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595, June 15, 1978)

o Suit against State agencies acting in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created by the State for public purpose, but to
engage in matters partaking the nature of ordinary business rather than functions of governmental or political character, are notregarded as suit against the State. (Civil
Aeoronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals, ibid.)

o An unincorporated government agency WITHOUT any separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit because it is vested with inherent power of
sovereignty. (Air Transportation Office vs. Sps. David, GR No. 159402, Feb 23, 2011)

o ON GOCCs with ORIGINAL CHARTER


 It is NOT necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the NPC performs a governmental function with respect to the management and
operation of the Angat Dam. It is sufficient to say that the government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and has allowed it to sue
and be sued in any court under its charter. (R.A. No. 6395, Sec. 3 (d).) As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own,
distinct and separate from that of the Government. (See National Shipyards and Steel Corp. vs. CIR, et al., L-17874, August 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 781.) Moreover,
the charter provision that the NPC can "sue and be sued in any court" is without qualification on the cause of action and accordingly it can include a tort claim
such as the one instituted by the petitioners. (Rayo vs. CFI Bulacan, 110 SCRA 456, December 19, 1981)

 GOCC that have a personality of their own, separate and distinct from the government, their funds, therefore although considered to be public in character, are
NOT EXEMPT from GARNISHMENT. (PNB vs. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595, June 15, 1978)

 On LEVY or GARNISHMENT of PUBLIC FUNDS.


o GENERAL RULE: All government funds deposited in the PNB or any other official depositary of the Philippine government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities,
whether by general or special deposit, remains government funds and may NOT be subject to GARNISHMENT or LEVY in the absence of a corresponding appropriation
as required by law. (NOT ABSOLUTE). (City of Caloocan vs. Judge Allarde, 410 SCRA 432, Sept. 10, 2003)

o Well settled is the rule that PUBLIC FUNDS are NOT subject to levy and execution. (Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan vs. Hon. Fernandez, et al. GR No. l-
61744, June 25, 1984)
 REASON:
(1) “They are held in trust for the people, intended and used for the accomplishment of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created, and
that to subjet said properties and public funds would impede, even defeat and in some instance destroy said purpose.” (Paoay vs. Manaois, 86 Phil.
629 cited in San Miguel, Bulacan vs. Hon. Fernandez, et al.)

(2) It is settled doctrine of the law that NOT ONLY public property BUT ALSO the taxes and public revenue of such corporations cannot be seized under
execution against them either in the treasury or when in transit to it. Judgment rendered for taxes and the proceeds of such judgment in the hands of
officers of law are NOT subject to execution UNLESS so declared by Statute. (Tantoco vs. Mun. Council of Ilo-ilo, 40 Phil. 52 cited in San Miguel,
Bulacan vs. Hon. Fernandez, et al.)

5|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)

 PD 447 – The Decree on Local Fiscal Admin. provides under Sec. 2(a) that “No money shall be paid out of treasury EXCEPT in the pursuance of a
lawful appropriationor specific statutory authority.” (Take note: San Miguel, Bulacan vs. Hon. Fernandez, et al. case was way back 1984) There
must be a corresponding appropriation in the form of an ordinance duly passed by the Sangguniang Bayan before any money of the Municipality may
be paid out.

o EXCEPTION: When there is a corresponding appropriation as required by law. Otherwise stated, the rule on the immunity of public funds from seizure or garnishment
does not apply where funds sought to be levied under execution are already allocated by law specifically for the satisfaction of the money judgment. (San Miguel,
Bulacan vs. Hon. Fernandez, et al., Ibid.)

o MANDAMUS WILL LIE: Where a municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, claimant may
avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the corresponding disbursement of
municipal funds therefor. The court will not condone blatant refusal to settle legal obligations arising from expropriation proceedings it had in fact initiated. This is in line
with the State’s power of eminent domain which should be exercise within the bounds of fair play an justice. (Municipality of Makati vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.
89898-99, Oct. 1, 1990)

 REASON: The Doctrine of State Immunity was NOT an instrument for perpetrating injustice. In exercising the right of eminend domain, the court explaineting
injustice. In exercising the right of eminend domain, the court explained that in the event where a private property has been taken in expropriation without just
compensation paid, th defense of immunity could not be setup by the State against an action for payment of the owner. (Air Transportation Office vs.
Spouses David, GR No. 159402, Feb 23, 2011; Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 [similar case])

 EXEMPTION from LEGAL REQUIREMENTS


o When the State litigates, either directly or through its authorized officer, it is not required to put up a bond for damages, or an appeal bond since it can be assumed that it
is always solvent. (Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328)

SUIT AGAINST FOREIGN STATES/INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION IS IMMUNE FROM THE LEGAL WRITS AND PROCESSES:


o Such subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibility impartially in behalf of its member-state. Minister of Justice
explained the concept of Immunity of international organizations from jurisdiction of the lower courts, thus:
 One of the basic immunities of an International Org. is immunity from local jurisdiction of the country where it is found. The obvious reason for this is that the
subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their
operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to the local court jurisdiction would impair the
capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-state. [SEAFDEC vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580 (February 23, 1995);
DFA vs. NLRC citing SEAFDEC vs. NLRC]

 In SEAFDEC vs. NLRC, SC opined that entertainment by the NLRC of Mr. Madamba’s reinstatement casses would amount to interference by the Philippnes
Government in the management decisions of SEARCA governing board; even worse, it could compromise the desired impartiality of the organization since it will
have to suit its actuation to the requirements of Philippine law, which may NOT necessarily coincide with the interests of the other member-states.

 TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY case applies only to ordinary litigants and NOT to parties which enjoys sovereign or diplomatic immunity. [SEAFDEC vs. NLRC]

 WAIVED EXPRESSLY : With respect to FOREIGN STATES and INTERNATIONAL ORGS., the immunity from suit or jurisdiction of local courts can only be WAIVED EXPRESSLY by
said entities and NOT by the employees or agents of such FS/IO. [SEAFDEC vs. NLRC]

6|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)

 HOW TO PLEA SOVEREIGN/DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: [Discussed in Liang vs People and The Holy See vs. RTC Case ]
o GR: Convey to court that said defendant is immune.
o In the US: Process of Suggestion
 Foreign States/International Org. sued in American Court request the Sec. of State to make termination whether defendant is entitled to suit.
o In PH Gov: Foreign Gov/International Org. to first secure executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity.
 How PH Conveys varies:
Under the recognized principle of International Law and system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts
refused to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government. Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the Executive
branch of government, it is the duty of the court to accept a claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, such
as the Solicitor General or other officers acting under his discretion. Hence, in adherance to the settled principle that the courts may not so exercise their
jurisdiction xxx so as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that “in such cases the judicial
department of government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction. [Liang vs.
People (323 SCRA 692, January 28, 2000); DFA vs. NLRC (262 SCRA 39 (September 18, 1996) citing WHO vs. Aquino (48 SCRA 242)]

 AS TO PROPERTY: The Holy See vs. RTC (GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994): (Look into the palusot este purpose)
o The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state, necessary for the maintenance of its diplomatic mission is recognized by the
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation.
o Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was NOT made for commercial purpose but for the use of petitioner to
construct the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio.
o Petitioner did NOT sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same because squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use
it for the purpose of the Donation. Hence, the decision to transfer the property and subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character.

SUABILITY vs. LIABILITY

(Case: Municipality of San Fernando vs. Firme; US vs. Guinto; Meritt vs. Gov. of the PH Islands)

SUABILITY LIABILITY
Depends on the consent of the State to be sued Depends on the applicable law and established facts
The State being SUABLE does NOT mean its LIABLE The State can never be held liable if it does NOT first CONSENT TO BE SUED.
(In the case of Republic v. Sandoval) While it is true that a sovereign state and LIABILITY is NOT CONCEDED by the mere fact that the State waive its sovereign
its political subdivision CANNOT BE SUED WITHOUT its CONSENT, it CANNOT immunity, it is only giving plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that
be invoked by officers to release them from liability and by heirs to demand defendant is liable.
indemnification from the government.

7|Page
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW (2018-2019)

INCORPORATED AGENCIES which provides it can


sue and be sued.

If Public official acted BEYOND the scope of his


authority: Acts Untra Vires or acted in bad faith
Act No. 3083 under which PH Gov consents to submit to be
May be General SUED upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from
SUED Law contract, EXPRESSED or IMPLIED, which could serve as a basis
of civil action between private parties.
Express
It gives its A special law may be passed to enable a person to sue the government
consent Special
for an alleged quasi-delict, as in the case of Meritt vs. Gov. of the Phil.
(Mun. of Law
Islands
San
Fernando It enters EXCEPTION: Proprietary function
vs. Hon. into a Proprietary Acts or JURE undertaken incidental to its government
Firme case) BUSINESS GESTIONIS function.
Doctrine of
State Implied CONTRACT (Bureau of Printing vs. BPEA case)
Immunity
UNINCORPORA commences litigation, opening itself to Includes filing
TED: Involves counterclaims; suability will result only where complaint in
sovereign or government is claiming affirmative relief. intervention.
governmental
May NOT be acts (JURE Protected by PRESUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH - NOT ACTIONABLE unless shown
SUED IMPERII) that POs were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to BAD FAITH
(Restrictive
application)
EXCEPTION: Mun. of Makati vs. CA case -- The court will not condone
petitioner's blatant refusal to settle its legal obligation arising from
If PO acted in the
expropriaton proceedings it has initiated (Eminent Domain case) .
discharge of their
official or ATO vs. Sps. David case - Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is NOT an
governmental instrument for perpetrating injustice (same reason: US vs. Reyes case), i.e.
function a valid claim for compensation arising from taking W/O just compensation
and W/O proper expropriation.

8|Page