Republic vs.

Sandoval (Consti1)
(Two petitions consolidated.)
En Banc
Campos, Jr., March 19, 1993

Topic: Sovereignty - Suit not against the State - Beyond the Scope of Authority
Facts:
The heirs of the deceased of the January 22, 1987 Mendiola massacre (background: Wiki), together with those injured
(Caylao group), instituted the petition, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the orders of respondent Judge Sandoval (May
31 and Aug 8, 1988) in "Erlinda Caylao, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al." which dismissed the case against the
Republic of the Philippines
May 31 order: Because the impleaded military officers are being charged in their personal and official
capacity, holding them liable, if at all, would not result in financial responsibility of the government

Aug 8 order: denied the motions filed by both parties for reconsideration

In January 1987, farmers and their sympathizers presented their demands for what they called "genuine agrarian
reform"

The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), led by Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems and demands such as:

giving lands for free to farmers

zero retention of lands by landlords

stop amortizations of land payments

Dialogue between the farmers and then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) began on January 15, 1987

On January 20, 1987, Tadeo met with MAR Minister Heherson Alvarez

Alvarez was only able to promise to do his best to bring the matter to the attention of then President Cory Aquino
during the January 21 Cabinet meeting
Tension mounted the next day

The farmers, on their 7th day of encampment, barricaded the MAR premises and prevented the employees from going
inside their offices

On January 22, 1987, following a heated discussion between Alvarez and Tadeo, Tadeo's group decided to march to
Malacanang to air their demands

On their march to Malacanang, they were joined by Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN),
League of Filipino Students (LFS), and Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod (KPML)

Government intelligent reports were also received that the KMP was heavily infliltrated by CPP/NPA elements, and that
an insurrection was impending

Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola

The marchers numbered about 10,000 to 15,000 at around 4:30 pm

From CM Recto, they proceeded toward the police lines. No dialogue took place; "pandemonium broke loose"

After the clash, 12 marchers were officially confirmed dead (13 according to Tadeo)

39 were wounded by gunshots and 12 sustained minor injuries, all belonging to the group of marchers

Of the police and military, 3 sustained gunshot wounds and 20 suffered minor physical injuries

The "Citizens' Mendiola Commission" submitted its report on the incident on February 27, 1987 as follows

The march did not have any permit

The police and military were armed with handguns prohibited by law

The security men assigned to protect the government units were in civilian attire (prohibited by law)

There was unnecessary firing by the police and military

The weapons carried by the marchers are prohibited by law

It is not clear who started the firing

The water cannons and tear gas were not put into effective use to disperse the crowd; the water cannons
and fire trucks were not put into operation because:

there was no order to use them

they were incorrectly prepositioned

they were out of range of the marchers

The Commission recommended the criminal prosecution of four unidentified, uniformed individuals shown either on
tape or in pictures, firing at the direction of the marchers

The Commission also recommended that all the commissioned officers of both the Western Police District (WPD) and
Integrated National Police (INP) who were armed be prosecuted for violation of par. 4(g) of the Public Assembly Act of 1985

Prosecution of the marchers was also recommended

It was also recommended that Tadeo be prosecuted both for holding the rally without permit and for inciting sedition

Administrative sanctions were recommended for the following officers for their failure to make effective use of their
skill and experience in directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola:

Gen. Ramon E. Montao

Police Gen. Alfredo S. Lim

Police Gen. Edgar Dula Torres

Police Maj. Demetrio dela Cruz

Col. Cezar Nazareno

Maj. Filemon Gasmin

Last and most important recommendation: for the deceased and wounded victims to be compensated by the
government

It was this portion that petitioners (Caylao group) invoke in their claim for damages from the government

No concrete form of compensation was received by the victims

On January, 1988, petitioners instituted an action for damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together
with the military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola incident

Solicitor general filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent

Petitioners said that the State has waived its immunity from suit

Judge Sandoval dismissed the case on the ground that there was no such waiver

Motion for Reconsideration was also denied

Issues:
1.
Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit (i.e. Whether or not this is a suit against the State with its
consent)

2.

Petitioners argue that by the recommendation made by the Commission for the government to indemnify the
heirs and victims, and by public addresses made by President Aquino, the State has consented to be sued
Whether or not the case qualifies as a suit against the State

Holding:
1.
No.

2.

This is not a suit against the State with its consent.

No.

Ratio:
1.

2.

Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State may not be sued without its consent
The recommendations by the Commission does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to
the State
The Commission was simply a fact-finding body; its findings shall serve only as cause of action for litigation;
it does not bind the State immediately
President Aquino's speeches are likewise not binding on the State; they are not tantamount to a waiver by the
State
Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:

When the Republic is sued by name;

When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency

When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that the ultimate liability will
belong not to the officer but to the government

Although the military officers and personnel were discharging their official functions during the incident,
their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority

There was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms.

Their main purpose in the rally was to ensure peace and order, but they fired at the crowd instead

No reversible error by the respondent Judge found. Petitions dismissed.