V.

State: Sovereignty, Territory, People & Government State in General A state is community of persons, move or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion or territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized government which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.  Elements of State (Montevideo Convention of 1933): a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government, which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience; and d) capacity to enter into relations with other state. Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda, 42 SCRA 23
It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience to its commands. It has been referred to as a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual defense and mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. Correctly has it been described by Esmein as "the juridical personification of the nation." This is to view it in the light of its historical development. The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying a definite territory, politically organized, exercising by means of its government its sovereign will over the individuals within it and maintaining its separate international personality. Laski could speak of it then as a territorial society divided into government and subjects, claiming within its allotted area a supremacy over all other institutions. McIver similarly would point to the power entrusted to its government to maintain within its territory the conditions of a legal order and to enter into international relations. With the latter requisite satisfied, international law do not exact independence as a condition of statehood. So Hyde did opine.

Nation
-is an ethic or racial concept or sociological concept-race, sociology

vs.

State
-is a legal juristic concept

vs.

Government
- is merely an instrumentality of the state through which the will of the state is implemented and realized

1. Sovereignty People v. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476
Principle of auto-limitation: It is to be admitted any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a stateforce due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and selfrestriction." A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence." The opinion was at pains to point out though that even then, there is at the

So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. as heretofore stated. supra. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign. This article was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine Islands. the laws of the country in support of an established religion or abridging the freedom of the press. They retain their status as native soil.. Nor does the matter end there. Although the actuation of respondent Judge in engaging in private business by joining the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries.most diminution of jurisdictional rights. all laws. Mr.. administrative law including the law on public officers and elections. Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court stated the obvious when in the course of his opinion in the case of Chicago. They are still subject to its authority. Specifically. those laws which are political in their nature and pertain to the prerogatives of the former government immediately cease upon the transfer of sovereignty. Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is. The words employed follow: "Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. are automatically abrogated. ordinances and regulations in conflict with the political character. Thus. unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business: hence. political in essence. Penalties out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense. the political laws of the former sovereign. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. Its jurisdiction may be diminished." People v. Perfecto. it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. either following a conquest or otherwise. as opposed to the American conception of the protection of the interests of the public. institutions and Constitution of the new government are at once displaced. or authorizing cruel and unusual punishments. not its disappearance. Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty. he said: "As a matter of course. 887 It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated. 43 Phil. is not violative of the provissions of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce and Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well . The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. have been obliterated by the present system of government in the Islands." Article 256 of the Penal Code is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the American character and system of government. would at once cease to be of obligatory force without any declaration to that effect. and he like. but it does not disappear. Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag. Macariola v. 114 SCRA 77 Political law embraces constitutional law. because it is political in nature. If it does so. McGlinn. Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co. By well-settled public law. Asuncion. Inc. grounded in a distorted monarchical conception of the nature of political authority. law of public corporations. . They are not and cannot be foreign territory. deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America. upon the cession of territory by one nation to another. upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power — and the latter is involved in the former — to the United States. Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines. vs. as a stockholder and a ranking officer.

XVI.” The State. as appropriated by law. Sec. the Constitution does. Polybank. A.S. both dictated by logic and sound sense from a basic concept is that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged. 205 U. except to the extent of certain limitations of power. Sovereign Immunity. 349 (1907) A sovereign is exempt from suit. Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules promulgated pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1959. not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory. in actual administration. such a well-settled doctrine was restated in the opinion of Justice Teehankee: "The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law. A suit presupposes that the defendants are subject to the law invoked. Imperium Dominium -is the capacity to own or acquire property including the lands held by the state in its proprietary capacity. San Diego. Republic v. but naturally is extended to those that. it may limit claimant's action 'only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution' and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered. in the case of a state. Thus in the recent case of Commissioner of Public Highways v. The State may not be sued without its consent. because the territory itself is the fountain from which rights ordinarily flow. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. Imperium -the authority possessed by the state embraced in the concepts sovereignty. 3. from which persons within the jurisdiction derive their rights." A corollary. i. But the rights that exist are not created by Congress or the Constitution.as Section 12. and to subject its officers to garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. 54 SCRA 83 It is therein expressly provided: "The State may not be sued without its consent. since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments. 1987 Constitution. Dominium v. . the impropriety of the same is clearly unquestionable because Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. and the power that can alter the Constitution might. Of course it cannot be maintained unless they are so. Art. Villasor. originate and change at their will the law of contract and property. just as. It is true that Congress might intervene. by virtue of its sovereignty. But that is not the case with a territory of the United States. is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Kawawanakoa v. may not be sued in its own courts except by express authorization by the Legislature. The doctrine is not confined to powers that are sovereign in the full sense of juridical theory. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects.Doctrine of Non-Suability of State -it extends to those acts which are dominium in nature.

as pointed out by the Solicitor General.364. or to restrain a Cabinet member. Feliciano. Worthy of note is the fact. Courts should be wary in accepting "possessory information documents. Pablo Feliciano. Suit against the State -the suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties. Sanders v. a register of deeds refuses to record a deed of sale. As they have acted on behalf of that government.i. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. it was "reconstituted from the duplicate presented to this office (Register of Deeds) by Dr. 162 SCRA 88 We have to conclude that the petitioners were. No." Lansang v. 148 SCRA 242 (1987) Waiver of immunity. Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original. or to compel the national treasurer to pay damages from an already appropriated assurance fund or the commissioner of internal revenue to refund tax over-payments from a fund already available for the purpose. These circumstances raise grave doubts as to the authenticity and validity of the "informacion posesoria" relied upon by respondent Feliciano. for example. Veridiano.4177 hectares. being sued as officers of the United States government. The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties. Adding to the dubiousness of said document is the fact that " possessory information calls for an area of only100 hectares. 1952 was a "reconstituted" possessory information." whereas the land claimed by respondent Feliciano comprises 1. or. as well as other purportedly old Spanish titles. The rule is that the suit . and not that of the NPDC. to secure a judgment that the officer impleaded may satisfy by himself without the government itself having to do a positive act to assist him. and not the petitioners personally. being a derogation of sovereignty. Court of Appeals. it is that government. as proof of alleged ownership of lands. G. 23 February 2000 While private respondents recognize the authority of petitioner to terminate the agreement with GABI "if is prejudicial to the interest of the NPDC. 102667. was the root cause of GABI's ejecment. as the doctrine of state immunity "cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice." they maintain that petitioner's personal interest. later reduced to 701-9064 hectares. will not be inferred lightly but must be construed in strictissimi juris (of strictest right). We have also held that where the government itself has violated its own laws. legally speaking. the aggrieved party may directly implead the government even without first filing his claim with the Commission on Audit as normally required. the Proclamation is not a legislative act. say. from enforcing a law claimed to be unconstitutional. that is responsible for their acts. and within the scope of their authority.R. Moreover. Republic v. Exceptions: It is clear that a public officer may be sued as such to compel him to do an act required by law. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. in general. as where. that the informacion posesoria registered in the Office of the Register of Deed of Camarines Sur on September 23. "without the submission of proof that the alleged duplicate was authentic or that the original thereof was lost.

for which ultimately liability will fall on the government. in their personal capacity. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Forestry acted in their capacity as officers of the State. or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction . Tan v. The rule does NOT apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. It is an entirely different matter if. Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to account in this case. such as appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff. it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. It is only the possibility of its being "public in character. no recovery may be had against them in their private capacities. attached or levied upon. Director of Forestry. Otherwise. Farolan v. A timber license is not a contract within the purview of the due process clause. it is only a license or privilege. the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit." The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government. Court of Industrial Relations. gross negligence. distinct and separate from that of the Government. 125 SCRA 302 The terms and conditions of this license are subject to change at the discretion of the Director of Forestry. As an agency. 214 SCRA 286 A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith. As an unincorporated government agency without any separate judicial personality of its own. however. according to Justice Sanchez in Ramos v. Public officials are NOT exempt. its funds may be levied upon or garnished. Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay for actual damages it sustained.must be regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state itself to perform a positive act. PNB v. when public interests so require". the NASSCO has a personality of its own. as such. the same may not be garnished. is untenable for. 217 SCRA 298 Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for actual damages that the private respondent sustained with regard to its goods. Court of Tax Appeals. or bad faith. the Bureau of Customs performs the ." There was not even a categorical assertion to that effect. were performed as part of their official duties. which can be validly withdrawn whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in this case.” Then it can sue and be sued. and that this license may be made to expire at an earlier date. representatives of the sovereign authority discharging governmental powers. from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith. Court of Appeals. A timber license is an instrument by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. Thereafter. without malice. Commission on Internal Revenue. namely taxation. 81 SCRA 314 The plea for setting aside the notice of garnishment was promised on the funds of the People's home site and Housing Corporation deposited with petitioner being "public in character. and that. A private individual cannot issue a timber license. the office or entity is "possessed of a separate and distinct corporate existence. to permit private respondent’s claim to prosper would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity. as a government owned and controlled corporation. Veterans Manpower v.

Need for Consent. The result is that state immunity now extends only to sovereign and governmental acts. 30 Sept. commercial and proprietary acts. bad faith. this Court held that the dismissal of the counterclaim was untenable. that the state is immune from suit. And because the activities of states have multiplied.governmental function of collecting revenues which is defined not a proprietary function.R. L-6060. Lansang v. it has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts and private. The restrictive application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign. Ruiz. v. Court of Appeals. Froilan v. 136 SCRA 487 However. theyare constantly developing and evolving.Express or Implied Republic v. or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. It does not apply where the contract relates the exercise of its sovereign function. . the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the US and the Philippines. Pan Oriental Shipping. supra. supra. they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. In this case. indisputably a function of the government of the highest order. among others. A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. its commercial activities or economic affairs.S. U. 1950 The trial court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim against the Republic on the ground. On appeal. because by filing its complaint in intervention the Government in effect waived its right to nonsuability. G. No. the rules of international law are not petrified. Feliciano. unlawful and injurious behalf of the State and acting within his official duties he be sued as a private individual If a public official acts in it is a suit against the State If an office is performing Proprietary functions and has its own charter Governmental functions it can sue and be sued it is a suit against the State ii.

the latter can be generally be sued. the customary law of international law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RP-US Bases Treaty. The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his authority. Government.g. it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. It is clear from a study of the records of GR No.  Jure Gestionis – by right of economic or business relations. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. 34 Phil 311 (1916) The State is only liable for the acts of its agents. then it is a waiver of immunity. Suability v. iii. when the State conduct business operations through GOCC. The needed inquiry first be made by the lower court so it may assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties on the basis of evidence that has yet to be presented at the trial.S. officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903. Thus. which has not given its consent to be sued. Guinto. supra Implied Consent  When the State enters into a private contract. When the government enters into a contract. they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the US. like any other state. 182 SCRA 644 The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that were have adopted as part of the law of our land. No implied consent. 80018.State seeking affirmative from the defendant. in the exercise of sovereign functions. 80018 that the petitioners therein were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operations against the complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. U. v. As for GR No. may be sued. Jure Imperii– by right of sovereign power. Republic v. is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of . There is no question that the US. It follows there from that the state. UNLESS: The operation is incidental to the performance of a governmental function (e. will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietory or private capacity. Express Consent  It is stated in Law enacted by Congress.  Commencing a litigation. In the case Of US.  When the State enters into a business contract. the record is too meager to indicate what really happened. even if its charter contains no express “sue or be sued” clause. arrastre services). UNLESS: the contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function. Villasor. by virtue of such provisions of law. Liability of State Merrit v.

Maliaman. namely: 1. there can be no liability from the government. he executes the trust confided to him. since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments.acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office. which would be subversive of the public interest. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer. negligence of supervision. then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. is based on obvious considerations of public policy. because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of public service and in the appointment of its agents. which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. the NIA is a government corporation with juridical personality and not a mere agency of the government. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law. The State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents. it may limit claimant's action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered. and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions. 31 SCRA 616 (1970) More particularly. since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments. The State's agent. 194 SCRA 486 The liability of the State has two aspects. in the sense in which these words are employed. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof. . Disbursements of Public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. licenses and market fees. must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions. The State can only be liable if it acts through a special agent (and a special agent. difficulties and losses. it now becomes liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting from the tortious act of its driveremployee. The ambulance driver was not a special agent nor was a government officer acting as a special agent hence. 2. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task. If the State's agent is not a public official. if a public official. Commissioner of Public Highway v. Since it is a corporate body performing non-governmental functions. Municipal revenues derived from taxes. and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality.” Fontanilla v. the properties of a municipality. San Diego. as appropriated by law. “The Government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs. Indubitably. are exempt from execution. It is predicated upon the existence of negligence on the part of respondent NIA. it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision. is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. whether real or personal. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only.

Suability 1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only. 2. Liability 1. It is stated in Law enacted by Congress. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful