SUZETTE NICOLAS Y SOMBILON v. ALBERTO ROMULO, GR No.
175888, 2009-02-11 Issues:
Facts:
Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United States
Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina,
petitioner herein, sometime on November 1, 2005
Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, the United
States, at its request, was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the
proceedings.
United States Government faithfully complied with its undertaking to bring
defendant Smith to the trial court every time his presence was... required.
RTC of Makati, following the end of the trial, rendered its Decision, finding
defendant Smith guilt
As a result, the Makati court ordered Smith detained at the Makati jail until further
orders.
Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law enforcement
agents, purportedly acting under orders of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government, and brought to a facility for detention under the control... of the
United States government, provided for under new agreements between the
Philippines and the United States, referred to as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement...
in accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed between our two nations,
Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps, be returned... to U.S.
military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila.
He will be guarded round the clock by U.S. military personnel. The Philippine police
and jail... authorities, under the direct supervision of the Philippine Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) will have access to the place of detention to
ensure the United States is in compliance with the terms of the VFA.
Clark and Subic and the other places in the Philippines covered by the RP-US
Military Bases Agreement of 1947 were not Philippine territory, as they were
excluded from the cession and retained by the US.
Accordingly, the Philippines had no jurisdiction over these bases except to the
extent allowed by the United States.
RP-US Military Bases Agreement was never advised for ratification by the United
States Senate, a disparity in treatment, because the Philippines... regarded it as a
treaty and had it concurred in by our Senate.
Subsequently, the United States agreed to turn over these bases to the Philippines;
and with the expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the territory
covered by these bases were finally ceded to the Philippines.
whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to
the VFA is allowed "under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate xxx and
recognized as a treaty by the other... contracting State."
whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to
the VFA is allowed "under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate xxx and
recognized as a treaty by the other... contracting State."
Petitioners contend that these undertakings violate another provision of the
Constitution, namely, that providing for the exclusive power of this Court to adopt
rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]). They argue
that to... allow the transfer of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide
for a different rule of procedure for that accused, which also violates the equal
protection clause of the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1.).
Ruling:
This Court finds that it is, for two reasons.
First, as held in Bayan v. Zamora,[5] the VFA was duly concurred in by the
Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as
attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States...
government.
The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States
Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or
treaty recognized by the said State. For this is a matter of internal United States
law.
The second reason has to do with the relation between the VFA and the RP-US
Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951. This earlier agreement was signed and
duly ratified with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the United
States Senate.
Clearly, therefore, joint RP-US military exercises for the purpose of developing the
capability to resist an armed attack fall squarely under the provisions of the RP-US
Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for
the joint RP-US military... exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the
main RP-US Military Defense Treaty.
The Preamble of the VFA states
Reaffirming their obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951;
Accordingly, as an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, it
was not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent, but
merely to the US Congress under the Case-Zablocki Act within 60 days of its
ratification. It is for this reason that... the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA
as a binding international agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially complies
with the requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our Constitution.
The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of
the fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence
"allowed under" the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty.
The VFA provides that in cases of offenses committed by the members of the US
Armed Forces in the Philippines, the following rules apply:
1|PIL Digests
The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they
so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial
proceedings.
this Court finds no violation of the Constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-
recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members
of the armed forces contingents of... a foreign State allowed to enter another
State's territory. On the contrary, the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
Applying, however, the provisions of VFA, the Court finds that there is a different
treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. The moment the accused
has to be detained, e.g., after conviction, the rule that governs is the following
provision of the
VFA:
The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel
shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United
States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall
have the right to... visits and material assistance.
It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody
during the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific
arrangement to cover detention.
not only that the detention shall... be carried out in facilities agreed on by
authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall be "by Philippine
authorities."
Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which
are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United
States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not
"by Philippine authorities."
Next, the Court addresses the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Medellin v. Texas ( 552 US ___ No. 06-984, March 25, 2008), which held that
treaties entered into by the United States are not automatically part of their
domestic law unless these... treaties are self-executing or there is an implementing
legislation to make them enforceable.
First, the VFA is a self-executing Agreement, as that term is defined in Medellin
itself, because the parties intend its provisions to be enforceable, precisely because
the Agreement is intended to carry out obligations and undertakings under the RP-
US
Mutual Defense Treaty.
Secondly, the VFA is covered by implementing legislation, namely, the Case-
Zablocki Act, USC Sec. 112(b), inasmuch as it is the very purpose and intent of the
US Congress that executive agreements registered under this Act within 60 days
from their ratification be... immediately implemented.
VFA differs from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Avena
decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), subject matter of the Medellin
decision. The Convention and the ICJ decision are not self-executing and are not...
registrable under the Case-Zablocki Act, and thus lack legislative implementing
authority.
inally, the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty was advised and consented to by the US
Senate
Principles:
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one's
territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The
Status of Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary
in terms and conditions,... according to the situation of the parties involved, and
reflect their bargaining power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State
can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to the extent
agreed upon by the parties.
As a result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of this Court to
adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather one in which, as is
normally encountered around the world, the laws (including rules of procedure) of
one State do not extend or apply
 except to the extent agreed upon - to subjects of another State due to the
recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting
foreign armed forces.
It was not the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting Article
XVIII, Sec. 25, to require the other contracting State to convert their system to
achieve alignment and parity with ours. It was simply required that the treaty be
recognized as a treaty by the... other contracting State.
as held by the US Supreme Court in Weinberger v. Rossi,[13] an executive
agreement is a "treaty" within the meaning of that word in international law and
constitutes enforceable domestic law vis-à-vis the United States. Thus, the
US Supreme Court in Weinberger enforced the provisions of the executive
agreement granting preferential employment to Filipinos in the US Bases here.
Accordingly, there are three types of treaties in the American system:
Art. II, Sec. 2 treaties - These are advised and consented to by the US Senate in
accordance with Art. II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution.
Executive-Congressional Agreements: These are joint agreements of the President
and Congress and need not be submitted to the Senate.
Sole Executive Agreements. - These are agreements entered into by the President.
They are to be submitted to Congress within sixty (60) days of ratification under the
2|PIL Digests
provisions of the Case-Zablocki Act, after which they are recognized by the
Congress and may be... implemented.
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, GR No.
193707, 2014-12-10
Facts:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Orders[1] dated February 19, 2010 and
September 1, 2010, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court... of Cebu City (RTC-
Cebu), which dismissed the criminal case entitled People of the Philippines v. Ernst
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-85503, for
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence
Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990.[2] On January 19, 1994,
they were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of
the filing of the... instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.[3]
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19, 1995 by virtue of a Divorce
Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland.[4] At that time, their son was
only eighteen (18) months old.[5] Thereafter, petitioner and her son... came home
to the Philippines.[6]
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to
their son in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene
Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in
Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have been residing thereat.
To date, all the parties, including their son, Roderigo, are presently living in Cebu
City.[11]
On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for
support from respondent. However, respondent refused to receive the letter.[12]
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with
the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City
Respondent submitted his counter-affidavit
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure
Order against respondent.[16] Consequently, respondent was arrested and,
subsequently, posted bail.
Petitioner also filed a Motion/Application of Permanent Protection Order
Subsequently,... respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order,[21]
dismissing the instant criminal case against respondent
Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration
On September 1, 2010, the lower court issued an Order[25] denying petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration
Issues:
Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under
Philippine law
Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262
for his unjustified failure to support his minor child
Ruling:
We find the petition meritorious. Nonetheless, we do not fully agree with petitioner's
contentions.
To determine whether or not a person is criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262, it is
imperative that the legal obligation to support exists.
we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195[34] of the New
Civil Code in demanding support from respondent, who is a foreign citizen
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and
duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree
with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine
law, as to whether... he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the
consequences of his failure to do so.[37]
It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is not obliged to support
petitioner's son under Article 195 of the Family Code as a consequence of the
Divorce Covenant obtained in Holland.
This does not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to support...
petitioner's son altogether.
In view of respondent's failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his
favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if
the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume
that the foreign law is... the same as our local or domestic or internal law.[44]
Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not
been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same
with Philippine law, which... enforces the obligation of parents to support their
children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
the
Divorce Covenant presented by respondent does not completely show that he is not
liable to give support to his son after the divorce decree was issued.
We likewise agree with petitioner that notwithstanding that the national law of
respondent states that parents have no obligation to support their children or that
such obligation is not punishable by law, said law would still not find applicability,...
Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those
3|PIL Digests
which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a... foreign country.
The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle
imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action.
Principles:
the doctrine of processual presumption
JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 125865, 2000-01-28
Facts:
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB
worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Mandaluyong City with two... counts of grave oral defamation
The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department
of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal
process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine
Government regarding the
Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the said
protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
Issues:
that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement
Ruling:
the mere invocation of the... immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the
dropping of the charges.
under Section 45 of the Agreement which provides:
"Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts and
consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges
and immunities:... a.)... immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed
by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity."... the
immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the
act was done in "official capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if
petitioner's case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a).
slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement
because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in
the name of official duty.[3] The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be
part... of official functions. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may
be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused
by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction.
under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming
petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state
except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity
exercised by the... diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official
functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of
official duty.
Principles:
Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent,
assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the
receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or
commercial activity exercised by the... diplomatic agent in the receiving state
outside his official functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a
crime is not part of official duty
Facts:
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,[3] otherwise
known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the
protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological,
sociocultural,... educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into
perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the "no-
take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human
activities are prohibited and penalized or fined,... including fishing, gathering,
destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created
the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole
policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP.
In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic
clearance for the said vessel "to enter and exit the territorial waters of the
Philippines and to arrive at the port of
Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew
liberty."
On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran
aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80
miles... east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident, and there
have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the grounding incident and assured
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario that the United States will provide
appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship."[6]
By March 30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last
piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef.
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.
4|PIL Digests
Issues:
the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have
become fait accompli as the salvage... operations on the USS Guardian were
already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the
petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America; and (4) the determination of... the
extent of responsibility of the US Government as regards the damage to the
Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch.
whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any
pleading or manifestation in this case.
Ruling:
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to
file the present petition.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,[13] we recognized the "public right"
of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." We...
declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in
the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in
the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
transcendental importance... with intergenerational implications. Such right carries
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental
rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future... generations.
Their personality... to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is concerned
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors
and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of
a citizen suit in environmental cases.
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign
immunity or non-suability of the State,[17] is expressly provided in Article XVI of
the 1987 Constitution which states:
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the
privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial
sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise
of territorial... jurisdiction
In this case, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding
officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and
its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the
USS Guardian on... the TRNP was committed while they were performing official
military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials
will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US government, the
suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this
Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No.
10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the
ambit... of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity
from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an
exception to this rule in cases where they fail to... comply with the rules and
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's internal
waters and the territorial sea.
A foreign warship's unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting
damage to marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may
apply.But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this
case, the US?
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.
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has
become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or
restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from
this Court.
insofar as the... directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the
coral reef structure and marine habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident
are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs notwithstanding the
completion of the removal of the USS
Guardian from the coral reef.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter
of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic
channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in
the context of common security... interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he
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."... we cannot grant the additional reliefs
prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA and to nullify certain
immunity provisions thereof... the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine
Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and
certified by the duly authorized representative of... the United States government.
The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter
of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.
5|PIL Digests
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is
hereby DENIED.
Principles:
Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[10]
Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being... challenged, and
"calls for more than just a generalized grievance."[11] However, the rule on
standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional
plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public... interest
so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental
importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as
accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the
law of every civilized... state as a condition and consequence of its membership in
the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically
obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states.
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings
arise out of commercial... transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial
activities or economic affairs.
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
government 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.
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 constitutional... provision that the State
may not be sued without its consent."

the doctrine of state immunity 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 the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the
added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All
states are sovereign equals and cannot... assert jurisdiction over one another. A
contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the
peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171]
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.
The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules and
customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources,
and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public
international law,... regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the
oceans."
The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State
sovereignty (mare clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare
liberum).[29] The freedom to use the world's marine waters is one of the oldest...
customary principles of international law.[30] The UNCLOS gives to the coastal
State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which
are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic
zone,... and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction
over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.

If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign government done by its foreign
agent, although not necessarily a... diplomatic personage, but acting in his official
capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign
from suit without its consent.

We held that petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of their
official functions... when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the
complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for
discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly
impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has... not given its consent to
be sued.

This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in
the courts of another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into
a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure
imperii) from private,... commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis)

6|PIL Digests