Doctrine of State Immunity

-The State may not be sued without its consent. (1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 3)
-Basis of the Doctrine of State Immunity:
1.Indiscriminate suits against the State will impair its dignity and supposed infallibility.
2. Per Justice Holmes, there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which
the right depends.
3.If it were otherwise, government service may be severely obstructed and public safety endangered
because of the number of suits that the State has to defend against.

-GR: All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another, consonant with the
public international law principle of par in parem non habet imperium. A contrary disposition would "unduly vex
the peace of nations." The head of State, who is deemed the personification of the State, is inviolable, and thus,
enjoys immunity from suit. Likewise, public officials may not be sued for acts done in the performance of their
official functions or within the scope of their authority.
-XPN: A State may be sued if it gives consent, whether express or implied.

***The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, the
suit may be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.

Forms of consent:
1. Express consent
a. General law
i. Act No. 3083 and CA 327 as amended by Secs. 49-50, PD 1445 – Money claims arising from
contracts which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties to be first filed with
COA before a suit may be filed in court. The COA must act upon the claim within 60 days.
Rejection of the claim authorizes the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on
certiorari.
ii. Art. 2180, NCC – Tort committed by special agent;
iii. Art. 2189, NCC – LGUs liable for injuries or death caused by defective condition of roads or
public works under their control.
iv. Sec. 22(2), RA 7160, LGC of 1991 – LGUs have power to sue and be sued; and
v. Sec. 24 of LGC – LGUs and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury or
damage to property.

b. Special law
i. By virtue of PD 1620, the grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal, and an express
waiver by its Director General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this
immunity.
2. Implied consent
a. When the State commences litigation, it becomes vulnerable to counterclaim.
b. When State enters into a business contract.
Capacities of the State in entering into contracts:
 1. In jure gestionis – By right of economic or business relations; commercial, or proprietary
acts. MAY BE SUED. The 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. Consequently, the restrictive application of State immunity is proper only
in such case. (Restrictive Theory of State Immunity from suit)
2. In jure imperii – By right of sovereign power and in the exercise of sovereign functions. No
implied consent. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985)

NOTE: In exercising the power of eminent domain, the State exercises a power jure imperii. Yet, it has been held
that where property has been taken without the payment of just compensation, the defense of immunity from suit
cannot be set up in an action for payment by the owner.

When suit is considered as suit against the State:

1. The Republic is sued by name;
2. The suit is against an unincorporated government agency performing propriety functions; and
3. The suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong to the
government.