MANILA HOTEL VS GSIS

In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a provision,
prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for the protection of
the rights secured or the determination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of
the right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the
violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such a provision ineffective in the
absence of such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a remedy for
enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self-executing.
The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative
power on the subject, but any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise
of constitutional right and make it more available. 17 Subsequent legislation however does not
necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully enforceable.

ARIGO VS SWIFT

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.31

Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises sovereignty,
subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends to the air space
over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil. 32

In the case of warships,33 as point

MAGALLONA VS ERMITA

UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical
miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic
zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III
delimits.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations members
to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine areas, recognizing
coastal and archipelagic States’ graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands
along their coasts.
ACFA VS FLU

The view is widely accepted that such a fundamental postulate did influence American court decisions
on constitutional law. As was explicitly stated by Justice Cardozo, speaking of that era: "Laissez-faire was
not only a counsel of caution which statesmen would do well to heed. It was a categorical imperative
which statesmen as well as judges, must obey." 7 For a long time, legislation tending to reduce economic
inequality foundered on the rock that was the due process clause, enshrining as it did the liberty of
contract. To cite only one instance, the limitation of employment in bakeries to sixty hours a week and
ten hours a day under a New York statute was stricken down for being tainted with a due process
objection in Lochner v. New York. 8 It provoked one of the most vigorous dissents of Justice Holmes, who
was opposed to the view that the United States Constitution did embody laissez-faire. Thus: "General
propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more
subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will
carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word 'liberty,' in the
14th Amendment, is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion,
unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed
would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and
our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon
the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men
whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first installment of a general
regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of
inequality I think it unnecessary to discuss." It was not until 1908, in Muller v. Oregon,9 that the
American Supreme Court held valid a ten-hour maximum for women workers in laundries and not until
1917 in Bunting v. Oregon10 that such a regulatory ten-hour law applied to men and women passed the
constitutional test.

>in the exercise of governmental function, the state is immune from tort liability

Shortly after the establishment of the Commonwealth, the then Justice Jose P. Laurel, himself one of the
foremost delegates of the Constitutional Convention, in a concurring opinion, later quoted with approval
in the leading case of Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations,30 decided in 1940,
explained clearly the need for the repudiation of the laissez-faire doctrine. Thus: "It should be observed
at the outset that our Constitution was adopted in the midst of surging unrest and dissatisfaction
resulting from economic and social distress which was threatening the stability of governments the
world over. Alive to the social and economic forces at work, the framers of our Constitution boldly met
the problems and difficulties which faced them and endeavored to crystallize, with more or less fidelity,
the political, social and economic propositions of their age, and this they did, with the consciousness
that the political and philosophical aphorism of their generation will, in the language of a great jurist, 'be
doubted by the next and perhaps entirely discarded by the third.' . . . Embodying the spirit of the
present epoch, general provisions were inserted in the Constitution which are intended to bring about
the needed social and economic equilibrium between component elements of society through the
application of what may be termed as the  justitia communis  advocated by Grotius and Leibnits many
years ago to be secured through the counterbalancing of economic and social forces and opportunities
which should be regulated, if not controlled, by the State or placed, as it were, in  custodia societatis.
'The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people' was
thus inserted as vital principle in our Constitution. ... ." 31 In the course of such concurring opinion and
after noting the changes that have taken place stressing that the policy of  laissez-faire had indeed given
way to the assumption by the government of the right to intervene although qualified by the phrase "to
some extent", he made clear that the doctrine in People v. Pomar no longer retain, "its virtuality as a
living principle."32

constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote
the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people — these letter functions being ministrant he exercise
of which is optional on the part of the government.

the constituent functions as follows: '(1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection of
persons and property from violence and robbery. (2) The fixing of the legal relations between man and
wife and between parents and children. (3) The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange
of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime. (4) The determination of
contract rights between individuals. (5) The definition and punishment of crime. (6) The administration
of justice in civil cases. (7) The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens.
(8) Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external danger or
encroachment and the advancement of its international interests

MINUCHER VS CA

While the doctrine (of state immunity) 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. x x x. It cannot for a moment be imagined that they were acting
in their private or unofficial capacity when they apprehended and later testified against the
complainant. 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. x x x
As they have acted on behalf of the government, and within the scope of their authority, it is that
government, and not the petitioners personally, [who were] responsible for their acts.

(T)he doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is
being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded
the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual
capacity. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. It is a 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 and in
bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority and jurisdiction.
ARIGO VS SWIFT

FOREIGN WARSHIPS

In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity
subject to the following exceptions:

Article 30
Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage
through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the
coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article 31
Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship

or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes

The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting
from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with
the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

Article 32
Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

LASCO VS UNRFNRE

As a matter of state policy as expressed in the Constitution, the Philippine Government adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2). Being a member of
the United Nations and a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies of the United Nations, the Philippine Government adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted
to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both treaties have the force and effect of law.

Test to determine if suit is against the State: On the assumption that decision is rendered against the
public officer or agency impleaded, will the enforcement thereof require an affirmative act from the
State, such as the appropriation of the needed amount to satisfy the judgment? If so, then it is a suit
against the State. See: Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88; Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424.
Implied Consent of the State

1. State commences litigation

LIM VS BROWNELL

The claim for damages for the use of the property against the intervenor defendant Republic of the
Philippines to which is was transferred, likewise, cannot be maintained because of the immunity of the
state from suit. The claim obviously constitutes a charge against, or financial liability to, the Government
and consequently cannot be entertained by the courts except with the consent of said government.

2. State enters into private contract

US V. RUIZ G.R NO. L-35645

The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State
without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence
and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly
developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to
distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and
proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil
The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom
and other states in western Europe. (See Coquia and Defensor Santiago, Public International Law, pp.
207-209 [1984].)

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. Stated
differently, 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. It does not apply
where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an
integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the
Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor
dedicated to commercial or business purposes.