TITLE

TOPIC
G.R. No. Ponente Date
-- 206510 -- VILLARAMA, JR, J -- September 16, 2014
Petitioners Respondents
-- Arigo, et al. -- Swift, et al.

DOCTRINE: -- If the judgement against such officials will require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself
although it has not been formally impleaded.

I. Facts of the case

● -- In January 2013, the USS Guardian ran aground the South Shoal of the Tubbataha
Reef in Palawan. Thereafter, the US Navy-led salvage team proceeded in salvaging
the ship around the reef. In April 2013, the Petitioners filed a petition for the issuance
of a Writ of Kalikasan before the Supreme Court. They impleaded Respondent Scott
Swift, who was the 7th US Fleet Commander, and some others in the Petition.

Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging, and post-salvaging operations of the
USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage in different
provinces surrounded by the Sulu Sea, which events violate their constitutional rights
to a balanced and healthful ecology. They also sought a directive for the institution of
civil, criminal and administrative suits for acts committed in violation of environmental
laws in connection with the grounding incident. Ultimately, they wanted particular
provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) be declared unconstitutional.

On the other hand, the Respondents asserted that the issuance of a Writ of Kalikisan
has become fait accompli because the salvaging operations on the USS Guardian has
been completed. Further, the petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA.

II. Issue/s

-- Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the US Respondents?

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

● -- NO. The Supreme Court held that while the doctrine of state immunity prohibits 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 judgement against such officials will require the state itself to
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.

In the present 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. The grounding incident took place while they were performing official military
duties. Considering the satisfaction of a judgement against said officials will require
remedial actions and appropriations of funds by the US Government, the suit is deemed
to be one against the US itself. Therefore, the principle of state immunity bars the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the US Respondents.

IV. Disposition

WHEREFORE, -- the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is
hereby DENIED.