G.R. No.

84607 March 19, 1993

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al, petitioners,

vs.
HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, et al, respondents.

FACTS:

This case is connected to the Mendiola Massacre wherein the Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas
(KMP) demanded for “genuine agrarian reform.” The group was led by its president, Jaime Tadeo.
Tadeo’s group marched to Malacanang to clamor their demands together with 10,000 to 15,000
marchers in number. Intelligence reports were received that the KMP was heavily infiltrated by CPP/
NPA elements and that insurrection was pending. To prepare for the disturbance, the anti-riot forces
were assembled at Mendiola. A riot happened and resulted to 12 confirmed deaths, 39 wounded by
gunshots, and 12 sustained minor injuries, all belonging to the marchers.

President Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 11 which created Citizens’ Mendiola Commission
for the purpose of conducting the investigation. The Commission recommended that Tadeo be
prosecuted for holding the rally without a permit. The Commission also recommended that the
following officers be prosecuted for their failure to make effective use of their skill and experience in
directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola.

On Jan 20, 1988 Caylao group instituted action for damages against the Republic of the Philippines
in which Respondent Judge Sandoval dismissed the complaint because it was against the Republic
of the Philippines, and the latter has not given its consent to be sued. He also denied the motion for
reconsideration of the Caylao group, which was composed of the heirs of the victims.

The Caylao group contended that the State has given its consent to be sued when President Aquino
created the fact-finding commission and when she gave a speech, saying that the government will
address the grievances of the rallyists.

ISSUE:

WON the State has waived its immunity from suit.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that this is not a suit against a state with its consent. First, the
recommendation made by the Commission regarding the indemnification of the heirs of the
deceased and victims did not automatically mean that the liability attaches to the State. The
Commission was merely a fact-finding commission. Second, any acts or utterances which President
Aquino may have done or said are not tantamount to the state having waived its immunity from suit.
Finally, even if the Republic is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the
government. Instead, it pertains to the military and police officials.
Although consent to be sued may be given impliedly, still it cannot be maintained that such consent
was given considering the circumstances obtaining in the instant case.