ARTICLE XVI GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sections 1-2. Symbols of Nationality

1) Flag

Red, white, and blue.

With a sun and 3 stars
The design may be changed by constitutional amendment.

2) Congress may, by law, adopt a new:

(a) Name for the country,
(b) National anthem, or
(c) National seal.
Note: Law will take effect upon ratification by the people in a NATIONAL REFERENDUM.
Section 3. State Immunity
Suability of State
1) The State cannot be sued without its consent.
2) When considered a suit against the State
a). The Republic is sued by name;
b). Suits against an un-incorporated government agency;
c). Suit is against a government official, but is such that ultimate liability shall devolve on the
government
i. When a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority, he can be held
personally liable for damages.
ii. BUT: If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice, negligence, or bad faith, they
are not personally liable, and the suit is really one against the State.
3) This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor of foreign states.

4) The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with the State as one of the
defendants being compelled to interplead.
Consent to be sued
A. Express consent:
1). The law expressly grants the authority to sue the State or any of its agencies.
2). Examples:
a). A law creating a government body expressly providing that such body may sue or be sued.
b). Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which creates liability against the State when it acts through a
special agent.
B. Implied consent:
1). The State enters into a private contract.
a). The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his authority.
b). UNLESS: The contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function.
2). The State enters into an operation that is essentially a business operation.
a). UNLESS: The operation is incidental to the performance of a governmental
arrastre services)

function (e.g.

b). Thus, when the State conducts business operations through a GOCC, the latter can generally
be sued, even if its charter contains no express sue or be sued clause.
3). Suit against an incorporated government agency.
a) This is because they generally conduct propriety business operations and have charters which
grant them a separate juridical personality.
4). The State files suit against a private party.
UNLESS: The suit is entered into only to resist a claim.
Garnishment of government funds:
1) GENERAL RULE: NO. Whether the money is deposited by way of general or special deposit,
they remain government funds and are not subject to garnishment.

2) EXCEPTION: A law or ordinance has been enacted appropriating a specific amount to pay a
valid government obligation, then the money can be garnished.
Consent to be sued is not equivalent to consent to liability:
1) The Fact that the State consented to being sued does not mean that the State will ultimately
be held liable.
2) Even if the case is decided against the State, an award cannot be satisfied by writs of execution
or garnishment against public funds. Reason: No money shall be paid out of the public treasury
unless pursuant to an appropriation made by law.
Section 4. THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
Composition:
A citizen armed force
Prohibitions and disqualifications:
1) Military men cannot engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan political activity, except to
vote.
2) Members of the AFP in active service cannot be appointed to a civilian position in the
government, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
The Chief of Staff:
1) Tour of duty: Not exceed to three years
2) EXCEPTION: In times of war or other national emergency as declared by Congress, the
President may extend such tour of duty.

112. What are the underlying principles behind the constitutional proscription that the
State cannot be sued without its consent?
By reason of public policy (if every citizen is allowed to sue the government, it will be
distracted from performing its functions to serve the people and it will be left just answering
cases in court), by reason of sovereignty (the people shall not be allowed to sue the very entity
that gives it said right;) and by reason of consent (when the people ratified the Constitution
which includes the provision that the State cannot be sued without its consent, it has consented
or waived said right to sue).

113. How may the State gives its consent to be sued?

Expressly when there is a law allowing it and impliedly when it enters into a contract with an
individual because in the latter, it descended to the level of an individual making it susceptible to
counterclaims or suits.

114. May the government be sued in the exercise of its governmental functions?
Yes if the government agency has a charter which allows it to be sued. (RAYO VS. CFI OF
BULACAN, 110 SCRA 456). Also, the government is not allowed to invoke its immunity from suit if
by doing so, it will be causing an injustice to its citizens. (MINISTERIO VS. CFI of Cebu, 40 SCRA
and SANTIAGO VS. REPUBLIC, 87 SCRA 294)

115. Is the US Government also immune from suit in the Philippines in connection with the
exercise of its governmental functions?
Yes. This was the ruling in U.S. VS. RUIZ, 136 SCRA where it was held that even if there is a
contract entered into by the US Government but the same involves its jusre imperii functions
(governmental functions, it cannot be sued. It is only when the contract involves its jus
gestiones or business or proprietary functions that it may be sued.
116. Are local governments also entitled to invoke immunity from suit?
Yes.
117. May a municipality be held liable for damages as a result of the death of a
person arising from the collapse of a stage constructed by the local government in
connection with its town fiesta?

No, a town fiesta I a business or proprietary function since no law requires any town,
city, province or barangay to hold an annual fiesta. (TORIO VS. FONTANILLA, 85 SCRA 599)
118. May the government still be held liable to a private individual if the contract it
entered into is void but the other party had already complied with his obligations under said
agreement?
Yes, because the government shall not enrich itself at the expense of its
citizens.(DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH VS. C.V. CANCHELA, et al., 475 SCRA 218)

This page features the full text of

Presidential Decree No. 1807
PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
MAY WAIVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING
WITH RESPECT TO ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH FOREIGN
OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTED BY IT PURSUANT TO LAW.

. chan robles virtual law library

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1807

PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MAY WAIVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING
WITH RESPECT TO ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH FOREIGN
OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTED BY IT PURSUANT TO LAW.

. chan robles virtual law library

. chan robles virtual law library
WHEREAS, in the pursuit of economic growth and development, it has become
imperative for the Republic of the Philippines to enter into contracts or
transactions
with
enterprises; . chanrobles

international

banking,
virtual

financial

and
law

other

foreign
library

http://www.chanrobles.com/

WHEREAS, recognizing this need, existing legislation expressly authorize the

Republic of the Philippines to contract foreign obligations, including borrowings in
foreign currency, and to guarantee foreign obligations of corporations and other
entities owned or controlled by the Government of the Philippines; . chanrobles virtual law
library

WHEREAS, circumstances in the international market may require that sovereign

states entering into contracts or transactions make express waivers of sovereign
immunity in connection with such contracts or transactions; . chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREAS, it is in the national interest that a procedure be prescribed with respect
to the waiver of sovereign immunity of the Republic of the Philippines in respect of
international contracts or transactions entered into by it:

chan roblesvirtuallawlibrary

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby
order and decree:

ch anroblesvirtuall awlibrar y

Section 1. Procedure for, and Conditions of, Waiver of Sovereign Immunity. In

instances where the law expressly authorizes the Republic of the Philippines to
contract or incur a foreign obligation, it may consent to be sued in connection
therewith. The President of the Philippines or his duly designated representative
may, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, contractually agree to waive any
claim to sovereign immunity from suit or legal proceedings and from set-off,
attachment or executive with respect to its property, and to be sued in any
appropriate jurisdiction in regard to such foreign obligation.
For purposes of this decree, a foreign obligation means any direct, indirect, or
contingent obligation or liability capable of pecuniary estimation and payable in a
currency other than Philippine currency. . chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 2. Validity of existing Waivers. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to
revoke or repeal any waiver of sovereign immunity from suit or legal proceedings
or from set-off, attachment or execution granted under or pursuant to other
provisions of law.
Sec. 3. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

. chanrobles virtual law library

Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of January in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and eighty-one. .

Practical considerations dictate the establishment of an immunity from suit in favor of

the State. Otherwise, and the State is suable at the instance of every other individual,
government service may be severely obstructed and public safety endangered because of
the number of suits that the State has to defend against.[8] Several justifications have
been offered to support the adoption of the doctrine in the Philippines, but that offered
inProvidence Washington Insurance Co. v. Republic of the Philippines[9] is the most
acceptable explanation, according to Father Bernas, a recognized commentator on
Constitutional Law,[10] to wit:
[A] continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as
against the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of governmental
efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far
greater if such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial
remedy were not thus restricted. With the well-known propensity on the part of our
people to go to court, at the least provocation, the loss of time and energy required to
defend against law suits, in the absence of such a basic principle that constitutes such an
effective obstacle, could very well be imagined.
An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its
own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of
sovereignty. Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper;
otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated.[11] However, the need to
distinguish between an unincorporated government agency performing governmental
function and one performing proprietary functions has arisen. The immunity has been
upheld in favor of the former because its function is governmental or incidental to such
function;[12] it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in
pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a business.[13]

Not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from
suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for which the
entity was organized. The rule is thus stated in Corpus Juris:
Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act
in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations
created by the state for public purposes, but to engage in matters partaking more of the
nature of ordinary business rather than functions of a governmental or political
character, are not regarded as suits against the state. The latter is true, although the
state may own stock or property of such a corporation for by engaging in business
operations through a corporation, the state divests itself so far of its sovereign character,
and by implication consents to suits against the corporation. (59 C.J., 313) [National
Airports Corporation v. Teodoro, supra, pp. 206-207; Italics supplied.]