Facts: In January 1987, farmers and their sympathizers presented their demands for a genuine agrarian

reform. The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) presented the following problems and demands
(giving lands for free to farmers, zero retention of lands by landlords, stop amortizations of land
payments)
There was a dialogue between the farmers and then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) on January 15,
1987.
On January 20, 1987, Tadeo met with MAR Minister Heherson Alvarez
Alvarez was only able to promise to do his best to bring the matter to the attention of then President Cory
Aquino during the January 21 Cabinet meeting.
Tension mounted the next day,

The farmers, on their 7th day of encampment, barricaded the MAR premises and prevented the
employees from going inside their offices
On January 22, 1987, following a heated discussion between Alvarez and Tadeo, Tadeo's group
decided to march to Malacanang to air their demands
On their march to Malacanang, they were joined by Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), League of Filipino Students (LFS), and Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng
Maralitang Lungsod (KPML)
Government intelligent reports were also received that the KMP was heavily infliltrated by
CPP/NPA elements, and that an insurrection was impending
Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola
The marchers numbered about 10,000 to 15,000 at around 4:30 pm
From CM Recto, they proceeded toward the police lines. No dialogue took place; "pandemonium
broke loose"
After the clash, 12 marchers were officially confirmed dead (13 according to Tadeo)
39 were wounded by gunshots and 12 sustained minor injuries, all belonging to the group of
marchers
Of the police and military, 3 sustained gunshot wounds and 20 suffered minor physical injuries
The "Citizens' Mendiola Commission" submitted its report on the incident on February 27, 1987
as follows
The march did not have any permit
The police and military were armed with handguns prohibited by law
The security men assigned to protect the government units were in civilian attire
(prohibited by law)
There was unnecessary firing by the police and military
The weapons carried by the marchers are prohibited by law
It is not clear who started the firing
The water cannons and tear gas were not put into effective use to disperse the crowd; the
water cannons and fire trucks were not put into operation because:
there was no order to use them
they were incorrectly prepositioned

they were out of range of the marchers

The Commission recommended the criminal prosecution of four unidentified, uniformed
individuals shown either on tape or in pictures, firing at the direction of the marchers
The Commission also recommended that all the commissioned officers of both the Western Police
District (WPD) and Integrated National Police (INP) who were armed be prosecuted for violation of par.
4(g) of the Public Assembly Act of 1985
Prosecution of the marchers was also recommended
It was also recommended that Tadeo be prosecuted both for holding the rally without permit and
for inciting sedition
Administrative sanctions were recommended for the following officers for their failure to make
effective use of their skill and experience in directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola:
Gen. Ramon E. Montao
Police Gen. Alfredo S. Lim
Police Gen. Edgar Dula Torres
Police Maj. Demetrio dela Cruz
Col. Cezar Nazareno
Maj. Filemon Gasmin
Last and most important recommendation: for the deceased and wounded victims to be
compensated by the government
It was this portion that petitioners (Caylao group) invoke in their claim for damages from
the government
No concrete form of compensation was received by the victims
On January, 1988, petitioners instituted an action for damages against the Republic of the
Philippines, together with the military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola incident
Solicitor general filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued
without its consent
Petitioners said that the State has waived its immunity from suit
Judge Sandoval dismissed the case on the ground that there was no such waiver
Motion for Reconsideration was also denied
Issue:
1.

Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit (i.e. Whether or not this is a suit

against the State with its consent)

Petitioners argue that by the recommendation made by the Commission for the
government to indemnify the heirs and victims, and by public addresses made by President
Aquino, the State has consented to be sued
2.
Whether or not the case qualifies as a suit against the State
Decision:
No & No.
1.

Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State may not be sued without its consent

2.

The recommendations by the Commission does not in any way mean that liability
automatically attaches to the State
The Commission was simply a fact-finding body; its findings shall serve only as cause of
action for litigation; it does not bind the State immediately
President Aquino's speeches are likewise not binding on the State; they are not
tantamount to a waiver by the State
Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:

When the Republic is sued by name;

When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency

When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that the

ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government

Although the military officers and personnel were discharging their official
functions during the incident, their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded
their authority

There was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms.

Their main purpose in the rally was to ensure peace and order, but they fired at the crowd
instead
No reversible error by the respondent Judge found. Petitions dismissed.