Republic V Sandoval (Mendiola Massacre of 1987)

There are 2 cases consolidated in this case:

GR. No. 84645 March 19, 1993 (Petitioner Caylao group seeking the reversal
and setting aside of the Orders of respondent Judge Sandoval, 1 dated May
31 and August 8, 1988)
GR. No. 84607 March 19, 1993 (Petitioner Rep. of Ph seeking to set aside the
Order of Respondent Judge dated May 31, 1988)

Doctrine:
Article XVI Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution: The State may not be
sued without its consent.
Holmes dictum: sovereign is exempt from suit, not because if any formal
conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that
there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the right depends.
When is a suit one against the State?
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case
is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the
government.
Suability depends on whether the state has consented to be sued.
Consent to be sued given by:
1. Express consent- when there is a law expressly granting authority to
sue the State or any of its agencies
2. Implied consent
i.
when the state enters into a private contract, unless the
contract is merely incidental to the performance of a
governmental function.
ii.
When the state enters into an operation that is essentially a
business operation, unless the business operation is merely
incidental to the performance of a governmental function.
Facts:

The massacre was the culmination of the encampment by members of the

militant Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP) at the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform (MAR).
In between Jan 20-21, 1987, KMP demanded for genuine agrarian reform, to
which multiple dialogues were held between KMP leader Jaime Tadeo and
Minister Heherson Alvarez, to which Alvarez just advised Tadeo to wait for the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution and just allow the government to
implement its comprehensive land reform program.
Tadeo said that he did not believed in the Constitution and that genuine land
reform cannot be realized under a landlord-controlled Congress and on Jan 22
Tadeos group decided to march to Malacanang.

The KMP were joined by Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (BAYAN), League of Filipino Students (LFS) and Kongreso ng
Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod (KPML).
Capital Reguinal Command (CAPCOM), under the information that KMP was
heavily infiltrated by CPP/NPA elements, prepared for the disturbance
deploying OPLAN YELLOW deploying policemen, Integrated National Police,
Marine Civil Disturbance Control Battalion, army trucks, water cannons, fire
trucks and Mobile Dispersal Teams.
Marchers, now number 10000-15000 proceeded toward the police lines. No
dialogue took place, and the clash occurred pandemonium broke loose
Explosion followed by throwing of pillboxes, stones and bottles, steel bars,
wooden clubs and lead pipes were used against the police. The police fought
back with their shields and truncheons, but when the police line broke, shots
were heard. The demonstrators disengaged.
12 marchers were officially confirmed dead, 39 were wounded by gunshots
and 12 sustained minor injuries for the marchers; 3 military personnel
sustained gunshot wounds and 20 suffered minor physical injuries
President Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 11, dated Jan 22, 1987
which created Citizens Mendiola Commission for the purpose of conducting
the investigation.
The commission gave its findings:
o KMP violated paragraph (a) Section 13 of Public Assembly Act of 1985
and Batas Pambansa Blg 880 for not having a permit
o Armed police and military violated Paragraph 4(g) section 13 of batas
pambansa blg. 880
o Security men, Police and marines in civilian attire of paragraph (a)
section 10 of Batas Pambansa Blg 880
o Unnecessary firing by the police and military in violation of paragraph
(3) Section 13
o Use of weapons (steel bars, pillboxes etc) by the marchers in violation
of paragraph (e) Section 14
o KMP farmers broke off further negotiations and marched to
malacanang emboldened by the inflammatory and incendiary
utterance of their leader Tadeo
o No dialogue b/w the rallyists and the government forces, marchers
pushed through police lines
o It was not clear who started the firing
o Water cannons and tear gas were not put into effective use, incorrect
positioning of the fire trucks and water cannons, tear gas was not used
at the start and no barbed wire barricade was used.
Commission recommended criminal prosecutions; ordered NBI to investigate
identities; prosecution of marchers with deadly or offensive weapns; for Tadeo
to be prosecuted for violation of paragraph (a) section 13 batas pambansa
blg. 880 and article 142 of RPC; for police and military officers to be given
administrative sanctions for failure to make effective use of their skill in
directin the dispersal operations; for the deceased and wounded victims

to be compensated by the government. (no compensation was given

later)
On Jan 20, 1988 Caylao group instituted action for damages against the
Republic of the Philippines
SolGen filled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued
without its consent; petitioner mentained that the state has waived its
immunity from suit due to the recommendations made by the commission for
the government to indemnify the heirs and victims
Respondent Judge dismissed complaint on the ground that there was no
waiver by the State.

ISSUES-HELD-RATIO
1. WON the State has waived its immunity from suit.
NO, this is not a suit against a state with its consent because:
i.
Recommendation made by the commission does not in any way mean
that liability automatically attaches to the state. A.O. 11 stated the
purpose of the commission as for investigation of the disorder, deaths
and casualties that took place. Only to provide guidelines, in effect,
whatever findings may be, will serve as the cause of action in the
event that any party decides to litigate his/her claim. The commission
being a preliminary venue.
ii.
Any acts or utterances of then President Aquino may have done or said
are not tantamount to the state having waived its immunity from suit.
iii.
Though it is the general rule that a sovereign state and its political
subdivisions cannot be sued in the courts exept when it has given
consent, it cannot be invoked by the military officers to release them
from liability. The state cannot be held civilly liable for the deaths that
followed the incident; instead the liability should fall on the named
defendants in the lower court.