PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MARINDUQUE VS PLACER DOME, INC.

; BARRICK GOLD
CORP (United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit)
McKeown, Circuit Judge
FACTS
In 2005, the Provincial Government of Marinduque sued Placer Dome Corporation in Nevada state
court for alleged human health, ecological, and economic damages caused by the companys mining
operations on Marinduque. According to the complaint, Placer Dome violated Philippine law when
they:
- Severely polluted the lands and waters of Marinduque for 30 years
- Caused 2 cataclysmic environmental disasters,
- Poisoned the islanders by contaminating their food and water sources
- Left the province without cleaning up the mess
- Received assistance from former Pres Marcos, who eased environmental protection policies in
exchange for a personal stake in the mining operations.
After Marinduque filed the suit, Placer Dome moved the case from state court to federal district
court, saying Marinduques claims implicated the federal common law for foreign relations (federalquestion jurisdiction). According to Placer Dome, the case presented questions of international law
and foreign relations. Placer dome also moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and
forum non conveniens (inconvenient forum/ change of venue where another venue is more
appropriate to adjudicate the matter)
DOCTRINE:
- Act of state doctrine, common law principle
o The acts of foreign sovereigns taken within their own jurisdiction shall be deemed
valid.
o Prevents courts from evaluating the validity of actions that a foreign government has
taken within its own borders
- Federal-question jurisdiction: Federal courts may exercise federal-question jurisdiction in 2
situations:
o If a federal right or immunity is an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiffs
cause of action
o The federal issue must be substantial, indicating serious federal interest
ISSUE:
1. W/N the district court (of Nevada) had jurisdiction over the suit, based on the act of state
doctrine (if the removal from state to federal court was proper) NO
2. W/N Marinduques allegations invoked federal questions NO
RATIO/HELD:
The act of state doctrine prevents courts from evaluating the validity of actions that a foreign
government has taken within its own borders. The Provinces complaint does not present a
federal question based upon the act of state doctrine because:
1. The complaint does not require the court to pass on the validity of the Philippines
governmental actions
2. The complaint does not raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial
District court identified 5 allegations that invoked the act of state doctrine NOT ENOUGH
1. President Marcos overturned a presidential proclamation to allow mining in a forest reserve
2. Marcos, and subsequent to his removal, a presidential commission, owned 49 percent of the
shares in Marcopper, a subsidiary of Placer Dome

3. Marcos ordered a government commission to issue a permit allowing Marcopper to dump toxic
tailings into Calancan Bay
4. Marcos ordered the same pollution commission to remove restraints it had placed on
Marcoppers dumping of waste into the bay
5. President Aquino ordered a pollution control board not to enforce a cease and desist order
against Marcopper.
BUT consideration of how Marcoss corrupt actions facilitated environmental irresponsibility in pursuit
of profit is not an inquiry likely to impact current foreign relations.
- The complaint is sprinkled with references to the Philippine government, Philippine law, and
the governments complicity in the claimed damage to the Marinduquenos. But the exercise of
federal-question removal jurisdiction requires moreit requires the assertion of a federal
question on the face of the Provinces properly pleaded complaint or a disputed,
substantial federal issue that does not disturb any congressionally-approved balances of state
or federal judicial responsibilities.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. Court reverses, vacates the forum non conveniens dismissal, and
remands with instructions to remand to the state court.