Cases in State Immunity as Stated in the Book

1.

Syquia V. Almeda; The doctrine is also available to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local State. The added basis in this
case is the principle of the sovereign equality of the States, under which state cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so would unduly vex the peace of nations

2.

Garcia V. Chief of Staff;

That the claim for damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while undergoing military training as required by law was actually a

suit against the state since it would need appropriation of the public funds to satisfy the judgment if the claim is allowed. Although filed against the chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in his official capacity, it was dismissed because the State had not waived its immunity. 3.

Holy See v. Rosario; The Supreme Court

dismissed a civil complaint against the petitioner after the DFA had officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See

is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this country. It is further affirmed that the determination of the executive arm of the government that the state or instrumentality is entitled sovereingnty or diplomatic immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts. Where a plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country s foreign relations. 4.

Amigable V. Cuenca;

Where the question raised was the right of the plaintiff to sue the government for the recovery of the value of the property which had

been converted into public streets without payment of just compensation. Although it was shown that she had not previously filed her claim at the Auditor General as normally required, the Supreme Court decided in her favor. It is not too much to say that when the government takes any property for public use, which is conditioned upon the payment of just compensation, to be judicially ascertained , it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of the court. There is no thought then that the doctrine of immunity from suit could still be appropriately invoked. 5.

Santiago V. Republic;

the plaintiff sued the government for revocation of a donation on the ground of failure of the defendant to comply with the stipulated

conditions. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of its consent to be sued. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the suit could prosper because it did not involve money claim against the State. As what the plaintiff was seeking was the return only of the properties donated , he did not even need to file his claim first with the Commission on Audit. 6. 7.

Froilan V. Pan Oriental Shipping; Repubic V. Villasor; is that such

Where it was held that the government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for

the purpose of asserting a claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff, to wit the recovery of a vessel. execution will require another waiver, lacking which the execution will require another against the state. The judge in this case had issued a writ of execution against funds for the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy the judgment rendered against the Philippine government. The Supreme Court declared the writ unlawful and made the following remarks: This is the fundamental postulate underlying the 1935 Constitution is now made explicit in the revised charter. It is therein expressly provided: The State may not be sued without the consent. Corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense form such a basic concept, is that public funds cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the state cannot be allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the diversions of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law. 8.

Philippine National Bank V. Pabalan;

where a writ of execution was issued against the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, pursuant to which its

funds on deposit with the petitioner were garnished. On the contention that such funds were public in character and therefore could not be garnished Petioner Philippine National Bank would invoke the doctrine of non-suability. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a mental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms. If the funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices of the government, then certainly, such provision for garnishment would be a bar to garnishment. Such is not the case here. Garnishment would lie. 9. 10.

Republic V. Garcia; it was held that the government could not be assessed one-half of the fees paid to the commissioner who determined
for the property of expropriation.

the just compensation

Torio V. Fontanilla;
a proprietary function.

The Supreme Court held a municipality liable for a tort committed in connection with the celebration of a town fiesta, which was considered

Cases under the Fundamental Principles and State Policies

1.

Villavicencio V. Lukban; Where it was conceded that the Mayor of Manila had been motivated by his desire to promote morals and health of the people when
he deported one hundred seventy prostitutes from Manila to Davao. The Supreme Court had nevertheless no choice except to condemn his act, there being no showing that it had been authorized by any law or even an ordinance.

2.

People V. Lagman;

the accused were charged with and c convicted of refusal to register for military training as required by the above-mentioned statute,

Section 4, Lagman alleged that he had a father to support, had no military leanings and did not wish to kill or to be killed; the Supreme Court affirmed their conviction, holding that the law in questioned was based on the afore-cited constitutional principle. The National Defense Law, in so far as it established compulsory military service; does not go against this constitutional provision but it, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.

1 Cristine L. Tendenilla Political Law: State Immunity to Separation of Power Selected Cases

3.

Kuroda V. Jalandoni;

Where the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the military commission trying him, contending that the Philippines was not covered

by the Hague Convention under which he was being prosecuted since the Philippines was not a signatory to this Agreement. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that we were bound by that convention because it embodied generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all States. 4.

Co Kim Chan V. Valdez Tan Keh;

It was argued that the MacArthur Proclamation of October 23,1944, invalidating all laws, regulations and processes of the

Occupational Government, applied also to judicial decisions. The Supreme Court did not agree and declared as follows: Taking into consideration the fact that, according to a well-known principle of international law, all judgments and judicial proceedings which are not of political complexion of the de facto government during the Japanese military occupation remained so after the occupied territory had come again into the power of the titular sovereign, it should be presumed that it was not and could not have been the intention of Gen MacArthur, in said proclamation, to refer to the judicial processes, in violation of said international law. 5.

Ichong V. Hernandez;

Where the petitioner asked for the invalidation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Act for the ground, among others, that it

contravened several treaties concluded by us which under the rule of pacta sunt servanda, a generally accepted principle of international law, should be observed by us in good faith. The Supreme Court said it was the statute that should be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of treaty. 6.

Department of Education V. San Diego;

The issue was the validity of a rule laid down by the petitioner prohibiting any student from taking the National

Medical Admission Test, if he had earlier failed it three successive times. The court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guaranty of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. The private responded has failed the NMAT five times. While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love. No depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent. It is stressed that a person who does not Qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent unfit for any work or occupation, the only interference is that he is probably better not for the medical profession but for another calling that he has not excited his interest. 7.

Calalang V. Williams;

Social Justice is neither communism nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy but the humanization of law and the equalization of social

and economic forces of the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, te adoption of the government of measures calculated to secure economic stability.

Cases under the Separation of Powers

1.

Pangasinan Transportation Co. V. PSC;

According to Justice Laurel, the doctrine is intended to secure action to forestall over action, to prevent despotism

and to obtain efficacy. The keynote of conduct of various agencies of the government under the doctrine of Separation of Powers , as properly understood , is not independence but interdependence. 2.

Angara V. Electoral Commission;

certain rules of procedure promulgated by the respondent were challenged on the ground that they had not been

expressly authorized by the 1935 Constitution. The Supreme Court nevertheless upheld them, declaring that they were necessary to the proper exercise of the express power granted to the body to hear and decide election contest involving members of the legislature. 3.

Casibang V. Aquino;

A purely justiciable question implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a

remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.

4.

Sanidad V. Commission on Elections;

It was held Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Where the

vortex of the controversy refers to the legality of validity of the contested act. That matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. What is in the heels of the court is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his Constitutional authority to perform such act. 5.

Tanada V. Angara;

We should stress that in deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition, this court will not review the wisdom of the President and the

Senate in enlisting country in the wto, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by the said international body. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the government economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative restrictions and other import/trade barriers. Rather, it will only exercise it s constitutional duty to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in ratifying the Wto Agreement. 6. 7.

Aytona V. Castillo; Vera V. Avelino;

Where the conflict between the outgoing and incoming Presidents of the Philippines involved the exercise of the appointing power, the

Supreme Court refused to assume jurisdiction again upon the ground of Separation of Powers. three senators-elect who had been prevented from taking their oaths of office by resolution of the Senate went to the Supreme Court and alleged that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over contest relating to their election, returns and qualifications. Again, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, holding that the case was not a contest and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its membership. 8.

Arnoult V. Balagtas;

The question raised by the petitioner was the legality of his detention by order of the Senate for his refusal to answer questions put to him

by one of its investigating committees. The Supreme Court refused to order his release and deferred to the discretionary authority of the legislative body to punish contumacious witnesses for contempt. 9. Philippine Bar

Association V. Commission on Elections;

The calling of the snap presidential elections in February 7. 1986 by the Batasang Pambansa

was held by the Supreme Court to be a political question resoluble only by the sovereign electorate.

2 Cristine L. Tendenilla Political Law: State Immunity to Separation of Power Selected Cases

10.

De Castro V. Committee on Justice;

The Supreme Court was asked to reverse a decision of the respondent dismissing impeachment charges against

president Marcos after deliberating thereon for only 6 hours and to compel the said committee to give due course to such charges. The petition for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed, on the ground intra alia that the issues raised were political in nature and could be resolved only by the legislators themselves in the exercise of their discretion. The court ruled that the dismissal of the charges was within the ambit of the posers vested exclusively in the Batasan by express provision of Sec 2 of the Constitution. 11.

Avelino V. Cuenco; Where the incumbent Senate President was deposed

and replaced; whereupon he questioned his successor s title, arguing that the latter

had been elected without quorum. The petition was at first dismissed of the ground that the selection of the presiding officer of the Senate was an internal matter that could not be reviews by the Judiciary. On the motion of reconsideration, however, the Supreme Court decided that it could assume jurisdiction in the light of subsequent events which justified its intervention and among other reasons, because there was a quorum. 12. 13.

Montenegro V. Castaneda; Lansang V. Garcia;

It was held that this power was discretionary and therefore not justiciable, on the justification of the superior competence of the

commander-in-chief to assess the [peace and order condition of the country. Where the Supreme Court asserted the right to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension and to annul the same if it appeared form its own investigations that the grounds invoked by the President were not actually existing.

3 Cristine L. Tendenilla Political Law: State Immunity to Separation of Power Selected Cases