Arigo vs. Swift

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, et al. v. SCOTT H. SWIFT, et al.
G.R. No. 206510, 16 SEPTEMBER 2014 EN BANC (Villarama, Jr., J.)

In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of
compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. It is settled that the
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive
and legislativethe political--departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be
done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.
The USS Guardian, the United States avenger class mine counter-measures
ship, from its routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty in Subic
Bay damaged the Tubbataha reef on its way to Sulu Sea. The Fleet Commander,
Vice Admiral Scott Swift and US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas,
Jr expressed their regret over the incident andassured Foreign Affairs Secretary
Albert F. del Rosario that the United States will provide appropriate compensation
for damage to the reef caused by the ship. Petitioners claim that the grounding,
salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian caused and continue
to cause environmental damage that affected the provinces of Palawan, Antique,
Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del
Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which violate their constitutional rights to a
balanced and healthful ecology. They also seek a directive from this Court for the
institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation
of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding incident.
Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents
under R.A. No. 10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of
conservation fees (Section 21); obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section 30);
damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and disturbing resources (Section
26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
1. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over US respondents who did
not submit any pleading or manifestation?
2. Will the unauthorized entry of the Foreign Warship of the US with resulting
damage to marine resources bear an international responsibility under the
UNCLOS when the said flag state is not a signatory to the same
convention?
3. Does the grounding of the USS Guardian, which adversely affected the
Tubbataha reef, make the crew liable to the Philippines as provided by the
VFA?
4. May the Writ of Kalikasan be validly implemented as a proper remedy for the
situation at hand?
UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015
RULING:
1. No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over US respondents who

did not submit any pleading or manifestation.
The matter deals with a sovereign nation and in the maxim par in parem, non
habet imperium where all sovereign states are equals and thus cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another in which assertion of jurisdiction may vex the peace
among nations, the matter is one that should be dealt with the executive department
due to its nature of dealing with another sovereign nation thus may not be dealt with
judicially and the judiciary may not have jurisdiction concerning the US respondents
who did not submit any pleading or manifestation
2. Yes, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US

will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a coastal state over its
internal waters and territorial sea
The Court thus expects the US to bear international responsibility under Art.
31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected the
Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and trading
partner, which has been actively supporting the countrys efforts to preserve our
vital marine resources, would shirk from its obligation to compensate the damage
caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. Much less can the Court
comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling
to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task
to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197, viz:
Article 197 - Cooperation on a global or regional basis
States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate,
on a regional basis, directly or through competent
international organizations, in formulating and elaborating
international rules, standards and recommended practices
and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the
protection and preservation of the marine environment,
taking into account characteristic regional features.
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is

beyond dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from
the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latters territorial sea, the flag
States shall be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws
and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by
their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial
purposes under Article 31.
3. No, for in the VFA the US only waives its immunity concerning
criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions as is
implemented in this case
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops
and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote common security interests
between the US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to
govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United
States and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common
law is thus improper considering that it is the VFA which governs disputes
involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of
the objectives of the agreement.As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the
VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the
present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.
4. No, for the concept of state immunity from suit does not allow
another state to sue another state without its consent. Also the VFA
only provides that the US will only waive its immunity concerning
criminal jurisdiction and the writ of Kalikasan which was
implemented in this situation is a special civil suit, which the US is
immune from.
The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance
of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the
Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately:
Sec. 17. Institution of separate actions.The
filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ
of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of
separate civil, criminal or administrative
actions.
In any case, it is our considered view thata ruling on the application or nonapplication of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may
be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it
unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted
from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
damages, including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a
separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the
same violation of an environmental law.

Arigo vs. Swift

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arigo vs. Swift

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arigo vs. Swift

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, et al. v. SCOTT H. SWIFT, et al.

G.R. No. 206510, 16 SEPTEMBER 2014 EN BANC (Villarama, Jr., J.)

1. No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over US respondents who

2. Yes, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US

In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is

UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015

You might also like