Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Republic V Vinzon

    Uploaded by

    Larissa
    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at the Indonesian Embassy. When the agreement was terminated in 2000, Vinzon filed a complaint claiming it was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia claimed sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indonesia, finding that maintaining embassy equipment was a sovereign act. The provision allowing suits in Philippine courts did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. The diplomats were also immune as terminating the agreement was not a criminal act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic V Vinzon

    Uploaded by

    Larissa
    40 views2 pages
    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at the Indonesian Embassy. When the agreement was terminated in 2000, Vinzon filed a complaint claiming it was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia claimed sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indonesia, finding that maintaining embassy equipment was a sovereign act. The provision allowing suits in Philippine courts did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. The diplomats were also immune as terminating the agreement was not a criminal act.

    Original Title

    Republic v Vinzon.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at the Indonesian Embassy. When the agreement was terminated in 2000, Vinzon filed a complaint claiming it was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia claimed sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indonesia, finding that maintaining embassy equipment was a sovereign act. The provision allowing suits in Philippine courts did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. The diplomats were also immune as terminating the agreement was not a criminal act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views2 pages

    Republic V Vinzon

    Uploaded by

    Larissa
    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at the Indonesian Embassy. When the agreement was terminated in 2000, Vinzon filed a complaint claiming it was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia claimed sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indonesia, finding that maintaining embassy equipment was a sovereign act. The provision allowing suits in Philippine courts did not clearly waive sovereign immunity. The diplomats were also immune as terminating the agreement was not a criminal act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Republic of Indonesia v Vinzon

    Topic: Immunity from Jurisdiction

    FACTS: In August 1995, petitioner Republic of Indonesia entered into a Maintenance Agreement for
    its specified buildings in the embassy with respondent James Vinzon as sole proprietor of Vinzon
    Trade and Services. The Maintenance Agreement stated that respondent shall, for a consideration,
    maintain specified equipment at the Embassy Main Building, Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma
    Duta, the official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. The equipment covered by the
    Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters,
    and water motor pumps.

    The said Agreement was effective for 4 years and will renew itself automatically unless cancelled by
    either party by giving due notice. Before August 1999, respondent was informed that the renewal of
    the agreement shall be at the discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration, petitioner Minister
    Counsellor Azhari Kasim. On August 31, 2000, the Indonesian Embassy terminated the said
    agreement.

    Respondent: claimed that the said termination was arbitrary and unlawful. Thus, he filed a complaint
    against petitioners in the RTC. He based his claim upon the provision in the agreement stating that
    "Any legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of
    the Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City, Philippines." He also alleged that Ambassador
    Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim can be sued and held liable in their private capacities for
    tortious acts done with malice and bad faith.
    Petitioners: filed a motion to dismiss by alleging that the Republic of Indonesia has sovereign
    immunity from suit and that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim enjoy diplomatic
    immunity.

    RTC: denied petitioners' motion to dismiss.

    CA: affirmed RTC

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic of Indonesia may be sued?

    HELD: NO. The mere entering into a contract by a foreign State with a private party cannot be
    construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis. Such act is
    only the start of the inquiry. f the foreign State is not engaged regularly in a business or commercial
    activity, and in this case it has not been shown to be so engaged, the particular act or transaction
    must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof,
    then it is an act jure imperii. Under the restrictive theory, holds that the immunity of the sovereign is
    recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii, but not with regard to private acts or
    acts jure gestionis.

    A sovereign State does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at that; the
    establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and upkeep. Hence, the State
    may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises, furnishings and equipment of
    the embassy and the living quarters of its agents and officials. It is therefore clear that petitioner
    Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into the Agreement.
    (Parang necessary implication ba, syempre may namumuhay sa embassy kaya dapat imaintain yon)

    The provision used by the petitioner as basis may also be meant to apply where the sovereign party
    elects to sue in the local courts, or otherwise waives its immunity by any subsequent act. Submission
    by a foreign state to local jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal. It must be given explicitly or by
    necessary implication. The Court found no such waiver in this case. (Yung provision daw para lang
    kung iwwaive ng Indonesia yung immunity, eh di naman winaive)

    As regards the diplomats: The act of petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor
    Kasim in terminating the Maintenance Agreement is not covered by the exceptions to the immunity
    from criminal jurisdiction.

    You might also like