Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    06 Arigo V Swift

    Uploaded by

    Pooja Murjani
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction over the US respondents, as satisfying any judgment would require actions by the US government; (2) the waiver of immunity under the VFA does not apply to special civil actions like a writ of Kalikasan; and (3) while petitioners were entitled to directives to rehabilitate damaged areas, the Court deferred to the executive branch to handle compensation and rehabilitation measures with the US through diplomatic channels, as such issues impinge on foreign relations.

    Copyright:

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

    06 Arigo V Swift

    Uploaded by

    Pooja Murjani
    47 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction over the US respondents, as satisfying any judgment would require actions by the US government; (2) the waiver of immunity under the VFA does not apply to special civil actions like a writ of Kalikasan; and (3) while petitioners were entitled to directives to rehabilitate damaged areas, the Court deferred to the executive branch to handle compensation and rehabilitation measures with the US through diplomatic channels, as such issues impinge on foreign relations.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    06 Arigo v Swift

    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 Supreme Court ruled that (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction over the US respondents, as satisfying any judgment would require actions by the US government; (2) the waiver of immunity under the VFA does not apply to special civil actions like a writ of Kalikasan; and (3) while petitioners were entitled to directives to rehabilitate damaged areas, the Court deferred to the executive branch to handle compensation and rehabilitation measures with the US through diplomatic channels, as such issues impinge on foreign relations.

    Copyright:

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

    06 Arigo V Swift

    Uploaded by

    Pooja Murjani
    The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction over the US respondents, as satisfying any judgment would require actions by the US government; (2) the waiver of immunity under the VFA does not apply to special civil actions like a writ of Kalikasan; and (3) while petitioners were entitled to directives to rehabilitate damaged areas, the Court deferred to the executive branch to handle compensation and rehabilitation measures with the US through diplomatic channels, as such issues impinge on foreign relations.

    Copyright:

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

    Arigo v Swift | G.R. No. 206510 | Sept.

    16, 2014 | Kyra Sy-Santos raises issues involving the VFA between the PH and the US; and (4) the
    determination of the extent of responsibility of the US Government rests
    exclusively with the executive branch.
    Doctrine: Exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed
    by the Rules. The Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation
    and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues Issue:
    impinges on our relations with another State in the context of common security
    interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our 1. W/N the Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents - No
    government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative-"the 2. W/N the waiver of State immunity under the VFA applies to special civil actions
    political" --departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in such as the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan - No
    the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."
    3. W/N the issuance of a TEPO and/or a writ of Kalikasan is warranted - No

    Facts:
    Ruling:
    1. Congress passed RA 10067 aka “Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park Act of 2009”
    (TRNP) to ensure the protection and conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs for the 1. The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign
    enjoyment of present and future generations. immunity or non-suability of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI of
    the 1987 Constitution. While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against
    2. The USS Guardian is a US Navy ship that was granted a diplomatic clearance "to the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against
    enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their
    Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew duties.
    liberty."
    2. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself
    3. On Jan 2013, while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship run aground on the northwest to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same,. such as the appropriation of the
    side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reef. amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be
    4. The Fleet Commander and the US Ambassador expressed their regret over the regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.
    incident and assured the DFA Secretary that the US will appropriate 3. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS
    compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship. Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they we:re performing official
    5. By Mar 2013, the salvage team of the US-Navy finished removing the last piece military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said
    of the grounded ship from the coral reef. officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US
    government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The principle of
    6. Petitioners alleged that the acts of respondents violated RA 10067. They then State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
    filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order persons of respondents.
    (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan against the repsondents to compel them to
    cease and desist all operations over the Guardian grounding incident. 4. 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 the
    7. Furthermore, they assailed the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.
    Agreement (VFA) of the PH with the US.
    5. The Court did not resolve as to whether or not the State immunity is absolute as
    8. Respondents assert that: (1) the ground relied for a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan damages cannot be granted resulting from the violation of environmental laws.
    are moot as the salvage operations on the USS Guardian were already completed; The Rules allow the recovery of damages, including the collection of
    (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition improperly 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.

    6. Sec 5, Rule 7 on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides for the
    reliefs which may be granted in a petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.

    7. This petition has become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to
    be enjoined or restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought
    recourse from this Court. But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents
    to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef and marine habitat adversely affected by
    the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
    notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the
    coral reef. A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost
    of the violator is also a major relief that may be obtained under a judgment
    rendered in a citizens' suit under the Rules.

    8. However, in the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch
    on the matter of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic
    channels. Resolution of these issues hinges on our relations with another State in
    the context of common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that "the
    conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the
    Constitution to the executive and legislative-"the 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."

    9. Hence, the Court denies the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan.

    You might also like