FACTS:

The case involves the massacre of rallyists at the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) building in Quezon City. The farmers and their sympathizers were demanding genuine agrarian reform and marched to Malacañang to air their demands. The clash between the rallyists and the police resulted in the Mendiola massacre. Intelligence reports indicated an impending insurrection and the government deployed anti-riot forces, which led to a clash with the marchers. Twelve marchers were confirmed dead, while others sustained injuries.

Another case involves petitioner Alfredo Abella who was arrested for pointing a firearm at Romeo Dano during a commotion in Bacolod City. Petitioner claimed self-defense, arguing that he accidentally shot Dano while trying to defend himself. The trial court found petitioner guilty of illegal possession of firearms and attempted homicide. His appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction as no convincing evidence of self-defense was presented.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the rallyists violated the Public Assembly Act by not having the necessary permit.

2. Whether the police and military personnel committed prohibited acts by being armed and in civilian attire.

3. Whether the police and military committed prohibited acts in firing at the marchers.

4. Whether the marchers carried offensive weapons.

5. Whether there was a failure to use water cannons, tear gas, and barbed wire barricades during the dispersion operations.

6. Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit.

7. Whether the State has consented to the suit.

8. Whether the case qualifies as a suit against the State.

RULING:

1. The rallyists violated the Public Assembly Act by not having a permit.

2. The police and military personnel committed prohibited acts by being armed and in civilian attire.

3. It is unclear who started the firing, but there was unnecessary firing by both the police and military.

4. The marchers carried offensive weapons.

5. There was a failure to effectively use water cannons, tear gas, and barbed wire barricades during the dispersion operations.

6. The Court held that the State has not waived its immunity from suit. The principle of immunity of the government from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI, Section 3 of the Constitution. The Court explained that the principle is based on the essence of sovereignty and the practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law. It also rests on reasons of public policy and the proper administration of the government.

7. The Court further stated that the recommendation made by the Commission for the government to indemnify the heirs and victims of the incident does not automatically make the State liable. The Commission's recommendations are merely preliminary and do not bind the State immediately. They only serve as the cause of action if any party decides to litigate their claim. The Court also emphasized that the acts and utterances of then President Aquino do not signify the State's waiver of immunity. President Aquino's actions were regarded as an act of solidarity with the people and not an admission of liability.

8. The State has not consented to the suit. While consent to be sued may be given impliedly, it cannot be maintained that such consent was given considering the circumstances of the case. The State's promise to address the grievances of the rallyists does not infer liability or consent to be sued.

9. The case does not qualify as a suit against the State. Although the Republic is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government. The military officers and personnel exceeded their authority when they exceeded their official functions. As a result, the State cannot be held civilly liable for the deaths that followed the incident.

PRINCIPLES:

• Violation of the Public Assembly Act by not having a permit.

• Prohibition on police and military personnel being armed and in civilian attire during crowd dispersal.

• Prohibition on unnecessary firing during crowd dispersal.

• Prohibition on carrying offensive weapons during rallies.

• Duty to effectively use non-lethal crowd dispersal tools such as water cannons, tear gas, and barbed wire barricades.

• Sovereign immunity of the government from suit

• Principle based on the essence of sovereignty and the practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law

• Principle based on reasons of public policy and the proper administration of the government

• Commission's recommendations are preliminary and do not bind the State immediately

• Acts and utterances of the President do not signify the State's waiver of immunity

• Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic.

• An officer cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office when his acts are wholly without authority.

• The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply when the relief demanded requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor the discharge of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political capacity.

• Public officials can be held liable for damages if they are found to have acted beyond the scope of their authority.