View full case

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT

FACTS:

The case involves a petition seeking the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan and Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The petitioners claim that violations of environmental laws and regulations occurred when the USS Guardian, a US Navy ship, ran aground on the Tubbataha Reefs. The Tubbataha Reefs is a National Marine Park and World Heritage Site. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067, also known as the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009, was passed to protect and conserve the area. The petitioners allege that the US respondents committed several violations under the TRNP Act, including unauthorized entry and damages to the reef. They also challenge certain provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and seek their nullification for being unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a petition seeking various reliefs, including a TEPO and/or a Writ of Kalikasan, demarcation of the damaged area, cessation of operations, and payment of damages. The Philippine respondents filed their comment, while the US respondents did not. The respondents argue that the salvage operations have been completed, rendering the request for a TEPO or a writ of Kalikasan moot. They also claim that the petition is defective in form and substance and improperly raises issues regarding the VFA, asserting that the responsibility for the damage rests with the executive branch.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the US respondents in the case of environmental damage caused by the grounding of the USS Guardian.

RULING:

  1. Jurisdiction over US Respondents The Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the US respondents due to the principle of state immunity. This principle exempts a state from being sued in the courts of another state without its consent. Since the US has not waived its immunity, as indicated by the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the defendants' roles as US military officers performing official duties, the suit is effectively against the United States itself. Thus, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. State Immunity A state cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state without its express consent.

  2. Sovereign Equality All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another, under the maxim par in parem non habet imperium.

  3. Doctrine of Restrictive State Immunity State immunity extends only to sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and not to private, commercial, or proprietary acts (jure gestionis).

  4. Locus Standi The liberalization of standing in environmental suits, recognizing the right of citizens (including minors) to sue on behalf of themselves and future generations for the enforcement of environmental rights.

  5. Writ of Kalikasan Reliefs Includes directives for preventing environmental damage, rehabilitation, and restoration of the environment, but damages must be pursued in a separate civil or criminal suit.

  6. Judicial Non-Interference in Political Matters The conduct of foreign relations and related issues of compensation and rehabilitation are committed to the executive and legislative branches and are not subject to judicial inquiry.

  7. UNCLOS and Customary International Law Even non-signatory states to the UNCLOS, like the US, may still be expected to adhere to its provisions according to their own policies recognizing customary international law.