pil 2nd set of cases new

8/18/2019 PIL 2nd Set of Cases new

1/274

G.R. No. L-35131 November 29, 1972

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION an DR. LEON!E "ER#T$%&T, petitionevs.

HON. 'EN(A)IN H. A*$INO, a+ re+n (/e o0 'ran "III, !o/r o0 &rIn+ane o0 R4a, )A(OR WIL&REDO !R$Z, )A(OR ANTONIO G. RELLE"E, a

!ATAIN EDRO #. NA"ARRO o0 e !on+ab/ar6 O+ore Aon !en8!O#A!, respondents.

Sycip, Salazar, Luna, Manalo and Feliciano for petitioners.

Emilio L. Baldia for respondents.

TEEHAN:EE, J.: p

An original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent judge's refusal

quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of respondents COSAC ConstabulaO!shore Action Center" o#cers for the search and sei$ure of the personal e!ects of petition

o#cial of the %&O %orld &ealth Organi$ation" notwithstanding his being entitled

diplomatic immunity, as duly recogni$ed by the eecutive branch of the (hilipp

)overnment and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the matter.

*pon +ling of the petition, the Court issued on une -, /01 a restraining order enjoini

respondents from eecuting the search warrant in question.

2espondents COSAC o#cers +led their answer joining issue against petitioners and see3ing

justify their act of applying for and securing from respondent judge the warrant for the searand sei$ure of ten crates consigned to petitioner 4erstuyft and stored at the 5ter

Corporation warehouse on the ground that they 6contain large quantities of highly dutiab

goods6 beyond the o#cial needs of said petitioner 6and the only lawful way to reach the

articles and e!ects for purposes of taation is through a search warrant.6 1

7he Court thereafter called for the parties' memoranda in lieu of oral argument, which we

+led on August 8, /01 by respondents and on August 1, /01 by petitioners, and the ca

was thereafter deemed submitted for decision.

9t is undisputed in the record that petitioner :r. ;eonce 4erstuyft, who was assigned

:ecember -, /0 by the %&O from his last station in 7aipei to the 2egional O#ce in


2/274

Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other diplomatic privileges and immunitie

personal inviolability, inviolability of the o#cial's properties, eemption from local jurisdictio

and eemption from taation and customs duties.

%hen petitioner 4erstuyft's personal e!ects contained in twelve 1" crates entered t

(hilippines as unaccompanied baggage on anuary >, /01, they were accordingly allow

free entry from duties and taes. 7he crates were directly stored at the 5ternit Corporation

warehouse at


3/274


4/274

in the +rst instance the fact of occurrence of the abuse alleged, and if so, to ensure that

repetition occurs and for other recourses. 7his is a treaty commitment voluntarily assumed

the (hilippine )overnment and as such, has the force and e!ect of law.

&ence, even assuming aruendo as against the categorical assurance of the eecutive bran

of government that respondent judge had some ground to prefer respondents COSAC o#ce

suspicion that there had been an abuse of diplomatic immunity, the continuation of t

search warrant proceedings before him was not the proper remedy. &e should, neverthele

in deference to the eclusive competence and jurisdiction of the eecutive branch government to act on the matter, have acceded to the quashal of the search warrant, a

forwarded his +ndings or grounds to believe that there had been such abuse of diploma

immunity to the :epartment of Doreign A!airs for it to deal with, in accordance with t

aforementioned Convention, if so warranted.

8. Dinally, the Court has noted with concern the apparent lac3 of coordination between t

various departments involved in the subjectmatter of the case at bar, which made it possib

for a small unit, the COSAC, to which respondents o#cers belong, seemingly to disregard a

go against the authoritative determination and pronouncements of both the Secretaries

Doreign A!airs and of Dinance that petitioner 4erstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity,

con+rmed by the Solicitor)eneral as the principal law o#cer of the )overnment. Su

eecutive determination properly implemented should have normally constrain

respondents o#cers themselves to obtain the quashal of the search warrant secured by the

rather than oppose such quashal up to this Court, to the embarrassment of said departme

heads, if not of the (hilippine )overnment itself vis a vis the petitioners. 15

7he seriousness of the matter is underscored when the provisions of 2epublic Act 0= enact

since October 1, /- to safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic o#cials in t

(hilippines are ta3en into account. Said Act declares as null and void writs or processes suout or prosecuted whereby inter alia the person of an ambassador or public minister

arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are sei$ed or attached and ma3es it a pen

o!ense for 6every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party

as attorney, and every o#cer concerned in eecuting it6 to obtain or enforce such writ

process. 1<

7he Court, therefore, holds that respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with gra

abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him

disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner 4erstuyft.

ACCO2:9@);E, the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for are hereby granted, and t

temporary restraining order heretofore issued against eecution or enforcement of t

questioned search warrant, which is hereby declared null and void, is hereby ma

permanent. 7he respondent court is hereby commanded to desist from further proceedings

the matter. @o costs, none having been prayed for.


5/274

7he cler3 of court is hereby directed to furnish a copy of this decision to the Secretary

ustice for such action as he may +nd appropriate with regard to the matters mentioned

paragraph 8 hereof. So ordered.

G.R. No+. 97; #e?ember 2, 1993

#O$THEA#T A#IAN &I#HERIE# DE"ELO)ENT !ENTER re?re+ene b6 + !e0, D&LOR (. LA!ANILAO,petitione

vs.DANILO A!O#TA n + a?a6 a+ Labor Arber o0 e Naona Labor Reao!omm++on, Reona Arbraon, 'ran "I, !ORAZON !ANTO, DAN 'ALIAELIZA'ETH #$ETRAN, !AR)ELITA &ERRER, !ATHR%N !ONTRADOR, an DOR"ELO#O, respondents.

%ector P. &eodosio for petitioner.

Cirilo 'anzon, (r. for private respondents.

"IT$G, J.:

7his is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance o

restraining order, to set aside the order of respondent labor arbiter, dated 1> Septemb

//>, denying herein petitioner's motion to dismiss the cases subject matter of the petiti

for lac3 of jurisdiction.

7wo labor cases, doc3eted as 2A? Case @o. 49 >=-B- and 2A? case @o. 49 >1B-, we

+led by the herein private respondents against the petitioner, Southeast Asian Disher:evelopment Center S5AD:5C", before the @ational ;abor 2elations Commission @;2C

2egional Arbitration ?ranch, 9loilo City. 9n these cases, the private respondents claim havi

been wrongfully terminated from their employment by the petitioner.

On 11 August //>, the petitioner, contending to be an international intergovernme

organi$ation, composed of various Southeast Asian countries, +led a September //>, the public respondent issued the assailed order denying the


6/274

7he private respondents, as well as respondent labor arbiter, allege that the petitioner is n

immune from suit and assuming that if, indeed, it is an international organi$ation, it ha

however, impliedly, if not epressly, waived its immunity by belatedly raising the issue

jurisdiction.

7he Solicitor )eneral, on his part, +led a - SC

1B8H//1I see also Lacanilao v. de Leon, ).2. @o. 0-=81, 0 SC2A, 1B-H/B0H, where w

said G

(etitioner Southeast Asian Disheries :evelopment CenterAquaculture :epartme

S5AD:5CAJ:" is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of pub

respondent @;2C.

9t was established by the )overnments of ?urma, Kingdom of Cambodia, 2epub

of 9ndonesia, apan, Kingdom of ;aos,


7/274

among the member governments of the Center, hereinafter called t

'


8/274

. One of the basic immunities of an international organi$ation is immunity fro

local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issu

by the tribunals of the country where it is found. See en3s, !d., pp. 80". 7

obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organi$ation to t

authority of the local courts would a!ord a convenient medium thru which t

host government may interfere in their operations or even inNuence or control

policies and decisions of the organi$ationI besides, such objection to lo

jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilit

impartially on behalf of its memberstates. 9n the case at bar, for instance, tentertainment by the @ational ;abor 2elations Commission of


9/274

%&525DO25, our resolution, dated 8> =-B- and 2A? Ca

@o. 49>1B-. @o costs.

SO O2:525:.

G.R. No. 125=1

(E&&RE% LIANG 8H$E&ENG, petitioner,vs.EOLE O& THE HILIINE#, respondent.

R E # O L $ T I O N

%NARE#-#ANTIAGO, (.@

7his resolves petitioner's >

denying the petition for review.

7he >> 522O@5O*S;E


10/274

and mandamus +led by the (eople, the 2egional 7rial Court of (asig City, ?ranch -annulled and set aside the order of the >>, wrendered the assailed :ecision denying the petition for review. %e ruled, in essence, that timmunity granted to o#cers and sta! of the A:? is not absoluteI it is limited to acperformed in an o#cial capacity. Durthermore, we held that the immunity cannot cover tcommission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of o#cial duty.

On October B, 1>>>, the oral arguments of the parties were heard. 7his Court also grantthe


11/274

). RE%E#, (R., 'aon A6an+an )aBaba6an, HON. NERI (A"IER !OL)ENARE'a6an )/na ar6+, ROLAND G. #I)'$LAN, H.D., (/nB "& A )ovemenTERE#ITA R. EREZ, H.D., HON. RA%)OND ". ALATINO, :abaaan ar6-+, ET#(. GONZALE#, amaaBa6a, GIO"ANNI A. TAANG, H. D., Aam, EL)ER !. LA'O:/+an )a6o $no, (OAN )A% E. #AL"ADOR, Gabrea, (O#E ENRI*$E A. A&RI!THERE#A A. !ON!E!ION, )AR% (OAN A. G$AN, NE#TOR T. 'AG$INON, H.D., ED#EL &. T$AZ, (etitionevs.

#!OTT H. #WI&T n + a?a6 a+ !ommaner o0 e $#. 7 &ee, )AR: A. RI!n + a?a6 a+ !ommann OCer o0 e $## G/aran, RE#IDENT 'ENIGNOA*$INO III n + a?a6 a+ !ommaner-n-!e0 o0 e Arme &ore+ o0 ??ne+, HON. AL'ERT &. DEL RO#ARIO, #erear6, ?e?armen o0 &oreAar.+, HON. A*$ITO O!HOA, (R., Ee/v.@#erear6, OCe o0 e re+enHON. "OLTAIRE T. GAZ)IN, #erear6, De?armen o0 Naona De0en+e, HORA)ON (E#$# . A(E, #erear6, De?armen o0 Envronmen an Na/ra Re+ore+, "I!E AD)IRAL (O#E L$I# ). ALANO, ??ne Nav6 &a OCer n !ommanArme &ore+ o0 e ??ne+, AD)IRAL RODOL&O D. I#O RENA, !ommanan

??ne !oa+ G/ar, !O))ODORE ENRI!O E&REN E"ANGELI#TA, ??!oa+ G/ar aaan, )A(OR GEN. "IRGILIO >. DO)INGO, !ommanan o0 Arm&ore+ o0 e ??ne+ !omman an LT. GEN. TERR% G. RO'LING, $# )ar!or?+ &ore+. a an 'aBaan 2>13 Eer+e !o-Dreor, 2espondents.

: 5 C 9 S 9 O @

"ILLARA)A, (R, J.:

?efore us is a petition for the issuance of a %rit of Kali3asan with prayer for the issuance o

7emporary 5nvironmental (rotection Order 75(O" under 2ule 0 of A./-BSotherwise 3nown as the 2ules of (rocedure for 5nvironmental Cases 2ules", involvi

violations of environmental laws and regulations in relation to the grounding of the

military ship *SS )uardian over the 7ubbataha 2eefs.

Dactual ?ac3ground

7he name 67ubbataha6 came from the Samal seafaring people of southern (hilippine

language which means 6long reef eposed at low tide.6 7ubbataha is composed of two hu

coral atolls the north atoll and the south atoll and the essie ?ea$ley 2eef, a smaller co

structure about 1> 3ilometers north of the atolls. 7he reefs of 7ubbataha and essie ?ea$lare considered part of Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of (alawan.

9n /BB, 7ubbataha was declared a @ational 3ilometers southeast of (uerto (rincesa City, 7ubbataha lies at the heart of t

Coral 7riangle, the global center of marine biodiversity.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt1


12/274

9n //8, 7ubbataha was inscribed by the *nited @ations 5ducational Scienti+c and Cultu

Organi$ation *@5SCO" as a %orld &eritage Site. 9t was recogni$ed as one of the (hilippine

oldest ecosystems, containing ecellent eamples of pristine reefs and a high diversity

marine life. 7he /0,>8>hectare protected marine par3 is also an important habitat

internationally threatened and endangered marine species. *@5SCO cited 7ubbatah

outstanding universal value as an important and signi+cant natural habitat for in s

conservation of biological diversityI an eample representing signi+cant ongoing ecologic

and biological processesI and an area of eceptional natural beauty and aesthe

importance.1

On April -, 1>>, Congress passed 2epublic Act 2.A." @o. >>-0,8 otherwise 3nown as t

67ubbataha 2eefs @atural (ar3 72@(" Act of 1>>/6 6to ensure the protection a

conservation of the globally signi+cant economic, biological, sociocultural, educational a

scienti+c values of the 7ubbataha 2eefs into perpetuity for the enjoyment of present a

future generations.6 *nder the 6nota3e6 policy, entry into the waters of 72@( is stric

regulated and many human activities are prohibited and penali$ed or +ned, including +shin

gathering, destroying and disturbing the resources within the 72@(. 7he law li3ewise creat

the 7ubbataha (rotected Area


13/274

"I damages to the reef Section 1>"I a

destroying and disturbing resources Section 1-LgM". Durthermore, petitioners assail certa

provisions of the 4isiting Dorces Agreement 4DA" which they want this Court to nullify

being unconstitutional.

7he numerous reliefs sought in this case are set forth in the +nal prayer of the petition, to w

%&525DO25, in view of the foregoing, (etitioners respectfully pray that the &onorable Cou

. 9mmediately issue upon the +ling of this petition a 7emporary 5nvironmental (rotecti

Order 75(O" andHor a %rit of Kali3asan, which shall, in particular,

a. Order 2espondents and any person acting on their behalf, to cease and desist

operations over the )uardian grounding incidentI

b. 9nitially demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area as well as

additional bu!er $oneI

c. Order 2espondents to stop all port calls and war games under '?ali3atan' because

the absence of clear guidelines, duties, and liability schemes for breaches of tho

duties, and require 2espondents to assume responsibility for prior and futu

environmental damage in general, and environmental damage under the 4isiting Dorc

Agreement in particular.


14/274

d. 7emporarily de+ne and describe allowable activities of ecotourism, diving, recreatio

and limited commercial activities by +sherfol3 and indigenous communities near

around the 72@( but away from the damaged site and an additional bu!er $oneI

1. After summary hearing, issue a 2esolution etending the 75(O until further orders

the CourtI

8. After due proceedings, render a :ecision which shall include, without limitationF

a. Order 2espondents Secretary of Doreign A!airs, following the dispositive portion

@icolas v. 2omulo, 6to forthwith negotiate with the *nited States representatives for t

appropriate agreement on Lenvironmental guidelines and environmental accountabili

under (hilippine authorities as provided in Art. 4LM of the 4DA ... 6

b. :irect 2espondents and appropriate agencies to commence administrative, civil, a

criminal proceedings against erring o#cers and individuals to the full etent of the la

and to ma3e such proceedings publicI

c. :eclare that (hilippine authorities may eercise primary and eclusive crimi jurisdiction over erring *.S. personnel under the circumstances of this caseI

d. 2equire 2espondents to pay just and reasonable compensation in the settlement

all meritorious claims for damages caused to the 7ubbataha 2eef on terms a

conditions no less severe than those applicable to other States, and damages

personal injury or death, if such had been the caseI

e. :irect 2espondents to cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and

the collection and production of evidence, including sei$ure and delivery of objec

connected with the o!enses related to the grounding of the )uardianI

f. 2equire the authorities of the (hilippines and the *nited States to notify each other

the disposition of all cases, wherever heard, related to the grounding of the )uardianI

g. 2estrain 2espondents from proceeding with any purported restoration, repa

salvage or post salvage plan or plans, including cleanup plans covering the damag

area of the 7ubbataha 2eef absent a just settlement approved by the &onorable Court

h. 2equire 2espondents to engage in sta3eholder and ;O* consultations in accordan

with the ;ocal )overnment Code and 2.A. >>-0I

i. 2equire 2espondent *S o#cials and their representatives to place a deposit to t

72@( 7rust Dund de+ned under Section 0 of 2A >>-0 as a bona .+de gesture towar

full reparationsI


15/274

j. :irect 2espondents to underta3e measures to rehabilitate the areas a!ected by t

grounding of the )uardian in light of 2espondents' eperience in the (ort 2oy

grounding in 1>>/, among other similar grounding incidentsI

3. 2equire 2espondents to regularly publish on a quarterly basis and in the name

transparency and accountability such environmental damage assessment, valuatio

and valuation methods, in all stages of negotiationI

l. Convene a multisectoral technical wor3ing group to provide scienti+c and technicsupport to the 7(A


16/274

etent of responsibility of the *S )overnment as regards the damage to the 7ubbataha 2ee

rests edusively with the eecutive branch.

7he Court's 2uling

As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to +le t

present petition.

;ocus standi is 6a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.6>

Speci+cait is 6a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he has sustained or w

sustain direct injury as a result6 of the act being challenged, and 6calls for more than just

generali$ed grievance.6 &owever, the rule on standing is a procedural matter which th

Court has relaed for nontraditional plainti!s li3e ordinary citi$ens, tapayers and legislato

when the public interest so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is

transcendental importance, of overreaching signi+cance to society, or of paramount pub

interest.1

9n the landmar3 case of Oposa v. Dactoran, r.,8 we recogni$ed the 6public right6 of citi$ens

6a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the +rst time in our constitutional history,solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law.6 %e declared that the right to a balanced a

healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, li3e other civil a

polittcal rights guaranteed in the ?ill of 2ights, to eist from the inception of man3ind and it

an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications./0phi Such rig

carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

On the novel element in the class suit +led by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Cou

ruled that not only do ordinary citi$ens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement

environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future generation7husF

(etitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations y

unborn. %e +nd no di#culty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of th

generation and for the succeeding generations, +le a class suit. 7heir personality to sue

behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergeneratio

responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such

right, as hereinafter epounded, considers the 6rhythm and harmony of nature.6 @atu

means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably includ

inter alia, the judicious disposition, utili$ation, management, renewal and conservation of tcountry's forest, mineral, land, waters, +sheries, wildlife, o!shore areas and other natu

resources to the end that their eploration, development and utili$ation be equitab

accessible to the present aFF well as future generations. @eedless to say, every generati

has a responsibility to the net to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full Fnjoyme

of a balanced and healthful ecology. (ut a little di!erently, the minors' assertion of their rig

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt14


17/274

to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation

ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.= 5mphasis supplied."

7he liberali$ation of standing +rst enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors a

generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the 2ules which allows the +ling of a citi$en s

in environmental cases. 7he provision on citi$en suits in the 2ules 6collapses the tradition

rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature.6-

&aving settled the issue of locus standi, we shall address the more fundamental question whether this Court has jurisdiction over the *S respondents who did not submit any pleadi

or manifestation in this case.

7he immunity of the State from suit, 3nown also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity

nonsuability of the State,0 is epressly provided in Article 49 of the /B0 Constitution wh

statesF

Section 8. 7he State may not be sued without its consent.

9n *nited States of America v. udge )uinto,B we discussed the principle of state immunfrom suit, as followsF

7he rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now Q epressed in Article

Section 8, of the /B0 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of internation

law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article 99, Section 1. .

5ven without such a#rmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles

international law under the doctrine of incorporation. *nder this doctrine, as accepted by t

majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civili$ed sta

as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. *pon

admission to such society, the state is automatically obligated to comply with these princip

in its relations with other states.

As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justi+cation giv

by ustice &olmes that ''there can be no legal right against the authority which ma3es the la

on which the right depends.6 LKawana3oa v. (olyban3, 1>= *.S. 8/M 7here are other practi

reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. 9n the case of the foreign state sought to

impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is epressed in the maim par

parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdictiover one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, 6undu

ve the peace of nations.6 L:e &aber v. Jueen of (ortugal, 0 J. ?. 0M

%hile the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it

also applicable to complaints +led against o#cials of the state for acts allegedly performed

them in the discharge of their duties. 7he rule is that if the judgment against such o#cials w

require the state itself to perform an a#rmative act to satisfy the same,. such as t

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt18


18/274

appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the s

must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleade

L)arcia v. Chief of Sta!, - SC2A 1>M 9n such a situation, the state may move to dismiss t

comp.taint on the ground that it has been +led without its consent./ 5mphasis supplied."

*nder the American Constitution, the doctrine is epressed in the 5leventh Amendment wh

readsF

7he udicial power of the *nited States shall not be construed to etend to any suit in law equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the *nited States by Citi$ens of anoth

State, or by Citi$ens or Subjects of any Doreign State.

9n the case of we further epounded on the immunity

foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as followsF

7he precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a longstanding r

of customary international law then closely identi+ed with the personal immunity of a forei

sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of democratic states, made to attach not just

the person of the head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself its sovereign capacity. 9f the acts giving rise to a suit arc those of a foreign government do

by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his o#c

capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from su

without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in e!ect, suing t

state itself. 7he proscription is not accorded for the bene+t of an individual but for the Sta

in whose service he is, under the maim par in parem, non habet imperium that all stat

are soverrRign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. 7he implication,

broad terms, is that if the judgment against an o#cial would rec uire the state itself

perform an a#rmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amouneeded to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being again

the state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.1 5mphasis supplied."

9n the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the privilege

not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensui

legal liabilityI it is, rather, an immunity from the eercise of territorial jurisdiction.11

9n *nited States of America v. udge )uinto,18 one of the consolidated cases therein involved

Dilipino employed at Clar3 Air ?ase who was arrested following a buybust operat

conducted by two o#cers of the *S Air Dorce, and was eventually dismissed from employment when he was charged in court for violation of 2.A. @o. -1=. 9n a complaint f

damages +led by the said employee against the military o#cers, the latter moved to dism

the case on the ground that the suit was against the *S )overnment which had not given

consent. 7he 27C denied the motion but on a petition for certiorari and prohibition +led befo

this Court, we reversed the 27C and dismissed the complaint. %e held that petitioners

military o#cers were acting in the eercise of their o#cial functions when they conducted t

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt23


19/274

buybust operation against the complainant and thereafter testi+ed against him at his trial

follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the *nited States, they cannot

directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to

sued.

7his traditional rule of State immunity which eempts a State from being sued in the courts

another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctri

which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts ure imperil6" from private, commerc

and proprietary acts ure gestionis". *nder the restrictive rule of State immunity, Staimmunity etends only to acts ure imperii. 7he restrictive application of State immunity

proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the forei

sovereign, its commercial activities or economic a!airs.1

9n Shauf v. Court of Appeals,1= we discussed the limitations of the State immunity princip

thusF

9t is a di!erent matter where the public o#cial is made to account in his capacity as such

acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plainti!. As was clearly set forth by usti)

Paldivar in :irector of the ?ureau of 7elecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al

69nasmuch as the State authori$es only legal acts by its o#cers, unauthori$ed acts

government o#cials or o#cers are not acts of the State, and an action against the o#cials

o#cers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection

his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit.

the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State o#c

or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the Sta

he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plainti!, under

unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a su

against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued withoits consent.6 7he rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be us

as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

7he aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. 7hey state that the doctrine of immun

from suit will not apply and may not be invo3ed where the public o#cial is being sued in h

private and personal capacity as an ordinary citi$en. 7he cloa3 of protection a!orded t

o#cers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in th

individual capacity. 7his situation usually arises where the public o#cial acts without authoror in ecess of the powers vested in him. 9t is a wellsettled principle of law that a pub

o#cial may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may ha

caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority

jurisdiction.1- 5mphasis supplied." 9n this case, the *S respondents were sued in their o#c

capacity as commanding o#cers of the *S @avy who had control and supervision over t

*SS )uardian and its crew. 7he alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate groundi

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt26


20/274

of the *SS )uardian on the 72@( was committed while they weFre performing o#cial milita

duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said o#cials will requ

remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the *S government, the suit is deemed to

one against the *S itself. 7he principle of State immunity therefore bars the eercise

jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, 2ice and 2obling.

:uring the deliberations, Senior Associate ustice Antonio 7. Carpio too3 the position that t

conduct of the *S in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of 2

@o. >>-0 and caused damage to the 72@( reef system, brings the matter within the ambitArticle 8 of the *nited @ations Convention on the ;aw of the Sea *@C;OS". &e eplain

that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as etensions of their N

State, Art. 8 of the *@C;OS creates an eception to this rule in cases where they fail

comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through t

latter's internal waters and the territorial sea.

According to ustice Carpio, although the *S to date has not rati+ed the *@C;OS, as a matt

of longstanding policy the *S considers itself bound by customary international rules on t

6traditional uses of the oceans6 as codi+ed in *@C;OS, as can be gleaned from previo

declarations by former (residents 2eagan and Clinton, and the *S judiciary in the case

*nited States v. 2oyal Caribbean Cruise ;ines, ;td.10

7he international law of the sea is generally de+ned as 6a body of treaty rules arid customa

norms governing the uses of the sea, the eploitation of its resources, and the eercise

jurisdiction over maritime regimes. 9t is a branch of public international law, regulating t

relations of states with respect to the uses of the oceans.6 1B 7he *@C;OS is a multilate

treaty which was opened for signature on :ecember >, /B1 at th rati+cation.

7he *@C;OS is a product of international negotiation that see3s to balance State sovereign

mare clausum" and the principle of freedom of the high seas mare liberum".1/ 7he freedo

to use the world's marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of internation

law.8> 7he *@C;OS gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over t

di!erent $ones of the sea which areF " internal waters, 1" territorial sea, 8" contiguous $on

" eclusive economic $one, and =" the high seas. 9t also gives coastal States more or le

jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.8

9nsofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State eercissovereignty, subject to the *@C;OS and other rules of international law. Such sovereign

etends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.81

9n the case of warships,88 as pointed out by ustice Carpio, they continue to enjoy soverei

immunity subject to the following eceptionsF

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt33


21/274

Article

@oncompliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

9f any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerni

passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therew

which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

Article

2esponsibility of the Nag State for damage caused by a warship

or other government ship operated for noncommercial purposes

7he Nag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coas

State resulting from the noncompliance by a warship or other government ship operated f

noncommercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerni

passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules

international law.

Article 9mmunities of warships and other government ships operated for noncommercial purposes

%ith such eceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 8> and 8, nothing

this Convention a!ects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated f

noncommercial purposes. 5mphasis supplied." A foreign warship's unauthori$ed entry in

our internal waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one situation in which t

above provisions may apply. ?ut what if the o!ending warship is a nonparty to the *@C;O

as in this case, the *S

An overwhelming majority over B>T of nation states are now members of *@C;OS, b

despite this the *S, the world's leading maritime power, has not rati+ed it.

%hile the 2eagan administration was instrumental in *@C;OS' negotiation and drafting, t

*.S. delegation ultimately voted against and refrained from signing it due to concerns ov

deep seabed mining technology transfer provisions contained in (art 9. 9n a remar3ab

multilateral e!ort to induce *.S. membership, the bul3 of *@C;OS member states cooperat

over the succeeding decade to revise the objection.able provisions. 7he revisions satis+ed t

Clinton administration, which signed the revised (art 9 implementing agreement in //.

the fall of //, (resident Clinton transmitted *@C;OS and the (art 9 implementagreement to the Senate requesting its advice and consent. :espite consistent support fro

(resident Clinton, each of his successors, and an ideologically diverse array of sta3eholde

the Senate has since withheld the consent required for the (resident to internationally bi

the *nited States to *@C;OS.

%hile *@C;OS cleared the Senate Doreign 2elations Committee SD2C" during the >Bth a

>th Congresses, its progress continues to be hamstrung by signi+cant poc3ets of politic


22/274

ambivalence over *.S. participation in international institutions.


23/274

7ubbataha reefs. 9ndeed, it is di#cult to imagine that our longtime ally and trading partn

which has been actively supporting the country's e!orts to preserve our vital mar

resources, would shir3 from its obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warsh

while transiting our internal waters.


24/274

S5C. 0. 9nstitution of separate actions.7he +ling of a petition for the issuance of the writ

3ali3asan shall not preclude the +ling of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.

9n any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or nonapplication

criminal jurisdiction provisions of the 4D A to *S personnel who may be found responsible

the grounding of the *SS )uardian, would be premature and beyond the province of

petition for a writ of Kali3asan. %e also +nd it unnecessary at this point to determine wheth

such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. 9n the same vein, we cannot gra

damages which have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. 7he 2ules allows trecovery of damages, including the collection of administrative +nes under 2.A. @o. >>-0,

a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the sam

violation of an environmental law.80

Section =, 2ule 0 enumerates the reliefs which may be granted in a petition for issuance o

writ of Kali3asan, to witF

S5C. =. udgment.%ithin sity ->" days from the time the petition is submitted for decisio

the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of 3ali3asan.

7he reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the followingF

a" :irecting respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts

neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting

environmental destruction or damageI

b" :irecting the respondent public o#cial, govemment agency, private person or ent

to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environmentI

c" :irecting the respondent public o#cial, government agency, private person or ent

to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the courtI

d" :irecting the respondent public o#cial, government agency, or private person

entity to ma3e periodic reports on the eecution of the +nal judgmentI and

e" Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and health

ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of t

environment, ecept the award of damages to individual petitioners. 5mpha

supplied."

%e agree with respondents (hilippine o#cials" in asserting that this petition has becom

moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had alrea

been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this Court. ?ut insofar as t

directives to (hilippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef stn icture a

marine habitat adversely a!ected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners a

entitled to these reliefs notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the *SS )uardi

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt37


25/274

from the coral reef. &owever, we are mindful of the fact that the *S and (hilippi

governments both epressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensati

for the damage caused by the *SS )uardian. 7he *S 5mbassy has also declared it is close

coordinating with local scientists and eperts in assessing the etent of the damage a

appropriate methods of rehabilitation.

5ploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the 2ules.

can be gleaned from the following provisions, mediation and settlement are available for t

consideration of the parties, and which dispute resolution methods are encouraged by tcourt, to witF

2*;58

S5C. 8. 2eferral to mediation.At the start of the pretrial conference, the court shall inqu

from the parties if they have settled the disputeI otherwise, the court shall immediately ref

the parties or their counsel, if authori$ed by their clients, to the (hilippine " days from the epiration of the 8

day period.

S5C. . (reliminary conference.9f mediation fails, the court will schedule the continuance

the pretrial. ?efore the scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer the case to t

branch cler3 of court for a preliminary conference for the following purposesF

a" 7o assist the parties in reaching a settlementI

S5C. =. (retrial conferenceI consent decree.7he judge shall put the parties and th

counsels under oath, and they shall remain under oath in all pretrial conferences.

7he judge shall eert best e!orts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of t

dispute. 7he judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement between the part

in accordance with law, morals, public order and public policy to protect the right of t

people to a balanced and healthful ecology.


26/274

S5C. >. 5!orts to settle. 7he court shall endeavor to ma3e the parties to agree

compromise or settle in accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings before renditi

of judgment. *nderscoring supplied."

7he Court ta3es judicial notice of a similar incident in 1>>/ when a guidedmissile cruiser, t

*SS (ort 2oyal, ran aground about half a mile o! the &onolulu Airport 2eef 2unway a

remained stuc3 for four days. After spending U-.= million restoring the coral reef, the *

government was reported to have paid the State of &awaii UB.= million in settlement ov

coral reef damage caused by the grounding.8B

7o underscore that the *S government is prepared to pay appropriate compensation for t

damage caused by the *SS )uardian grounding, the *S 5mbassy in the (hilippines h

announced the formation of a *S interdisciplinary scienti+c team which will 6initia

discussions with the )overnment of the (hilippines to review coral reef rehabilitation optio

in 7ubbataha, based on assessments by (hilippinebased marine scientists.6 7he *S tea

intends to 6help assess damage and remediation options, in coordination with the 7ubbata

On the other hand, we cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to orde

review of the 4DA and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof.

As held in ?AEA@ ?agong Alyansang


27/274

States as attested and certi+ed by the duly authori$ed representative of the *nited Stat

government. 7he 4D A being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as

matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.1 7he present petition und

the 2ules is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisio

%&525DO25, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the %rit of Kali3asan is here

:5@95:.

@o pronouncement as to costs.SO O2:525:.

G.R No. 1=71- 2A 8>-"1 demarcating the maritimbaselines of the (hilippines as an archipelagic State. 8 7his law followed the framing of t

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt3


28/274

Convention on the 7erritorial Sea and the Contiguous Pone in /=B *@C;OS 9", codifyinamong others, the sovereign right of States parties over their 6territorial sea,6 the breadthwhich, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to +ll this void during the second round negotiations in )eneva in /-> *@C;OS 99" proved futile. 7hus, domestically, 2A 8>remained unchanged for nearly +ve decades, save for legislation passed in /-B 2epubAct @o. =- L2A =-M" correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing baselines around Sabah in @orth ?orneo.

9n >/, Congress amended 2A 8>- by enacting 2A /=11, the statute now und

scrutiny. 7he change was prompted by the need to ma3e 2A 8>- compliant with the termsthe *nited @ations Convention on the ;aw of the Sea *@C;OS 999",= which the (hilippinrati+ed on 10 Debruary /B.- Among others, *@C;OS 999 prescribes the waterland ratlength, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States li3e the (hilippines0 and sets tdeadline for the +ling of application for the etended continental shelf.B Complying with therequirements, 2A /=11 shortened one baseline, optimi$ed the location of some basepoinaround the (hilippine archipelago and classi+ed adjacent territories, namely, the Kalaya9sland )roup K9)" and the Scarborough Shoal, as 6regimes of islands6 whose islands generatheir own applicable maritime $ones.

(etitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities

6citi$ens, tapayers or legislators,6/ as the case may be, assail the constitutionality2A /=11 on two principal grounds, namelyF " 2A /=11 reduces (hilippine maritime territoand logically, the reach of the (hilippine stateVs sovereign power, in violation of Article the /B0 Constitution,> embodying the terms of the 7reaty of (aris and ancillatreaties,1 and 1" 2A /=11 opens the countryVs waters landward of the baselines to maritimpassage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining (hilippine sovereignty and national securicontravening the countryVs nuclearfree policy, and damaging marine resources, in violatiof relevant constitutional provisions.8

9n addition, petitioners contend that 2A /=11Vs treatment of the K9) as 6regime of islands6 nonly results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood subsistence +shermen. 7o buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitionefacially attac3 2A /=11 for what it ecluded and included W its failure to reference either t7reaty of (aris or Sabah and its use of *@C;OS 999Vs framewor3 of regime of islands determine the maritime $ones of the K9) and the Scarborough Shoal.

Commenting on the petition, respondent o#cials raised threshold issues questioning " tpetitionVs compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review groundon petitionersV alleged lac3 of locus standiand 1" the propriety of the writs of certiorari aprohibition to assail the constitutionality of 2A /=11. On the merits, respondents defended /=11 as the countryVs compliance with the terms of *@C;OS 999, preserving (hilippine territoover the K9) or Scarborough Shoal. 2espondents add that 2A /=11 does not undermine tcountryVs security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the (hilippinesV claover Sabah.

2espondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioneassertion that what Spain ceded to the *nited States under the 7reaty of (aris were tislands and all the 0aters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn undthe 7reaty of (aris.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt14


29/274

%e left unacted petitionersV prayer for an injunctive writ.

Te I++/e+

7he petition raises the following issuesF

. (reliminarily W

. %hether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suitI and

1. %hether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assthe constitutionality of 2A /=11.

1. On the merits, whether 2A /=11 is unconstitutional.

Te R/n o0 e !o/r

On the threshold issues, we hold that " petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit citi$ens and 1" the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test tconstitutionality of 2A /=11. On the merits, we +nd no basis to declare 2A /=

unconstitutional.

On the Threshold IssuPetitioners Possess LocStandi as Citizens

(etitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and tapayebecause the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative= nor misusepublic funds,- occasioned by the passage and implementation of 2A /=11. @onetheless, recogni$e petitionersV locus standi as citi$ens with constitutionally su#cient interest in tresolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national signi+cannecessitating urgent resolution. 9ndeed, owing to the peculiar nature of 2A /=11, itunderstandably di#cult to +nd other litigants possessing 6a more direct and speci+c interesto bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citi$enship standing.0

The Writs of Certiorari and ProhibitiAre Proper Reedies to Tethe Constitutionalit! of Statutes

9n praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents see3 a strobservance of the o#ces of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannissue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the eercise of judicial, quasijudicor ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part petitioners.B

2espondentsV submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. %hen this Court eercisits constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writscertiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality statutes,/ and indeed, of acts of other branches of government. 1>9ssues of constitutioimport are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the person

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt20


30/274

interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Couinevitably +nds itself constrained to ta3e cogni$ance of the case and pass upon the issuraised, noncompliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. 7he statute sougto be reviewed here is one such law.

RA "#$$ is %ot &nconstitutionRA "#$$ is a Statutor! Toto 'earcate the Countr!)aritie *ones and Continent

Shelf &nder &%CLOS III+ not 'elineate Philippine Territor!

(etitioners submit that 2A /=11 6dismembers a large portion of the nationterritory61 because it discards the pre*@C;OS 999 demarcation of (hilippine territory undthe 7reaty of (aris and related treaties, successively encoded in the de+nition of nationterritory under the /8=, /08 and /B0 Constitutions. (etitioners theori$e that tconstitutional de+nition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the (hilippinsovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea recogni$ed at the time of the 7reaof (aris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the *nited States. (etitioners argue that from t7reaty of (arisV technical description, (hilippine sovereignty over territorial waters eten

hundreds of nautical miles around the (hilippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular ardelineated in the 7reaty of (aris.11

(etitionersV theory fails to persuade us.

*@C;OS 999 has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss" of territory. 9t is a multilateral trearegulating, among others, seause rights over maritime $ones i.e., the territorial waters Lnautical miles from the baselinesM, contiguous $one L1 nautical miles from the baselineeclusive economic $one L1>> nautical miles from the baselinesM", and continental shelvthat *@C;OS 999 delimits.18 *@C;OS 999 was the culmination of decadeslong negotiatioamong *nited @ations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in tworldVs oceans and submarine areas, recogni$ing coastal and archipelagic StatesV graduatauthority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts.

On the other hand, baselines laws such as 2A /=11 are enacted by *@C;OS 999 States partito mar3out speci+c basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, eithstraight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of tmaritime $ones and continental shelf. Article B of *@C;OS 999 on archipelagic States li3e oucould not be any clearerF

Article B. Measurement of the readth of the territorial sea, the contiuous zone, texclusive economic zone and the continental shelf . W 7he breadth of the territorial sea, tcontiguous $one, the eclusive economic $one and the continental shelf +a be mea+/r0rom ar?ea ba+ene+ drawn in accordance with article 0. 5mphasis supplied"

7hus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for *@C;OS 999 States parties delimit with precision the etent of their maritime $ones and continental shelves. 9n turn, thgives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime spaand submarine areas within which States parties eercise treatybased rights, namely, teercise of sovereignty over territorial waters Article 1", the jurisdiction to enforce custom

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt23


31/274

+scal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous $one Article 88", and the right eploit the living and nonliving resources in the eclusive economic $one Article =-" acontinental shelf Article 00".

5ven under petitionersV theory that the (hilippine territory embraces the islands and all t0aters within the rectangular area delimited in the 7reaty of (aris, the baselines of t(hilippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with 2A /=11 because this is the onway to draw the baselines in conformity with *@C;OS 999. 7he baselines cannot be drawn frothe boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the 7reaty of (aris, b

from the 6outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago.61

*@C;OS 999 and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, petitioners claim, diminution of territory. *nder traditional international law typology, Statacquire or conversely, lose" territory through occupation, accretion, cession aprescription,1= not by eecuting multilateral treaties on the regulations of seause rights enacting statutes to comply with the treatyVs terms to delimit maritime $ones and continenshelves. 7erritorial claims to land features are outside *@C;OS 999, and are instead governby the rules on general international law.1-

RA "#$$(s &se of the ,rae-o

of Re/ie of Islands to 'eterine th)aritie *ones of the 0I1 and thScarborou/h Shoal+ not Inconsiste-ith the Philippines( Clai of So2erei/nO2er these Areas

(etitioners net submit that 2A /=11Vs use of *@C;OS 999Vs regime of islands framewor3 draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime $ones of the K96wea3ens our territorial claim6 over that area.10 (etitioners add that the K9)Vs aScarborough ShoalVs" eclusion from the (hilippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss6about =,>>> square nautical miles of territorial waters,6 prejudicing the livelihood subsistence +shermen.1B A comparison of the con+guration of the baselines drawn under 8>- and 2A /=11 and the etent of maritime space encompassed by each law, coupled wa reading of the tet of 2A /=11 and its congressional deliberations, vis*1*vis the (hilippinobligations under *@C;OS 999, belie this view.avvphi

7he con+guration of the baselines drawn under 2A 8>- and 2A /=11 shows that 2A /=merely followed the basepoints mapped by 2A 8>-, save for at least nine basepoints that /=11 s3ipped to optimi$e the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseliand thus comply with *@C;OS 999Vs limitation on the maimum length of baselines". *nder 8>-, as under 2A /=11, the K9) and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselindrawn around the (hilippine archipelago. 7his undeniable cartographic fact ta3es the wind oof petitionersV argument branding 2A /=11 as a statutory renunciation of the (hilippineclaim over the K9), assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose.

(etitionersV assertion of loss of 6about =,>>> square nautical miles of territorial wateunder 2A /=11 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, 2A /=11, optimi$ing the location of basepoints, increased the (hilippinesV total maritime spacovering its internal waters, territorial sea and eclusive economic $one" by =,1- squanautical miles, as shown in the table belowF1/

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt29


32/274

5tent of maritime areausing 2A 8>-,as amended,ta3ing intoaccount the 7reaty of (arisVdelimitation insquare nauticalmiles"

5tent of maritime areausing 2A /=11,ta3ing intoaccount*@C;OS 999 insquare nauticalmiles"

9nternal orarchipelagicwaters --,B=B 0,8=

7erritorialSea 10,8- 81,>-

5clusive

5conomicPone 8B1,--/

TOTAL ;;>,99; 5=

7hus, as the map below shows, the reach of the eclusive economic $one drawn under /=11 even etends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under t7reaty of (aris. Of course, where there are overlapping eclusive economic $ones of opposor adjacent States, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordanwith *@C;OS 999.8>

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt30


33/274

Durther, petitionersV argument that the K9) now lies outside (hilippine territory because tbaselines that 2A /=11 draws do not enclose the K9) is negated by 2A /=11 itself. Sectionof the law commits to tet the (hilippinesV continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdictiover the K9) and the Scarborough ShoalF

S5C. 1. 7he baselines in the following areas over e ??ne+ Beeer+e+ +overen6 an /r+on shall be determined as 62egime of 9slands6 undthe 2epublic of the (hilippines consistent with Article 1 of the *nited @ations Convention the ;aw of the Sea *@C;OS"F

a" 7he Kalayaan 9sland )roup as constituted under (residential :ecree @o. =/- and

b" ?ajo de


34/274

that 6LtMhe drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable etent from tgeneral con+guration of the archipelago.6 Second, Article 0 1" of *@C;OS 999 requires th6the length of the baselines shall not eceed >> nautical miles,6 save for three per cent 8of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 1= nautical miles.8

Although the (hilippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the K9)81 and tScarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciabdistance from the nearest shoreline of the (hilippine archipelago,88 such that any straigbaseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably 6depart to

appreciable etent from the general con+guration of the archipelago.6

7he principal sponsor of 2A /=11 in the Senate, Senator .>- nautical miles . 7his eceeds the maimum length allowed undArticle 01" of the L*@C;OS 999M, which states that 67he length of such baselines shnot eceed >> nautical miles, ecept that up to 8 per cent of the total number baselines enclosing any archipelago may eceed that length, up to a maimum lengof 1= nautical miles.6

1. 7he selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least / basepoints can be s3ipped deleted from the baselines system. 7his will enclose an additional 1,/= nautical milof water.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt34


35/274

8. Dinally, the basepoints were drawn from maps eisting in /-B, and not establishby geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along twest coasts of ;u$on down to (alawan were later found to be located either inland or water, not on lowwater line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 0.8=

&ence, far from surrendering the (hilippinesV claim over the K9) and the Scarborough ShoCongressV decision to classify the K9) and the Scarborough Shoal as 6X2egimeLsM of 9slandunder the 2epublic of the (hilippines consistent with Article 168- of *@C;OS 999 manifests t(hilippine StateVs responsible observance of its pacta sunt servanda obligation under *@C;

999. *nder Article 1 of *@C;OS 999, any 6naturally formed area of land, surrounded by watewhich is above water at high tide,6 such as portions of the K9), quali+es under the category6regime of islands,6 whose islands generate their own applicable maritime $ones.80

Statutor! Clai O2er Sabah undRA #334 Retained

(etitionersV argument for the invalidity of 2A /=11 for its failure to tetuali$e the (hilippineclaim over Sabah in @orth ?orneo is also untenable. Section 1 of 2A =-, which 2A /=11 dnot repeal, 3eeps open the door for drawing the baselines of SabahF

Section 1. 7he de+nition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the (hilippine Archipelago provided in this Act + o/ ?re/e o e eneaon o0 e ba+ene+ o0 errora +ea aro/n e error6 o0 #aba, +/ae n Nor 'orneo, over e Re?/b o0 e ??ne+ a+ aM/re omnon an +overen6 . 5mphasupplied"

&%CLOS III and RA "#$$ nIncopatible -ith the Constitution'elineation of Internal Waters

As their +nal argument against the validity of 2A /=11, petitioners contend that the launconstitutionally 6converts6 internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting thewaters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under *@C;OS 999, including overNig(etitioners etrapolate that these passage rights indubitably epose (hilippine internal wateto nuclear and maritime pollution ha$ards, in violation of the Constitution.8B

%hether referred to as (hilippine 6internal waters6 under Article 9 of the Constitution8/ or 6archipelagic waters6 under *@C;OS 999 Article / LM", the (hilippines eercises sovereignover the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and tsubmarine areas underneath. *@C;OS 999 a#rms thisF

Article /. Leal status of archipelaic 0aters, of the air space over archipelaic 0aters aof their ed and susoil. W

. 7he +overen6 o0 an ar?ea #ae een+ o e aer+ eno+e e ar?ea ba+ene+ drawn in accordance with article 0, described archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

1. T+ +overen6 een+ o e ar +?ae over e ar?ea aer+, e a+ o er be an +/b+o, an e re+o/re+ onane eren.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt39


36/274

. 7he regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this (art +a no oer re+?e+ ae e +a/+ o0 e ar?ea aer+, including the slanes, or e eer+e b6 e ar?ea #ae o0 + +overen6 over +/aer+ an er ar +?ae, be an +/b+o, an e re+o/re+ onaneeren. 5mphasis supplied"

7he fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal a

international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessarynot marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, epeditious internationnavigation, consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. 7hdomestically, the political branches of the (hilippine government, in the competent discharof their constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagwaters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.> 9ndeed, bills drawing nautical highwafor sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress.

9n the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codi+ed in *@C;OS operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic watesubject to the treatyVs limitations and conditions for their eercise. 1 Signi+cantly, the right

innocent passage is a customary international law,8 thus automatically incorporated in tcorpus of (hilippine law. @o modern State can validly invo3e its sovereignty to absoluteforbid innocent passage that is eercised in accordance with customary international lawithout ris3ing retaliatory measures from the international community.

7he fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the rightinnocent passage and sea lanes passage= does not place them in lesser footing visvis continental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocepassage and the right of transit passage through international straits. 7he imposition of thepassage rights through archipelagic waters under *@C;OS 999 was a concession archipelagic States, in echange for their right to claim all the waters landward of thebaselines, reardless of their depth or distance from the coast , as archipelagic waters subjeto their territorial sovereinty .


37/274

9n fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the (hilippines to delimit its eclusieconomic $one, reserving solely to the (hilippines the eploitation of all living and nonliviresources within such $one. Such a maritime delineation binds the international communsince the delineation is in strict observance of *@C;OS 999. 9f the maritime delineationcontrary to *@C;OS 999, the international community will of course reject it and will refusebe bound by it.

*@C;OS 999 favors States with a long coastline li3e the (hilippines. *@C;OS 999 creates a seneris maritime space W the eclusive economic $one W in waters previously part of the hi

seas. *@C;OS 999 grants new rights to coastal States to eclusively eploit the resources fouwithin this $one up to 1>> nautical miles.=8 *@C;OS 999, however, preserves the traditionfreedom of navigation of other States that attached to this $one beyond the territorial sbefore *@C;OS 999.

RA "#$$ and the Philippines( )aritie *ones

(etitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive tet of *@C;OS 999, Congress was nbound to pass 2A /=11.= %e have loo3ed at the relevant provision of *@C;OS 999== and we +petitionersV reading plausible. @evertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belonto Congress, not to this Court. 7

GO"ERN)ENT O& HONG :ONG #E!IAL AD)INI#TRATI"E REGION, re?re+ene b6e ??ne De?armen o0 (/+e, (etitioner,vs.

HON. &ELIJ'ERTO T. OLALIA, (R. an ($AN ANTONIO )$OZ, 2espondents.

: 5 C 9 S 9 O @

#ANDO"AL-G$TIERREZ, J.:

Dor our resolution is the instant (etition for Certiorari under 2ule -= of the //0 2ules of Ci

(rocedure, as amended, see3ing to nullify the two Orders of the 2egional 7rial Court 27C

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_187167_2011.html#fnt55


38/274

?ranch B, , 1>> allowing uan Anton

of &ong Kong. &e also faces seven 0" counts

the o!ense of conspiracy to defraud, penali$ed by the common law of &ong Kong. On Augu

18, //0 and October 1=, ///, warrants of arrest were issued against him. 9f convicted,

faces a jail term of seven 0" to fourteen " years for each charge.

On September 8, ///, the :O received from the &ong Kong :epartment of ustice

request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. 7he :O then forwarded the reque

to the @ational ?ureau of 9nvestigation @?9" which, in turn, +led with the 27C of , praying that the :ecision of the Court of Appeals be reversed


39/274

On :ecember B, 1>>>, this Court rendered a :ecision granting the petition of the :O a

sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest against private respondent. 7he :ecision becam

+nal and eecutory on April >, 1>>.

>, udge ?ernardo, r. issued an Order denying the petiti

for bail, holding that there is no (hilippine law granting bail in etradition cases and th

private respondent is a high 6Night ris3.6

On October 11, 1>>, udge ?ernardo, r. inhibited himself from further hearing Civil Case @

///=088. 9t was then raZed o! to ?ranch B presided by respondent judge.

On October 8>, 1>>, private respondent +led a motion for reconsideration of the Ord

denying his application for bail. 7his was granted by respondent judge in an Order dat:ecember 1>, 1>> allowing private respondent to post bail, thusF

9n conclusion, this Court will not contribute to accusedVs further erosion of civil liberties. 7

petition for bail is granted subject to the following conditionsF

. ?ail is set at (hp0=>,>>>.>> in cash with the condition that accused here

underta3es that he will appear and answer the issues raised in these proceedings a

will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court, will furth

appear for judgment. 9f accused fails in this underta3ing, the cash bond will be forfeit

in favor of the governmentI

1. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this CourtI

8. 7he :epartment of ustice is given immediate notice and discretion of +ling its ow

motion for hold departure order before this Court even in etradition proceedingI and

. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or

they so desire to the nearest o#ce, at any time and day of the wee3I and if they furth

desire, manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of accused, real apersonal, be +led with this Court soonest, with the condition that if the accused Ne

from his underta3ing, said assets be forfeited in favor of the government and that t

corresponding lienHannotation be noted therein accordingly.

SO O2:525:.


40/274

On :ecember 1, 1>>, petitioner +led an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but

was denied by respondent judge in his Order dated April >, 1>>1.

&ence, the instant petition. (etitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse

discretion amounting to lac3 or ecess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to ba

that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential etradit

has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.

9n his comment on the petition, private respondent maintained that the right to bguaranteed under the ?ill of 2ights etends to a prospective etraditeeI and that etraditi

is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of oneVs liberty.

Section 8, Article 999 of the Constitution provides that the right to bail shall not be impaire

thusF

Sec. 8. All persons, ecept those charged with o!enses punishable by reclusi

perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by su#cie

sureties, or be released on recogni$ance as may be provided by law. 7he right to bail shall n

be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of haeas corpus is suspended. 5cessive bshall not be required.

urisprudence on etradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. @onetheless, this is n

the +rst time that this Court has an occasion to resolve the question of whether a prospecti

etraditee may be granted bail.

9n 'overnment of #nited States of "merica v. %on. 'uillermo '. Puranan, Presidin (ud

-&C of Manila, Branch 78, and Mar5 B. (imenez, a.5.a. Mario Batacan Crespo , this Cou

spea3ing through then Associate ustice Artemio 4. (anganiban, later Chief ustice, held th

the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to etradition proceedings. 9t is 6availab

only in criminal proceedings,6 thusF

. As suggested by the use of the word 6conviction,6 the constitutional provision on b

quoted above, as well as Section , 2ule of the 2ules of Court, applies only when

person has been arrested and detained for violation of (hilippine criminal laws. 9t does n

apply to etradition proceedings because etradition courts do not render judgments

conviction or acquittal.


41/274

7he provision in the Constitution stating that the 6right to bail shall not be impaired ev

when the privilege of the writ of haeas corpus is suspended6 does not detract from the ru

that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. 9t must be not

that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of haeas corpus +nds application 6only

persons judicially charged for rebellion or o!enses inherent in or directly connected w

invasion6 Sec. B, Art. 4999, Constitution". &ence, the second sentence in the constitution

provision on bail merely emphasi$es the right to bail in criminal proceedings for t

aforementioned o!enses. 9t cannot be ta3en to mean that the right is available even

etradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature.

At +rst glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private respondentVs case. &owever, th

Court cannot ignore the following trends in international lawF " the growing importance

the individual person in public international law who, in the 1>th century, has gradua

attained global recognitionI 1" the higher value now being given to human rights in t

international sphereI 8" the corresponding duty of countries to observe these univer

human rights in ful+lling their treaty obligationsI and " the duty of this Court to balance t

rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on etraditio

on the other.

Te moern ren n ?/b nernaona a + e ?rma6 ?ae on e or e nv/a ?er+on an e +an6 o0 /man r+. Slowly, the recognition that tindividual person may properly be a subject of international law is now ta3ing root. 7

vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to states w

dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century. Dor one, the @uremberg a

7o3yo trials after %orld %ar 99 resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individ

defendants for acts characteri$ed as violations of the laws of war, crimes against peace, a

crimes against humanity. 2ecently, under the @uremberg principle, Serbian leaders ha

been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the formEugoslavia. 7hese signi+cant events show that the individual person is now a valid subject

international law.

On a more positive note, also after %orld %ar 99, both international organi$ations and stat

gave recognition and importance to human rights. 7hus, on :ecember >, /B, the *nit

@ations )eneral Assembly adopted the *niversal :eclaration of &uman 2ights in which t

right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaime

%hile not a treaty, e ?rn?e+ onane n e +a Dearaon are noreon4e a+ /+omar6 bnn /?on e member+ o0 e nernaonomm/n6. 7hus, in Me9o: v. )irector of Prisons,1 + !o/r, n rann ba o?ro+?eve e?oree, e a /ner e !on+/on,8 the principles set forth in th:eclaration are part of the law of the land. 9n /--, the *@ )eneral Assembly also adopt

the 9nternational Covenant on Civil and (olitical 2ights which the (hilippines signed a

rati+ed. Dundamental among the rights enshrined therein are the rights of every person

life, liberty, and due process.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_153675_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_153675_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_153675_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_153675_2007.html#fnt3


42/274

7he (hilippines, along with the other members of the

pil 2nd set of cases new

Documents