GR NO. 206510 Case Digest

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT, GR No.
206510, 2014-09-16
Facts:
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,[3] otherwise known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural
Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological,
sociocultural,... educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for the enjoyment of present
and future generations." Under the "no-take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many
human activities are prohibited and penalized or fined,... including fishing, gathering, destroying and disturbing the
resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which
shall be the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP.
In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the said vessel "to enter and
exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of
Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty."
On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South
Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles... east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident, and there
have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the grounding incident and assured Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del
Rosario that the United States will provide appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship."[6]
By March 30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship from the
coral reef.
petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents under R.A. No. 10067: unauthorized entry
(Section 19); non-payment of conservation fees (Section 21); obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section 30);
damages to the reef (Section 20); and... destroying and disturbing resources (Section 26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners
assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being
unconstitutional.
Issues:
The grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become fait accompli as the salvage...
operations on the USS Guardian were already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the
petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America; and (4) the determination of... the extent of responsibility of the US Government as regards the damage to the
Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any pleading or manifestation in this
case.
Ruling:
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file the present petition.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,[13] we recognized the "public right" of citizens to "a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law."
We... declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution for it is
assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it
is an issue of transcendental importance... with intergenerational implications. Such right carries with it the correlative
duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in
representation of their own and future... generations.
Their personality... to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn, is now
enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases.
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State,[17]
is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution which states:
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the privilege is not an immunity from the
observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the
exercise of territorial... jurisdiction
In this case, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had
control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate
grounding of the USS Guardian on... the TRNP was committed while they were performing official military duties.
Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of
funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents
Swift, Rice and Robling.
In this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP
reef system, brings the matter within the ambit... of Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag
State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to... comply with the rules and
regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's internal waters and the territorial sea.
A foreign warship's unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to marine resources is one
situation in which the above provisions may apply.But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in
this case, the US?
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said treaty
upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter's territorial sea, the
flag States shall be required to leave... the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal
State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-
commercial purposes under Article 31.
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become moot in the sense that the
salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse
from this Court.
Insofar as the... directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the coral reef structure and marine
habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS
Guardian from the coral reef.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of compensation and rehabilitation
measures through diplomatic channels. Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the
context of common security... interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he conduct of the foreign relations of our
government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative "the political"--departments of the
government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this... political power is not subject to judicial
inquiry or decision."... we cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA and
to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof... the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been
recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of... the
United States government. The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of
international law to abide by its terms and provisions.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.

GR NO. 206510 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR NO. 206510 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO v. SCOTT H. SWIFT, GR No.

Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.

Guardian from the coral reef.

You might also like