FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 1

G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014 On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,3 otherwise
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D. vs. known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological,
VILLARAMA, JR, J.: sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into
perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the "no-take"
About the Case: PETITION for issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan. 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
Before us is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the disturbing the resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created the Tubbataha
issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole policy-making
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for Environmental and permit-granting body of the TRNP.
Cases (Rules), involving violations of environmental laws and regulations in relation
to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs. The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy.
In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic
Decision: WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of clearance for the said vessel "to enter and exit the territorial waters of the Philippines
Kalikasan is hereby DENIED. and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment,
maintenance, and crew liberty."4 On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for
Factual Background Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa, Japan.

The name "Tubbataha" came from the Samal (seafaring people of southern On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of call
Philippines) language which means "long reef exposed at low tide." Tubbataha is in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu
composed of two huge coral atolls - the north atoll and the south atoll - and the Jessie Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha
Beazley Reef, a smaller coral structure about 20 kilometers north of the atolls. The Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No cine was injured in the incident,
reefs of Tubbataha and Jessie Beazley are considered part of Cagayancillo, a remote and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
island municipality of Palawan.
On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift,
In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of Proclamation expressed regret for the incident in a press statement.5 Likewise, US Ambassador to
No. 306 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on August 11, 1988. Located in the the Philippines Harry K. Thomas, Jr., in a meeting at the Department of Foreign
middle of Central Sulu Sea, 150 kilometers southeast of Puerto Princesa City, Affairs (DFA) on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the grounding incident and
Tubbataha lies at the heart of the Coral Triangle, the global center of marine assured Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario that the United States will
biodiversity. 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
In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and of the grounded ship from the coral reef.
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized as one
of the Philippines' oldest ecosystems, containing excellent examples of pristine reefs On April 1 7, 2013, the above-named petitioners on their behalf and in representation
and a high diversity of marine life. The 97,030-hectare protected marine park is also of their respective sector/organization and others, including minors or generations
an important habitat for internationally threatened and endangered marine species. yet unborn, filed the present petition against Scott H. Swift in his capacity as
UNESCO cited Tubbataha's outstanding universal value as an important and Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Mark A. Rice in his capacity as Commanding
significant natural habitat for in situ conservation of biological diversity; an example Officer of the USS Guardian and Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling, US Marine Corps
representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes; and an area of Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercises Co-Director ("US respondents");
exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance. President Benigno S. Aquino III in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), DF A Secretary Albert F. Del Rosario,
Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin (Department
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 2
of National Defense), Secretary Jesus P. Paje (Department of Environment and communities near or around the TRNP but away from the damaged site and an
Natural Resources), Vice-Admiral Jose Luis M. Alano (Philippine Navy Flag Officer additional buffer zone;
in Command, AFP), Admiral Rodolfo D. Isorena (Philippine Coast Guard
Commandant), Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista (Philippine Coast Guard- 2. After summary hearing, issue a Resolution extending the TEPO until further
Palawan), and Major General Virgilio 0. Domingo (AFP Commandant), collectively orders of the Court;
the "Philippine respondents."
3. After due proceedings, render a Decision which shall include, without limitation:
The Petition
a. Order Respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, following the dispositive portion
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the of Nicolas v. Romulo, "to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives
USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude for the appropriate agreement on [environmental guidelines and environmental
as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros accountability] under Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V[] of the VFA ... "
Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi,
which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. b. Direct Respondents and appropriate agencies to commence administrative, civil,
They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal proceedings against erring officers and individuals to the full extent of
and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and the law, and to make such proceedings public;
regulations in connection with the grounding incident. c. Declare that Philippine authorities may exercise primary and exclusive criminal
jurisdiction over erring U.S. personnel under the circumstances of this case;
Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents d. Require Respondents to pay just and reasonable compensation in the settlement of
under R.A. No. 10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of all meritorious claims for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reef on terms and
conservation fees (Section 21 ); obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section 30); conditions no less severe than those applicable to other States, and damages for
damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and disturbing resources (Section personal injury or death, if such had been the case;
26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces e. Direct Respondents to cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and
Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional. in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and delivery of
objects connected with the offenses related to the grounding of the Guardian;
The numerous reliefs sought in this case are set forth in the final prayer of the f. Require the authorities of the Philippines and the United States to notify each other
petition, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully of the disposition of all cases, wherever heard, related to the grounding of the
pray that the Honorable Court: 1. Immediately issue upon the filing of this petition a Guardian;
Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan, g. Restrain Respondents from proceeding with any purported restoration, repair,
which shall, in particular, salvage or post salvage plan or plans, including cleanup plans covering the damaged
area of the Tubbataha Reef absent a just settlement approved by the Honorable
a. Order Respondents and any person acting on their behalf, to cease and desist all Court;
operations over the Guardian grounding incident; h. Require Respondents to engage in stakeholder and LOU consultations in
b. Initially demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area as well as an accordance with the Local Government Code and R.A. 10067;
additional buffer zone; i. Require Respondent US officials and their representatives to place a deposit to the
c. Order Respondents to stop all port calls and war games under 'Balikatan' because TRNP Trust Fund defined under Section 17 of RA 10067 as a bona .fide gesture
of the absence of clear guidelines, duties, and liability schemes for breaches of those towards full reparations;
duties, and require Respondents to assume responsibility for prior and future j. Direct Respondents to undertake measures to rehabilitate the areas affected by the
environmental damage in general, and environmental damage under the Visiting grounding of the Guardian in light of Respondents' experience in the Port Royale
Forces Agreement in particular. grounding in 2009, among other similar grounding incidents;
d. Temporarily define and describe allowable activities of ecotourism, diving,
recreation, and limited commercial activities by fisherfolk and indigenous
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 3
k. Require Respondents to regularly publish on a quarterly basis and in the name of As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to file
transparency and accountability such environmental damage assessment, valuation, the present petition.
and valuation methods, in all stages of negotiation;
l. Convene a multisectoral technical working group to provide scientific and Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."10
technical support to the TPAMB; Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he has
m. Order the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of National Defense, and sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being challenged, and
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to review the Visiting Forces "calls for more than just a generalized grievance."11 However, the rule on standing is
Agreement and the Mutual Defense Treaty to consider whether their provisions a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
allow for the exercise of erga omnes rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such
for damages which follow from any violation of those rights; as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of
n. Narrowly tailor the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement for purposes of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.12
protecting the damaged areas of TRNP;
o. Declare the grant of immunity found in Article V ("Criminal Jurisdiction") and In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 we recognized the "public right" of
Article VI of the Visiting Forces Agreement unconstitutional for violating equal citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our
protection and/or for violating the preemptory norm of nondiscrimination constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." We
incorporated as part of the law of the land under Section 2, Article II, of the declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in the
Philippine Constitution; Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in the
p. Allow for continuing discovery measures; Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
q. Supervise marine wildlife rehabilitation in the Tubbataha Reefs in all other transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.1âwphi1 Such right
respects; and carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.14

4. Provide just and equitable environmental rehabilitation measures and such other On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this
reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises.7 (Underscoring supplied.) Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own
Since only the Philippine respondents filed their comment8 to the petition, and future generations. Thus:
petitioners also filed a motion for early resolution and motion to proceed ex parte
against the US respondents.9 Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations
yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of
Respondents' Consolidated Comment their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality
to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
In their consolidated comment with opposition to the application for a TEPO and intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ocular inspection and production orders, respondents assert that: ( 1) the grounds ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm
relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become fait and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm
accompli as the salvage operations on the USS Guardian were already completed; (2) and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization,
the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition improperly raises management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters,
issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Philippines and the United fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their
States of America; and ( 4) the determination of the extent of responsibility of the US exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present a::
Government as regards the damage to the Tubbataha Reefs rests exdusively with the well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to
executive branch. the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full 1:njoyment of a balanced
and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a
The Court's Ruling sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 4
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.15 (Emphasis another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly
supplied.) vex the peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171]

The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent,
and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly
a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits in the Rules performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment
"collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to
humans are stewards of nature." satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages
awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it
Having settled the issue of locus standi, we shall address the more fundamental has not been formally impleaded. [Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120] In such a
question of whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been
submit any pleading or manifestation in this case. filed without its consent.19 (Emphasis supplied.)

The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign Under the American Constitution, the doctrine is expressed in the Eleventh
immunity or non-suability of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI of the Amendment which reads:
1987 Constitution which states:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens
of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,18 we discussed the principle of state
immunity from suit, as follows: In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals,20 we further expounded on the
immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:
The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now · expressed in Article The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-
XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles standing rule of customary international law then closely identified with the personal
of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article immunity of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of democratic
II, Section 2. x x x. states, made to attach not just to the person of the head of state, or his representative,
but also distinctly to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to
Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted a suit arc those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although not
principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint
doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its
incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state
membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the
automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other State, in whose service he is, under the maxim -par in parem, non habet imperium
states. -that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.
The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an official would rec
As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the 1uire the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the
justification given by Justice Holmes that ''there can be no legal right against the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit
authority which makes the law on which the right depends." [Kawanakoa v. must be regarded as being against the state itself, although it has not been formally
Polybank, 205 U.S. 349] There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the impleaded.21 (Emphasis supplied.)
doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local
jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the
imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 5
sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its
of territorial jurisdiction. consent." The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be
used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.x x x x
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto, one of the consolidated cases therein
involved a Filipino employed at Clark Air Base who was arrested following a buy- The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state that the doctrine of
bust operation conducted by two officers of the US Air Force, and was eventually immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official
dismissed from his employment when he was charged in court for violation of R.A. is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of
No. 6425. In a complaint for damages filed by the said employee against the military protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment
officers, the latter moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the suit was against they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the
the US Government which had not given its consent. The RTC denied the motion but public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It is a
on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before this Court, we reversed the well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal
RTC and dismissed the complaint. We held that petitioners US military officers were private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with
acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.26
operation against the complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. It (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, the US respondents were sued in their official
follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision
directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission resulting in the
consent to be sued. unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while they
were performing official military duties. Considering that the satisfaction of a
This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and appropriation of
courts of another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into a funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. The
restrictive doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (Jure principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court
imperil") from private, commercial and proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). Under the over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends only to acts Jure imperii.
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the
arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted
activities or economic affairs.24 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
In Shauf v. Court of Appeals,25 we discussed the limitations of the State immunity the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy
principle, thus: 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
It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's
such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set internal waters and the territorial sea.
forth by JustiGe Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al. vs.
Aligaen, etc., et al. : "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS,
unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an as a matter of long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary
action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or international rules on the "traditional uses of the oceans" as codified in UNCLOS, as
violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State can be gleaned from previous declarations by former Presidents Reagan and Clinton,
within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said and the US judiciary in the case of United States v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines,
that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State Ltd.
department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or
invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules arid
or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 6
the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public Article 32 Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-
international law, regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the commercial purposes
oceans."28 The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was opened for signature on
December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines in With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31,
1984 but came into force on November 16, 1994 upon the submission of the 60th nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government
ratification. ships operated for non-commercial purposes. (Emphasis supplied.) A foreign
warship's unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting damage to
The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may apply. But what
sovereignty (mare clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this case, the US?
liberum).29 The freedom to use the world's marine waters is one of the oldest
customary principles of international law.30 The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State An overwhelming majority - over 80% -- of nation states are now members of
sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) UNCLOS, but despite this the US, the world's leading maritime power, has not
internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, ratified it.
and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over foreign
vessels depending on where the vessel is located. While the Reagan administration was instrumental in UNCLOS' negotiation and
drafting, the U.S. delegation ultimately voted against and refrained from signing it
Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State due to concerns over deep seabed mining technology transfer provisions contained in
exercises sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Part XI. In a remarkable, multilateral effort to induce U.S. membership, the bulk of
Such sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed UNCLOS member states cooperated over the succeeding decade to revise the
and subsoil. objectionable provisions. The revisions satisfied the Clinton administration, which
signed the revised Part XI implementing agreement in 1994. In the fall of 1994,
In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy President Clinton transmitted UNCLOS and the Part XI implementing agreement to
sovereign immunity subject to the following exceptions: the Senate requesting its advice and consent. Despite consistent support from
President Clinton, each of his successors, and an ideologically diverse array of
Article 30 Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal stakeholders, the Senate has since withheld the consent required for the President to
State internationally bind the United States to UNCLOS.

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State While UNCLOS cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) during the
concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for 108th and 110th Congresses, its progress continues to be hamstrung by significant
compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the pockets of political ambivalence over U.S. participation in international institutions.
territorial sea immediately. Most recently, 111th Congress SFRC Chairman Senator John Kerry included "voting
out" UNCLOS for full Senate consideration among his highest priorities. This did
Article 31 Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other not occur, and no Senate action has been taken on UNCLOS by the 112th Congress.
government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
Justice Carpio invited our attention to the policy statement given by President
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the Reagan on March 10, 1983 that the US will "recognize the rights of the other , states
coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the convention [UNCLOS], so long as
ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the the rights and freedom of the United States and others under international law are
coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of recognized by such coastal states", and President Clinton's reiteration of the US
this Convention or other rules of international law. policy "to act in a manner consistent with its [UNCLOS] provisions relating to
traditional uses of the oceans and to encourage other countries to do likewise." Since
Article 31 relates to the "traditional uses of the oceans," and "if under its policy, the
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 7
US 'recognize[s] the rights of the other states in the waters off their coasts,"' Justice
Carpio postulates that "there is more reason to expect it to recognize the rights of States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis,
other states in their internal waters, such as the Sulu Sea in this case." directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and
elaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures
As to the non-ratification by the US, Justice Carpio emphasizes that "the US' refusal consistent with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine
to join the UN CLOS was centered on its disagreement with UN CLOS' regime of environment, taking into account characteristic regional features.
deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep seabed
commonly owned by mankind," pointing out that such "has nothing to do with its In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond
[the US'] acceptance of customary international rules on navigation." 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
It may be mentioned that even the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps States shall be required to leave the territorial '::;ea immediately if they flout the laws
publicly endorses the ratification of the UNCLOS, as shown by the following and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by
statement posted on its official website: their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes
under Article 31.
The Convention is in the national interest of the United States because it establishes
stable maritime zones, including a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; codifies Petitioners argue that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the VFA.
innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; works Likewise, they invoke federal statutes in the US under which agencies of the US
against "jurisdictional creep" by preventing coastal nations from expanding their own have statutorily waived their immunity to any action. Even under the common law
maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of warships, auxiliaries and tort claims, petitioners asseverate that the US respondents are liable for negligence,
government aircraft. x x x x trespass and nuisance.

Economically, accession to the Convention would support our national interests by We are not persuaded.
enhancing the ability of the US to assert its sovereign rights over the resources of one
of the largest continental shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the Sea The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and
Convention that first established the concept of a maritime Exclusive Economic personnel visiting the Philippines to promote "common security interests" between
Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and recognized the rights of coastal states to conserve the US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such
and manage the natural resources in this Zone.35 visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and the
Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and
We fully concur with Justice Carpio's view that non-membership in the UNCLOS aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.36 The
does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper
State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear considering that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving US military ships
"international responsibility" under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to agreement.
imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively
supporting the country's efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal
from its obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of
our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a Government exercising a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the Rules
leadership in international affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental
for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the marine law is to be filed separately:
environment as provided in Article 197, viz:

Article 197 Cooperation on a global or regional basis

 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 8
SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions. -The filing of a petition for the issuance of rehabilitate the coral reef structure and marine habitat adversely affected by the
the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
administrative actions. notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral
reef. However, we are mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments
In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non- both expressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation for the
application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VF A to US personnel who may damage caused by the USS Guardian. The US Embassy has also declared it is closely
be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature coordinating with local scientists and experts in assessing the extent of the damage
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.
unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted Exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the
from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, Rules. As can be gleaned from the following provisions, mediation and settlement
including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate are available for the consideration of the parties, and which dispute resolution
civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the same methods are encouraged by the court, to wit:
violation of an environmental law.37
RULE3 x x x x
Section 15, Rule 7 enumerates the reliefs which may be granted in a petition for
issuance of a writ of Kalikasan, to wit: SEC. 3. Referral to mediation. -At the start of the pre-trial conference, the court shall
inquire from the parties if they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall
SEC. 15. Judgment. -Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted immediately refer the parties or their counsel, if authorized by their clients, to the
for decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes of mediation. If not available,
writ of kalikasan. the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal researcher for mediation.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following: Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from
receipt of notice of referral to mediation.
(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or
neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration of
environmental destruction or damage; the 30-day period.
(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or
entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment; SEC. 4. Preliminary conference. -If mediation fails, the court will schedule the
(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or continuance of the pre-trial. Before the scheduled date of continuance, the court may
entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court; refer the case to the branch clerk of court for a preliminary conference for the
(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or following purposes:
entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and (a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement; x x x x
healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of
the environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree. -The judge shall put the parties and
supplied.) their counsels under oath, and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial
conferences.
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement of
become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or the dispute. The judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement between
restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from this the parties in accordance with law, morals, public order and public policy to protect
Court. But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. x x x x
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 9
what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial
SEC. 10. Efforts to settle. - The court shall endeavor to make the parties to agree to inquiry or decision."
compromise or settle in accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings before
rendition of judgment. (Underscoring supplied.) On the other hand, 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 Court takes judicial notice of a similar incident in 2009 when a guided-missile
cruiser, the USS Port Royal, ran aground about half a mile off the Honolulu Airport As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora, the VFA
Reef Runway and remained stuck for four days. After spending $6.5 million was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty
restoring the coral reef, the US government was reported to have paid the State of by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of
Hawaii $8.5 million in settlement over coral reef damage caused by the grounding. the United States government. The VF A being a valid and binding agreement, the
parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and
To underscore that the US government is prepared to pay appropriate compensation provisions. The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the
for the damage caused by the USS Guardian grounding, the US Embassy in the constitutionality of its provisions.
Philippines has announced the formation of a US interdisciplinary scientific team
which will "initiate discussions with the Government of the Philippines to review Notes. —The Civil Service Commission has standing as a real party in interest and
coral reef rehabilitation options in Tubbataha, based on assessments by Philippine- can appeal the Court of Appeals’ decisions modifying or reversing the Civil Service
based marine scientists." The US team intends to "help assess damage and Commission’s rulings, when the Court of Appeals action would have an adverse
remediation options, in coordination with the Tubbataha Management Office, impact on the integrity of the civil service. (Civil Service Commission vs.
appropriate Philippine government entities, non-governmental organizations, and Almojuela, 694 SCRA 441 [2013])
scientific experts from Philippine universities."
Immunity statutes seek to provide a balance between the state’s interests and the
individual’s right against self-incrimination. (People vs. Sandiganbayan [Fourth
A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of the violator
Division], 699 SCRA 713 [2013])
is also a major relief that may be obtained under a judgment rendered in a citizens'
suit under the Rules, viz: SYLLABUS:
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Locus Standi; Words and Phrases; Locus
RULES standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.”—
Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.”
SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit. -If warranted, the court may grant to the Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial interest in a case where he has
plaintiff proper reliefs which shall include the protection, preservation or sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result” of the act being challenged, and
rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of attorney's fees, costs of suit and “calls for more than just a generalized grievance.” However, the rule on standing is a
other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program of procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for nontraditional plaintiffs like
rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne by ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such
the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to the as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of
control of the court. overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter Constitutional Law; Balance and Healthful Ecology; In the landmark case of
of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792 (1993), the Supreme Court (SC)
Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the context recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a balanced and healthful ecology
of common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he conduct of the which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated
foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive in the fundamental law.”—In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 224
and legislative-"the political" --departments of the government, and the propriety of SCRA 792 (1993), we recognized the “public right” of citizens to “a balanced and
healthful ecology which, for the first time in our constitutional history, is solemnly
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 10
incorporated in the fundamental law.” We declared that the right to a balanced and commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
healthful ecology need not be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other economic affairs.
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 International Law; International Law of the Sea; Words and Phrases; The
implications. Such right carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing international law of the sea is generally defined as “a body of treaty rules and
the environment. customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its
resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes.—
The international law of the sea is generally defined as “a body of treaty rules and
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Class Suit; On the novel element in the class
customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources, and
suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do
the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of
international law, regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the
environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future
oceans.” The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was opened for signature on
generations.—On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors
December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines in
in Oposa, this Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to
1984 but came into force on November 16, 1994 upon the submission of the
sue for the enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of
60th ratification.
their own and future generations. Thus:
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; The United Nations
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives to the coastal State
yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of
sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which are:
their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on
zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction
the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced
over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located. —The UNCLOS is
and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State sovereignty (mare
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature.” Nature means the created world in its
clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare liberum). The freedom
entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
to use the world’s marine waters is one of the oldest customary principles of
disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s
international law. The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying
forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
degrees over the different zones of the sea which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial
resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably
sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also
accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every
gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on
generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for
where the vessel is located.
the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time,
State Immunity from Suit; Visiting Forces Agreement; Writ of Kalikasan; The
the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the
waiver of State immunity under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) pertains
generations to come.
only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present
petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.—The VFA is an agreement which
Constitutional Law; State Immunity from Suit; This traditional rule of State
defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to
immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State
promote “common security interests” between the US and the Philippines in the
without the former’s consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine
region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and
which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from
further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the
private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).—This traditional rule
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and
of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another
exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.
State without the former’s consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine
which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private,
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper
commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State
considering that it is the VFA which governs disputes involving US military ships
immunity, State immunity extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive
and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the
application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of
 FINALS NATRES CASE ARIGO vs SWIFT 11
agreement. As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to
criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for
issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of
the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately: SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.
—The filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude
the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.

A ruling on the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction

provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to US personnel who may be
found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan.—In any case, it is
our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-application of criminal
jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found responsible
for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province
of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this point to
determine whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the same
vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the violation of
environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages, including the
collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate civil suit or
that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the same violation of an
environmental law.

Foreign Relations; It is settled that “the conduct of the foreign relations of our
government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative —
‘the political’ — departments of the government, and the propriety of what may
be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or
decision.”—A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of
the violator is also a major relief that may be obtained under a judgment rendered in
a citizens’ suit under the Rules, viz.: RULE 5 SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.
—If warranted, the court may grant to the plaintiff proper reliefs which shall include
the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of
attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses. It may also require the
violator to submit a program of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the
costs of which shall be borne by the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund
for that purpose subject to the control of the court. 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.”