ARIGO vs. SWIFT G.R. No. 206510 735 SCRA 102, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Facts

ARIGO vs. SWIFT G.R. No.
206510 735 SCRA 102, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
FACTS:
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 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.” In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US
Navy ran aground on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine habitat of which entry and certain
human activities are prevented and afforded protection by a Philippine law. The grounding incident
prompted the petitioners to seek for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the SC. Among
those impleaded are US officials in their capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy. As
petitioners argued, they were impleaded because there was a waiver of immunity from suit between
US and PH pursuant to the VFA terms. Petitioners claimed that the grounding, salvaging and post-
salvaging operations of the USS Guardian violated their constitutional rights to a balanced and
healthful ecology since these events caused and continue to cause environmental damage of such
magnitude as to affect other provinces surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs. Aside from damages, they
sought a directive from the SC for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts
committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding
incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some VFA provisions for being unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
1: Whether the US Government has given its consent to be sued through the VFA
2: Whether the US government may still be held liable for damages caused to the Tubbataha Reefs.
RULINGS:
1. No. The general rule on state’s immunity from suit applies in this case. First, any waiver of State
immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as
for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan. Hence, contrary to petitioners’ claim, the US government
could not be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit. Second, the US respondents were sued in
their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who have control and supervision over
the USS Guardian and its crew. Since the satisfaction of any judgment against these officials would
require remedial actions and the appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to
be one against the US itself. Thus, the principle of State Immunity – in correlation with the principle
of States as sovereign equals “par in parem non habet non imperium” – bars the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court over their persons. Issue
2. Yes. The US government is liable for damages in relation to the grounding incident under the
customary laws of navigation. The conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a
restricted area in violation of RA 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the
matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the UNCLOS. 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.
PILAR CAÑEDA BRAGA, ET AL., VS. HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA, G.R. No. 223076,
September 13, 2016
FACTS:
The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao. It is compose of several ports, all within the gulf
of Davao, but its base port is the Sasa Wharf located at barangay Sasa, Davao City. In 2011, the Sasa
Wharf was pegged for privativation under the PPP scheme. The DOTC study served as one of the
primary considerations for current Sasa Wharf expansion project.
On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for Region XI (the Council) endorsed the
project through Resolution No. 118 subject to conditions. On April 10, 2015, the DOTC published an
invitation to prq1qualify and bid for the Project.
On March 15, 2016, the petitioners - all stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, Davao del Norte -
filed this Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan. The
petitioners seek to restrain the implementation of the Project - including its bidding and award - until
the respondents secure an ECC and comply with the LGC. The respondents, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) argue that the allegations do not warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
because the petitioners failed to prove the threat of environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
ISSUE:
Whether the petition warrant a Writ of Kalikasan.
RULING:
No. The Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on the petition. The writ is a remedy to anyone
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened anyone whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an
lawful act or omission. However, the violation must involve environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces
in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.
However, these allegations are insufficient to warrant a writ of kalikasan.
The petition failed to identify the particular threats from the Project itself. /ll it does is cite the
negative impacts of operating a port inside a city based on the synthesis report. However, these
impacts already exist because the Port of Davao has been operating since 1900. The Project is not for
the creation of a new port but the modernization of an existing one. At best, the allegations in support
of the application for the writ of kalikasan are hazy and speculative.
Further, the Court fails to see an environmental ris3 that threatens to prejudice the inhabitants of two
or more cities or municipalities if we do not estrain the conduct of the bidding process. The bidding
process is not equivalent to the implementation of the project. The bidding process itself cannot
conceivably cause any environmental damage.

ARIGO vs. SWIFT G.R. No. 206510 735 SCRA 102, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Facts

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

ARIGO vs. SWIFT G.R. No. 206510 735 SCRA 102, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARIGO vs. SWIFT G.R. No.

206510 735 SCRA 102, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

However, these allegations are insufficient to warrant a writ of kalikasan.

You might also like