GR No. 206510
GR No. 206510
206510
Case Title:
Arigo et. al., petitioners vs. Swift et. al., respondents
Date:
September 16, 2014
I. FACTS
II. ISSUES
1. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing.
2. Whether or not US respondents may be held liable for damages caused by USS
Guardian.
3. Whether or not the waiver of immunity from suit under VFA applies in this case.
III. RULING
1. Yes. Petitioners have legal standing. Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a court of
justice on a given question.” Specifically, it is “a party’s personal and substantial interest
in a case where he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result” of the act being
challenged, and “calls for more than just a generalized grievance.” However, the rule on
standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs
like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest so requires, such
as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental importance, of
overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 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.
On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this 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 and future
generations.
During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the position
that the conduct of the US 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.
In the case of warships, as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy
sovereign immunity subject to the following exceptions:
Article 30: Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal
State
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance
therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea
immediately.
Article 31: Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other
government ship operated for non-commercial purposes.
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal
State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated
for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or
other rules of international law.
Article 32: Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-
commercial purposes
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing
in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships
operated for non-commercial purposes. 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?
According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a
matter of long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary international
rules on the “traditional uses of the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.
Moreover, Justice Carpio emphasizes that “the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was
centered on its disagreement with UNCLOS” regime of 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 the US’ acceptance of customary international rules
on navigation.”
The Court also fully concurred with Justice Carpio’s view that non-membership in the
UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a
Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear
“international responsibility” under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to 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 from its obligation to
compensate the damage caused by its warship while transiting our internal waters. Much
less can we comprehend a Government exercising leadership in international affairs,
unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all nations to cooperate in the global
task to protect and preserve the marine environment as provided in Article 197 of
UNCLOS.
3. No. The waiver of State immunity under the VF A 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.
The Court also found 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.