Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Arigo Et Al v. Scott H. Swift

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Angelou Silang
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over US Navy officials sued in a case related to an incident where a US Navy ship ran aground in the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park. While lawsuits can be filed against state officials for acts performed in their duties, if satisfying a judgment would require action by the state, it is essentially a suit against the state. As the US officials were performing military duties and satisfying any judgment would require US government funds, the suit is considered to be against the US itself. As states cannot be sued without consent, the principle of state immunity bars the Philippine court's jurisdiction over the US respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arigo Et Al v. Scott H. Swift

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Angelou Silang
    16 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over US Navy officials sued in a case related to an incident where a US Navy ship ran aground in the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park. While lawsuits can be filed against state officials for acts performed in their duties, if satisfying a judgment would require action by the state, it is essentially a suit against the state. As the US officials were performing military duties and satisfying any judgment would require US government funds, the suit is considered to be against the US itself. As states cannot be sued without consent, the principle of state immunity bars the Philippine court's jurisdiction over the US respondents.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Arigo Et Al v. Scott h. Swift

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over US Navy officials sued in a case related to an incident where a US Navy ship ran aground in the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park. While lawsuits can be filed against state officials for acts performed in their duties, if satisfying a judgment would require action by the state, it is essentially a suit against the state. As the US officials were performing military duties and satisfying any judgment would require US government funds, the suit is considered to be against the US itself. As states cannot be sued without consent, the principle of state immunity bars the Philippine court's jurisdiction over the US respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views2 pages

    Arigo Et Al v. Scott H. Swift

    Uploaded by

    Gabriel Angelou Silang
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over US Navy officials sued in a case related to an incident where a US Navy ship ran aground in the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park. While lawsuits can be filed against state officials for acts performed in their duties, if satisfying a judgment would require action by the state, it is essentially a suit against the state. As the US officials were performing military duties and satisfying any judgment would require US government funds, the suit is considered to be against the US itself. As states cannot be sued without consent, the principle of state immunity bars the Philippine court's jurisdiction over the US respondents.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO et al v. SCOTT H.

    SWIFT, in his capacity as Commander of the US 7th

    Fleet et al

    G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014, Villarama, Jr., J.

    While the doctrine [of state immunity from suit] appears to prohibit only suits against the state without

    its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly

    performed by them in the discharge of their duties.

    FACTS:

    In 2013, the USS Guardian, a US ship, was on its way to Indonesia when it ran aground the northwest

    side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs. Vice Admiral Scott Swift, US 7th Fleet Commander

    expressed regret for the incident in a press statement. Three months later, the US Navy-led salvage

    team had finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef. The petitioners

    then filed this petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan against Swift and other officials, claiming

    that the grounding and salvaging operations caused and continue to cause environmental damage of

    such magnitude as to affect several provinces in the Visayas and Mindanao. They also seek a directive

    from this Court 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. Only the

    Philippine respondents filed a comment to the petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any

    pleading or manifestation in the case

    RULING:

    No. Under the Constitution, the State may not be sued without its consent. While the doctrine appears

    to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed

    against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The

    rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative

    act to 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 has not been formally

    impleaded. In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has

    been filed without its consent.


    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.

    You might also like