 Arigo vs. Commander Swift, G.R. No. 206510, Sept.

16, 2014
Did the United States waive state immunity under the Visiting Forces Agreement?
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. It is inferred in Section 17, Rule 7 of the
Rules saying that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be
filed separately.
 Republic vs. Roque, G.R. No. 203610, Oct. 10,, 2016
Did the petitioners correctly invoke State immunity from suit?
No. A suit against the State is allowed when the State gives its consent, either expressly (through statutes)
or impliedly (entering into contracts or commences litigation). Here, following the precedence of Santiago v
Republic and Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the State, in entering into a contract and its subsequent failure to
abide by the conditions stipulated thereon, constituted implied waiver of its immunity. The doctrine of state
immunity from suit cannot serve to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen

 AMCOW vs. GAMCA, G.R. No. 207132, Dec. 6, 2016

What is the principle of sovereign independence and equality?
It is a practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity, that there can be no legal right
against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. In the case of foreign States, the rule is
derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, as expressed in the maxim par in parem non
habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary
attitude would "unduly vex the peace of nations."

Does the prohibition against the referral decking system against GAMCA violate the principle of sovereign
equality and independence?
No. The principle does not encompass exemption to governments whose agents are in the Philippines
from complying with our domestic laws. GAMCA has not adduced any evidence showing that the principle of
sovereign equality and independence has developed into an international custom shielding state agents from
compliance with another state's domestic laws. Nor did GAMCA show that it was extended sovereign
immunity from the State where it belongs. A State must first extend State Immunity to its agents before the
latter may be considered to possess immunity.
 Saguisag vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, etc., Jan. 12, 2016
Does EDCA violate Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
No. EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it merely involves “adjustments in detail” in the
implementation of the MTD and the VFA. These are existing treaties between the Philippines and the U.S.
that have already been concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have thereby met the requirements of the
Constitution under Art XVIII, Sec 25. Because of the status of these prior agreements, EDCA need not be
transmitted to the Senate.

 POTC & PHILCOMSAT vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 174462, Feb. 10, 2016
What is the effect of the failure to properly implead POTC and PHILCOMSAT in the light of Sec. 26, Art.
XVIII of the 1987 Constitution?
The failure to properly implead POTC and PHILCOMSAT not only violates the latters' legal personality, but is
repugnant on their right to due process. It is a fundamental principle that a corporation has a legal
personality distinct and separate from its stockholders, that, the filing of a complaint against a stockholder is
not ipso facto a complaint against the corporation. Hence, The sequestration order over POTC and
PHILCOMSAT was automatically lifted six (6) months after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution for
failure to implead POTC and PHILCOMSAT in Civil Case No. 0009 before the Sandiganbayan or before any
court for that matter.1
∏

1 It is to be noted that Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution mandates that if no judicial action has
been filed within six (6) months after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the writ of sequestration
shall automatically be lifted. In the case at bar, there was no judicial action filed against POTC and
PHILCOMSAT. There has never been any appropriate judicial action for reconveyance or recovery ever
instituted by the Republic against POTC and PHILCOMSAT.