SUZETTE NICOLAS Y SOMBILON v. ALBERTO ROMULO, GR No.

175888, 2009-02-11 Issues:

Facts: whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to
the VFA is allowed "under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate xxx and
Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United States recognized as a treaty by the other... contracting State."
Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina,
petitioner herein, sometime on November 1, 2005 Petitioners contend that these undertakings violate another provision of the
Constitution, namely, that providing for the exclusive power of this Court to adopt
Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5]). They argue
Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, the United that to... allow the transfer of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide
States, at its request, was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the for a different rule of procedure for that accused, which also violates the equal
proceedings. protection clause of the Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1.).
United States Government faithfully complied with its undertaking to bring Ruling:
defendant Smith to the trial court every time his presence was... required.
This Court finds that it is, for two reasons.
RTC of Makati, following the end of the trial, rendered its Decision, finding
defendant Smith guilt First, as held in Bayan v. Zamora,[5] the VFA was duly concurred in by the
Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as
As a result, the Makati court ordered Smith detained at the Makati jail until further attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States...
orders. government.
Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law enforcement The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States
agents, purportedly acting under orders of the Department of the Interior and Local Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or
Government, and brought to a facility for detention under the control... of the treaty recognized by the said State. For this is a matter of internal United States
United States government, provided for under new agreements between the law.
Philippines and the United States, referred to as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement...
in accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed between our two nations, The second reason has to do with the relation between the VFA and the RP-US
Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps, be returned... to U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951. This earlier agreement was signed and
military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. duly ratified with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the United
States Senate.
He will be guarded round the clock by U.S. military personnel. The Philippine police
and jail... authorities, under the direct supervision of the Philippine Department of Clearly, therefore, joint RP-US military exercises for the purpose of developing the
Interior and Local Government (DILG) will have access to the place of detention to capability to resist an armed attack fall squarely under the provisions of the RP-US
ensure the United States is in compliance with the terms of the VFA. Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for
the joint RP-US military... exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the
Clark and Subic and the other places in the Philippines covered by the RP-US main RP-US Military Defense Treaty.
Military Bases Agreement of 1947 were not Philippine territory, as they were
excluded from the cession and retained by the US. The Preamble of the VFA states

Accordingly, the Philippines had no jurisdiction over these bases except to the Reaffirming their obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951;
extent allowed by the United States.
Accordingly, as an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, it
RP-US Military Bases Agreement was never advised for ratification by the United was not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent, but
States Senate, a disparity in treatment, because the Philippines... regarded it as a merely to the US Congress under the Case-Zablocki Act within 60 days of its
treaty and had it concurred in by our Senate. ratification. It is for this reason that... the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA
as a binding international agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially complies
Subsequently, the United States agreed to turn over these bases to the Philippines; with the requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our Constitution.
and with the expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the territory
covered by these bases were finally ceded to the Philippines. The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of
the fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence
whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to "allowed under" the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty.
the VFA is allowed "under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate xxx and
recognized as a treaty by the other... contracting State."

1|PIL Digests
The VFA provides that in cases of offenses committed by the members of the US Mutual Defense Treaty.
Armed Forces in the Philippines, the following rules apply:
Secondly, the VFA is covered by implementing legislation, namely, the Case-
The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise Zablocki Act, USC Sec. 112(b), inasmuch as it is the very purpose and intent of the
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they US Congress that executive agreements registered under this Act within 60 days
so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial from their ratification be... immediately implemented.
proceedings.
VFA differs from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the Avena
this Court finds no violation of the Constitution. decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), subject matter of the Medellin
decision. The Convention and the ICJ decision are not self-executing and are not...
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from registrable under the Case-Zablocki Act, and thus lack legislative implementing
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long- authority.
recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members
of the armed forces contingents of... a foreign State allowed to enter another inally, the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty was advised and consented to by the US
State's territory. On the contrary, the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts Senate
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.
Principles:
Applying, however, the provisions of VFA, the Court finds that there is a different
treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. The moment the accused The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one's
has to be detained, e.g., after conviction, the rule that governs is the following territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The
provision of the Status of Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary
in terms and conditions,... according to the situation of the parties involved, and
VFA: reflect their bargaining power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State
can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to the extent
The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel agreed upon by the parties.
shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United
States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall As a result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of this Court to
have the right to... visits and material assistance. adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather one in which, as is
normally encountered around the world, the laws (including rules of procedure) of
It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody one State do not extend or apply
during the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific
arrangement to cover detention.
 except to the extent agreed upon - to subjects of another State due to the
not only that the detention shall... be carried out in facilities agreed on by recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting
authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall be "by Philippine foreign armed forces.
authorities."
It was not the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in adopting Article
Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which
XVIII, Sec. 25, to require the other contracting State to convert their system to
are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United
achieve alignment and parity with ours. It was simply required that the treaty be
States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not recognized as a treaty by the... other contracting State.
"by Philippine authorities."
as held by the US Supreme Court in Weinberger v. Rossi,[13] an executive
Next, the Court addresses the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in agreement is a "treaty" within the meaning of that word in international law and
Medellin v. Texas ( 552 US ___ No. 06-984, March 25, 2008), which held that constitutes enforceable domestic law vis-à-vis the United States. Thus, the
treaties entered into by the United States are not automatically part of their
US Supreme Court in Weinberger enforced the provisions of the executive
domestic law unless these... treaties are self-executing or there is an implementing
agreement granting preferential employment to Filipinos in the US Bases here.
legislation to make them enforceable.
Accordingly, there are three types of treaties in the American system:
First, the VFA is a self-executing Agreement, as that term is defined in Medellin
itself, because the parties intend its provisions to be enforceable, precisely because Art. II, Sec. 2 treaties - These are advised and consented to by the US Senate in
the Agreement is intended to carry out obligations and undertakings under the RP- accordance with Art. II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution.
US

2|PIL Digests
Executive-Congressional Agreements: These are joint agreements of the President Subsequently,... respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
and Congress and need not be submitted to the Senate.
On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order,[21]
Sole Executive Agreements. - These are agreements entered into by the President. dismissing the instant criminal case against respondent
They are to be submitted to Congress within sixty (60) days of ratification under the
provisions of the Case-Zablocki Act, after which they are recognized by the Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration
Congress and may be... implemented.
On September 1, 2010, the lower court issued an Order[25] denying petitioner's
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, GR No. Motion for Reconsideration
193707, 2014-12-10
Issues:
Facts:
Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Philippine law
Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Orders[1] dated February 19, 2010 and
September 1, 2010, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court... of Cebu City (RTC- Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262
Cebu), which dismissed the criminal case entitled People of the Philippines v. Ernst for his unjustified failure to support his minor child
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-85503, for
Ruling:
violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence
Against We find the petition meritorious. Nonetheless, we do not fully agree with petitioner's
contentions.
Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
To determine whether or not a person is criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262, it is
Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
imperative that the legal obligation to support exists.
contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990.[2] On January 19, 1994,
they were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of we agree with respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195[34] of the New
the filing of the... instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.[3] Civil Code in demanding support from respondent, who is a foreign citizen
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19, 1995 by virtue of a Divorce The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights
Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland.[4] At that time, their son was and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we
only eighteen (18) months old.[5] Thereafter, petitioner and her son... came home agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to
to the Philippines.[6] Philippine law, as to whether... he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as
the consequences of his failure to do so.[37]
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to
their son in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondent is not obliged to support
petitioner's son under Article 195 of the Family Code as a consequence of the
Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in
Divorce Covenant obtained in Holland.
Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have been residing thereat.
This does not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to support...
To date, all the parties, including their son, Roderigo, are presently living in Cebu
petitioner's son altogether.
City.[11]
In view of respondent's failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his
On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for
favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if
support from respondent. However, respondent refused to receive the letter.[12]
the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with that the foreign law is... the same as our local or domestic or internal law.[44]
the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not
been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same
Respondent submitted his counter-affidavit with Philippine law, which... enforces the obligation of parents to support their
children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-Cebu issued a Hold Departure
Order against respondent.[16] Consequently, respondent was arrested and, the
subsequently, posted bail.
Divorce Covenant presented by respondent does not completely show that he is not
Petitioner also filed a Motion/Application of Permanent Protection Order liable to give support to his son after the divorce decree was issued.

3|PIL Digests
We likewise agree with petitioner that notwithstanding that the national law of part... of official functions. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may
respondent states that parents have no obligation to support their children or that be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused
such obligation is not punishable by law, said law would still not find applicability,... by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or
Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those jurisdiction.
which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming
conventions agreed upon in a... foreign country. petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state
except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity
The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle exercised by the... diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official
imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action. functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of
official duty.
Principles:
Principles:
the doctrine of processual presumption
Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent,
JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 125865, 2000-01-28 assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the
receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or
Facts: commercial activity exercised by the... diplomatic agent in the receiving state
outside his official functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
crime is not part of official duty
Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB
worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Facts:
Mandaluyong City with two... counts of grave oral defamation
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,[3] otherwise
The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the
of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological,
process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine sociocultural,... educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into
Government regarding the perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the "no-
take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human
Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the said
activities are prohibited and penalized or fined,... including fishing, gathering,
protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge
destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. The law likewise created
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall be the sole
Issues: policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP.

that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement 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
Ruling: Philippines and to arrive at the port of

the mere invocation of the... immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew
dropping of the charges. liberty."

under Section 45 of the Agreement which provides: On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran
aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs, about 80
"Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts and miles... east-southeast of Palawan. No one was injured in the incident, and there
consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
and immunities:... a.)... immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed
by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity."... the on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the grounding incident and assured
immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario that the United States will provide
act was done in "official capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused by the ship."[6]
petitioner's case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a).
By March 30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing the last
slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef.
because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in
the name of official duty.[3] The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be

4|PIL Digests
petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents under R.A. sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise
No. 10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of conservation fees of territorial... jurisdiction
(Section 21); obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section 30); damages to the
reef (Section 20); and... destroying and disturbing resources (Section 26[g]). In this case, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding
Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement officers of the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and
(VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being unconstitutional. 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
Issues: 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
the grounds relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.
become fait accompli as the salvage... operations on the USS Guardian were
already completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this
petition improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
Philippines and the United States of America; and (4) the determination of... the
extent of responsibility of the US Government as regards the damage to the in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of R.A. No.
Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch. 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
whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity
pleading or manifestation in this case. 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
Ruling: regulations of the coastal State regarding passage through the latter's internal
waters and the territorial sea.
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to
file the present petition. 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
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,[13] we recognized the "public right" apply.But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this
of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our case, the US?
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 In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond
the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the
the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the latter's territorial sea, the flag
transcendental importance... with intergenerational implications. Such right carries States shall be required to leave... the territorial sea immediately if they flout the
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages
caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for non-
ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the enforcement of environmental commercial purposes under Article 31.
rights, they can do so in representation of their own and future... generations.
We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has
Their personality... to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from
and healthful ecology is concerned this Court.
The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors insofar as the... directives to Philippine respondents to protect and rehabilitate the
and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows the filing of coral reef structure and marine habitat adversely affected by the grounding incident
a citizen suit in environmental cases. are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs notwithstanding the
completion of the removal of the USS
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign
immunity or non-suability of the State,[17] is expressly provided in Article XVI of Guardian from the coral reef.
the 1987 Constitution which states:
In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels.
Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the
context of common security... interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he
privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial
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
5|PIL Digests
the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this... political power is not complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for
subject to judicial inquiry or decision."... we cannot grant the additional reliefs discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly
prayed for in the petition to order a review of the VFA and to nullify certain impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has... not given its consent to
immunity provisions thereof... the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine be sued.
Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and
certified by the duly authorized representative of... the United States government. This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in
The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter the courts of another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved into
of international law to abide by its terms and provisions. a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure
imperii) from private,... commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis)
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is
hereby DENIED. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings
arise out of commercial... transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial
Principles: activities or economic affairs.

Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."[10] It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as
Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he has such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being... challenged, and
"calls for more than just a generalized grievance."[11] However, the rule on Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of
standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the
plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public... interest officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or... violated by such
so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of transcendental acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of
importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of paramount public interest. immunity of the State from suit.

international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the
accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the director of a State department... on the ground that, while claiming to act for the
law of every civilized... state as a condition and consequence of its membership in State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under
the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the state is automatically an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have,
obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with other states. is not a suit against the State within the constitutional... provision that the State
may not be sued without its consent."
the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes
that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules and
which the right depends." customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources,
and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public
In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the international law,... regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the
added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All oceans."
states are sovereign equals and cannot... assert jurisdiction over one another. A
contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State
peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 171] sovereignty (mare clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare
liberum).[29] The freedom to use the world's marine waters is one of the oldest...
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its customary principles of international law.[30] The UNCLOS gives to the coastal
consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which
allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive economic
judgment... against such officials will require the state itself to perform an zone,... and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.
to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against
the state itself although it has not been formally... impleaded.

If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign government done by its foreign
agent, although not necessarily a... diplomatic personage, but acting in his official
capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign
from suit without its consent.

We held that petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of their
official functions... when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the
6|PIL Digests