3. Immunity from Jurisdiction: Malcolm.

 Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated in Ex parte Pinochet (No. 3): It is a

basic principle of international law that one sovereign state (the
forum state) does not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign state. The
foreign state is entitled to procedural immunity from the processes of
the forum state. This immunity extends to both criminal and civil
liability.
Detailed Summary on "Immunity from Jurisdiction" - Malcolm Shaw,
International Law (9th Edition)
Malcolm Shaw's International Law is a leading textbook that
comprehensively covers various aspects of international law, including the
complex issue of immunity from jurisdiction. The 9th Edition of this
work delves into the principle of immunity from jurisdiction, its legal
foundations, and its application in both diplomatic and state contexts. This
principle plays a significant role in maintaining the functional autonomy and
independence of states, international organizations, and their
representatives. Below is a detailed summary of this topic based on Shaw's
discussion of the principle of immunity from jurisdiction.

1. The Concept of Immunity from Jurisdiction

Immunity from jurisdiction refers to the legal principle that certain
individuals or entities, such as states, diplomats, and international
organizations, are protected from being subject to the jurisdiction of foreign
national courts. This means that they cannot be sued or prosecuted under
the laws of other countries, especially in cases arising from official or
sovereign actions.
In international law, immunity from jurisdiction is rooted in the idea that
certain international actors, particularly states and diplomats, must be able
to carry out their functions without interference from the domestic legal
systems of other states. Immunity ensures that states and their
representatives can operate with independence and integrity in the
international sphere, free from the threat of legal action in foreign courts.
Shaw highlights that immunity from jurisdiction is not absolute and may
have limitations depending on the context, such as in cases involving
commercial transactions, human rights abuses, or other exceptions under
international law.
2. Immunity of States (Sovereign Immunity)
The principle of sovereign immunity is one of the most important and
longstanding aspects of international law. It provides that a state, by virtue
of its sovereignty, is generally immune from the jurisdiction of foreign
courts. The immunity extends to both the state itself and its officials when
they act within their official capacity.
Shaw explains that sovereign immunity is based on the idea that one
state's courts should not exercise jurisdiction over another state's sovereign
acts, as doing so would undermine the sovereign equality of states. This
immunity is crucial for maintaining the peaceful coexistence of states and
ensuring that states can act freely without fear of legal challenges from
foreign jurisdictions.
Key Aspects of Sovereign Immunity:
 Jurisdictional Immunity: States cannot be sued in foreign courts
unless they have waived their immunity or consented to the
jurisdiction. This applies to the actions of a state carried out in its
sovereign capacity.
 Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity: There are important
exceptions to sovereign immunity that have developed over time, such
as in cases where a state engages in commercial activities (i.e., acts
outside its sovereign functions), human rights violations, or
breaches of international treaties.
Shaw discusses the shift towards restrictive immunity, where immunity
does not apply to commercial transactions or other activities that are of a
private law nature, distinct from the state’s sovereign functions.

3. Immunity of Foreign Officials

Shaw emphasizes that state officials—including heads of state,
government ministers, and diplomats—enjoy immunity from jurisdiction for
acts committed in their official capacity. This is a critical element of the
broader principle of immunities for state officials, ensuring that they can
perform their duties without fear of legal action in foreign courts.
Immunities for Heads of State and High Officials:
 Heads of State and Government: The immunity for heads of state is
considered absolute, meaning they are immune from both civil and
criminal jurisdiction, regardless of the nature of their actions. This
principle is grounded in the idea that the head of state embodies the
 dignity and sovereignty of the nation, and therefore must not be
subjected to the jurisdiction of foreign courts.
 Other High Officials: Senior government officials and ministers also
enjoy immunity for acts committed in the course of their official
duties. However, the level of immunity granted to lower-ranking
officials may vary, and they may be subject to legal action in certain
circumstances, especially when they engage in personal or private
acts.
Shaw discusses how these immunities are important for protecting
diplomats, consuls, and other officials from arbitrary detention, legal
harassment, or politically motivated lawsuits.

4. Diplomatic Immunity
Diplomatic immunity is one of the most widely recognized applications of
immunity from jurisdiction. Under the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations (1961), diplomats enjoy broad immunity from the
jurisdiction of the host country, including immunity from both civil and
criminal suits. The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to allow diplomats to
carry out their functions without fear of coercion or interference by the host
state.
Shaw discusses the scope of diplomatic immunity in detail:
 Full Immunity for Diplomatic Agents: Diplomats, as long as they
are accredited, enjoy immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits in
the host country. They are also entitled to inviolability of their
diplomatic bags, documents, and premises.
 Family Members and Staff: In many cases, diplomats' family
members and embassy staff enjoy similar immunities, which allows
the diplomatic mission to operate with independence.
 Exceptions: While diplomats enjoy broad immunity, there are
exceptions, particularly in cases involving serious criminal offenses or
private commercial activities unrelated to their official functions.
Shaw notes that diplomatic immunity serves both to protect the individual
diplomat and to maintain the broader functioning of international
diplomacy.

5. Immunity of International Organizations

In addition to states and diplomats, international organizations such as the
United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO) also enjoy
immunity from jurisdiction. This immunity is essential for their independent
functioning, as it prevents interference from national legal systems.
Shaw examines the immunity of international organizations, particularly
focusing on:
 Immunities of the UN: The UN Charter (Article 105) grants the UN
immunity from national jurisdiction, ensuring that it can operate
independently in its member states. This immunity extends to UN
officials, agents, and staff, protecting them from domestic legal
processes.
 Specialized Agencies: Similar immunities apply to specialized
agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank,
and International Monetary Fund (IMF). These organizations
enjoy a certain degree of legal independence to carry out their
mandates without external interference.
 Immunities for Officials: Officials and staff of international
organizations are granted immunities to carry out their work without
legal challenges or threats from host states.
Shaw further explores how these immunities are enshrined in treaties and
conventions, such as the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the United Nations (1947), and how they ensure the smooth operation
of international organizations.

6. Exceptions to Immunity from Jurisdiction

While immunity from jurisdiction is a fundamental principle of
international law, it is not absolute. Several exceptions have emerged over
time, particularly as the international community seeks to balance the need
for immunity with accountability, especially in relation to issues like human
rights and commercial activities.
Shaw discusses the key exceptions to immunity from jurisdiction:
 Commercial Transactions: Under the principle of restrictive
immunity, states and state officials may be subject to jurisdiction for
activities of a commercial nature. This includes contracts, business
dealings, or actions that are purely private and unrelated to the
state’s sovereign functions.
  Human Rights Violations: There has been increasing support for
the idea that immunity should not extend to cases involving serious
human rights violations, such as torture, genocide, or crimes
against humanity. International courts, such as the International
Criminal Court (ICC), have jurisdiction over these crimes, and
individuals may not be shielded by immunity in such instances.
 Waiver of Immunity: States can waive their immunity, either
explicitly or implicitly, by consenting to legal proceedings in a foreign
court. This is often done through diplomatic agreements or contracts.
Shaw notes that the expansion of exceptions reflects evolving norms in
international law, especially as states and international organizations
prioritize accountability for serious violations of international law.

7. Immunity from Jurisdiction in International Dispute Resolution

Immunity from jurisdiction also plays an important role in the resolution of
international disputes. Shaw examines how arbitration and international
court cases often rely on the immunity of states and their officials. For
example, in disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
states can assert immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts but may
waive that immunity in the case of disputes brought before international
adjudicatory bodies.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is an international
treaty that was adopted on April 18, 1961, and entered into force on April
24, 1964. The Convention is considered one of the most significant
agreements in international law, providing the legal framework for
diplomatic relations between sovereign states. Its purpose is to regulate the
establishment, conduct, and termination of diplomatic relations, as well as
the privileges and immunities that diplomats and diplomatic missions enjoy
under international law.
The Convention is a cornerstone of international diplomacy and is designed
to facilitate peaceful interactions and communication between countries,
thereby promoting international peace and cooperation. It outlines the
rights and duties of diplomats and diplomatic missions and aims to ensure
the protection and safety of diplomatic agents while promoting the smooth
functioning of international relations.
Background and Purpose
Diplomatic immunity and privileges have been recognized for centuries, but
there was no standardized framework governing these issues until the 20th
century. The Vienna Convention was negotiated in response to the need for
a comprehensive, universal set of rules that could be applied to the growing
number of diplomatic missions worldwide.
The primary purposes of the Vienna Convention include:
1. Ensuring the Safety and Security of Diplomatic Agents:
Diplomats must be able to perform their duties without fear of
harassment, detention, or violence, and their communications should
be protected.
2. Establishing Universal Rules for Diplomatic Conduct: The
Convention provides a clear and predictable set of rules governing
diplomatic relations, facilitating the peaceful coexistence of states.
3. Promoting International Cooperation: By setting norms and
standards, the Vienna Convention helps create a framework within
which states can work together and resolve conflicts through
diplomacy.

Key Provisions of the Vienna Convention

The Vienna Convention consists of 53 articles divided into several sections.
Here are some of the most important aspects:
1. Establishment and Accreditation of Diplomatic Missions (Articles
1-11)
 Diplomatic mission: A diplomatic mission refers to the official
representation of one state in another. This may include an embassy,
consulate, or other offices established for diplomatic functions.
 Head of Mission: The head of a diplomatic mission is usually the
ambassador or high commissioner, who represents the sending state.
 Accreditation: A diplomatic agent (e.g., an ambassador) must be
formally accredited by the receiving state, meaning the receiving
country recognizes the diplomat’s right to represent the sending
state.
  Extraterritoriality: Diplomatic missions are considered to be the
territory of the sending state and are therefore subject to its laws and
not to the laws of the receiving state.

2. Functions of a Diplomatic Mission (Articles 3-10)

Diplomatic missions have a wide range of functions, including:
 Representing the sending state: Diplomatic missions act as the
official point of contact between the sending and receiving states.
 Protecting the interests of the sending state: Diplomatic missions
safeguard the interests of their citizens and companies within the host
state.
 Negotiating with the receiving state: Diplomats engage in
negotiations on behalf of their government.
 Promoting friendly relations: A diplomatic mission works to foster
peaceful and cooperative relations between the two states.
3. Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic Agents (Articles 29-36)
One of the most important features of the Vienna Convention is its
provisions regarding the privileges and immunities granted to diplomatic
agents. These are designed to ensure that diplomats can carry out their
work without interference from the host country:
 Personal Inviolability (Article 29): Diplomats are inviolable and
may not be arrested or detained by the receiving state.
 Immunity from Jurisdiction (Article 31): Diplomats are immune
from the criminal, civil, and administrative jurisdiction of the
receiving state, with certain exceptions (e.g., in cases of serious
crimes committed outside the diplomat’s official functions).
 Inviolability of Diplomatic Bags (Article 27): Diplomatic bags
carrying official correspondence are inviolable and cannot be opened
or detained by the receiving state.
 Exemption from Taxes (Article 34): Diplomats are generally
exempt from paying taxes in the receiving state on their personal
income and property.
 Diplomatic Privileges for Family Members (Article 37): Family
members of diplomats are usually granted the same privileges and
immunities, provided they are not nationals of the receiving state.
4. Protection of Diplomatic Premises (Article 22)
The premises of a diplomatic mission, including the embassy or consulate,
are inviolable. The receiving state is required to protect these premises
from intrusion, damage, or interference. In case of a breach, the receiving
state must take action to prevent such violations and ensure the safety of
the mission.
5. End of Diplomatic Relations (Articles 41-46)
The Vienna Convention also addresses the termination of diplomatic
relations. The termination of relations between two states leads to the
severance of diplomatic ties and the closure of diplomatic missions.
However, diplomatic agents and their families are given a period to leave
the receiving country after the diplomatic relationship ends.
6. Extraterritoriality of Diplomatic Missions
The diplomatic premises of a mission are considered to be extraterritorial,
meaning that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the host country’s
laws. This gives diplomats and their staff a protected space where they can
carry out their work without interference. However, diplomatic missions are
still subject to certain international norms, including respect for local
customs and laws, as long as they do not conflict with the diplomat’s official
duties.

Diplomatic Immunity and Its Limits

Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental principle of the Vienna Convention,
but it is not absolute. The Convention provides several exceptions to the
broad immunities granted to diplomats:
 Exemption from taxation: Diplomatic agents are not exempt from
taxes related to their private activities, such as income from
independent sources outside of their diplomatic role.
 Criminal Acts: Diplomats are generally immune from criminal
prosecution in the host state, but they can be expelled for serious
criminal activities. In practice, the sending state often waives
immunity in the case of grave offenses.
 Disputes of Private Law: While diplomats enjoy immunity from the
jurisdiction of the host country’s courts, this does not cover disputes
arising from private matters, such as contractual obligations or
business activities unrelated to their official duties.
Importance of the Vienna Convention
1. Facilitating Diplomatic Relations: By establishing a clear and
consistent framework for diplomatic interactions, the Vienna
Convention has helped facilitate international relations and
diplomacy. It ensures that diplomatic missions can operate effectively
without fear of arbitrary action by the host state.
2. Promoting Peaceful Resolution of Conflicts: Diplomatic immunity,
the inviolability of diplomatic premises, and clear rules regarding the
conduct of diplomats promote stability and peaceful negotiation,
which is crucial for resolving disputes between states.
3. Protection of Human Rights: By ensuring the safety of diplomats
and protecting their freedom of communication, the Vienna
Convention also plays a role in safeguarding the human rights of
individuals working in foreign countries. The principle of diplomatic
immunity often extends to protecting journalists, aid workers, and
human rights advocates.
4. Conflict Prevention: The provisions on diplomatic immunity and the
inviolability of diplomatic missions help prevent hostile actions and
violations that could escalate into international conflict. For example,
attacks on embassies or harassment of diplomats can be seen as a
serious breach of international law.

Criticism and Challenges

Despite its widespread adoption, the Vienna Convention has faced criticism
in certain instances:
 Abuse of Diplomatic Immunity: Some diplomats have been accused
of abusing their immunity, particularly in cases involving serious
criminal behavior. High-profile cases of diplomats being involved in
illegal activities, such as trafficking or sexual assault, have sparked
calls for reform.
 Diplomatic Immunity for Human Rights Violations: Some critics
argue that diplomatic immunity can shield individuals from
prosecution for human rights violations, especially in cases where the
diplomat is involved in actions such as corruption, war crimes, or acts
of torture.
Conclusion
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations remains one of the
most important and foundational treaties in international law, establishing
the norms that govern diplomatic relations between states. While it
provides vital protections for diplomats and diplomatic missions, ensuring
the smooth functioning of international diplomacy, it also requires a delicate
balance between the privileges granted to diplomats and the need for
accountability. The Convention continues to evolve as states navigate the
complexities of modern international relations, but its core principles of
diplomacy, communication, and peaceful coexistence remain central to the
global order.

ART 105, UN CHARTER

Article 105 of the United Nations Charter: An Extensive Discussion
Article 105 of the United Nations Charter is a crucial provision that deals
with the legal status of the United Nations (UN) and its relationship with
member states, particularly in terms of its immunities and privileges. It has
fundamental importance in ensuring the autonomy of the UN and protecting
its functions, personnel, and property from undue interference by member
states. This article lays the foundation for the Convention on the Privileges
and Immunities of the United Nations (1947), which further elaborates on
the legal rights of the UN.
Article 105 reads:
1. "The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members
such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of
its purposes."
2. "Representatives of the Members of the Organization and officials of
the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities
as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in
connection with the Organization."

Context and Purpose of Article 105

The United Nations Charter, adopted in 1945, established the UN as a
global organization designed to promote peace, security, economic
development, human rights, and cooperation among nations. As the UN
began its operations, it became clear that, in order to function effectively
and impartially, the organization needed to be insulated from national legal
systems, political pressures, and any undue influence from member states.
Article 105 provides a clear basis for ensuring the UN's autonomy by
establishing its rights to immunities and privileges. These immunities are
meant to guarantee that the UN and its officials can perform their duties
without interference from national governments or legal systems. This is
particularly important because the UN operates in a complex, multilateral
environment with diverse political, legal, and cultural dynamics.
The article is essentially about creating a legal framework for the
functioning of the UN and its officials in a way that protects the
organization’s independence, ensures its smooth operation, and allows it to
carry out its mandates without external interference.

Detailed Breakdown of Article 105

1. Immunities for the Organization Itself
The first part of Article 105 establishes that the UN itself enjoys certain
privileges and immunities in the territory of each of its member states.
These immunities are designed to protect the UN from external interference
and to ensure that the organization can perform its functions without
disruption or harassment by national governments.
Key points:
 "In the territory of each of its Members": This means that the UN is
entitled to enjoy immunity from local laws and jurisdiction wherever it
operates, as long as it is within the territory of a member state.
 "Privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its
purposes": The immunities are not absolute but are limited to what is
necessary to allow the UN to carry out its goals. These goals include
maintaining international peace and security, promoting human
rights, providing humanitarian assistance, and facilitating
international cooperation in various domains such as health,
development, and the environment.
For example, the UN’s headquarters in New York and other offices in
different countries are protected from legal action, including lawsuits or
criminal charges, which could impede the UN’s work. This protection
extends to UN property, documents, and communications, which cannot be
seized or interfered with by national authorities.
In addition to the immunity from legal processes, the UN’s freedom of
communication is also critical. Without immunity, the UN’s official
communications and correspondence could be subject to scrutiny or
interference by host countries, which would hinder its operations.
Therefore, this provision ensures that the UN can act with independence
and impartiality, key characteristics for any international organization
tasked with mediating conflicts or promoting peace.
2. Immunities for Representatives of Member States
The second part of Article 105 focuses on the representatives of UN
member states, particularly those who participate in UN meetings and other
functions. These individuals are granted certain privileges and immunities
to ensure their independent exercise of functions in connection with the
organization.
Key points:
 "Representatives of the Members of the Organization": This refers to
diplomats, delegates, and officials representing member states at UN
meetings, including the General Assembly, the Security Council, and
other UN bodies.
 "Privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent
exercise of their functions": The immunities granted to these
representatives are essential to ensure that they can participate freely
and independently in UN activities without fear of harassment, arrest,
or legal prosecution by the host state.
For example, representatives of member states at UN meetings enjoy
diplomatic immunity, which means that they cannot be arrested or detained,
and their official statements and actions are protected from legal scrutiny
by national courts. This immunity is critical for the functioning of the UN, as
it ensures that member states’ representatives can negotiate and make
decisions without fear of retaliation or legal action by other states.
3. Immunities for UN Officials
Although Article 105 does not explicitly mention UN officials in the same
way it addresses representatives of member states, it is widely understood
that UN personnel, including high-level officials and staff, also enjoy
privileges and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their
functions. These immunities are more explicitly defined in the Convention
on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1947), which
provides further detail on the status of UN officials.
The immunities provided to UN staff include:
  Immunity from legal process: UN staff members are generally immune
from national laws in relation to their official duties. This is necessary
to prevent local authorities from influencing or obstructing the work
of the UN.
 Exemption from taxes: UN officials are exempt from direct taxes in
the country where they are assigned, ensuring that they are not
subjected to financial pressures from the host country.
 Inviolability of documents and communications: The UN’s official
communications and documents are protected from seizure or
examination by national authorities, which ensures the organization’s
independence.

The Legal and Practical Impact of Article 105

The legal status provided by Article 105 is essential to the operational
effectiveness and neutrality of the United Nations. Some of the key practical
consequences of this article include:
1. Immunity from National Laws and Jurisdictions
Article 105 ensures that the UN and its officials are not subject to the
jurisdiction of national courts, which could impede the organization’s
activities or compromise its independence. This immunity is essential for
maintaining the neutrality of the UN, especially when the organization is
engaged in politically sensitive matters such as peacekeeping missions,
conflict resolution, or diplomatic negotiations.
2. Protection of UN Personnel and Property
The article guarantees the protection of UN personnel and property from
interference by member states, whether in the form of legal action, physical
threats, or harassment. This is particularly important for UN peacekeepers,
diplomats, humanitarian workers, and other staff who work in dangerous or
politically unstable regions.
3. Facilitation of UN’s Global Mandates
Article 105 allows the UN to carry out its global mandates, such as
overseeing peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance, or
monitoring human rights, without fear of local political interference. It
ensures that the UN can function freely, even in countries where local
governments may have conflicting interests or where security conditions
are unstable.
4. Contribution to UN’s Neutrality
By granting the necessary immunities, the article ensures that the UN is
seen as a neutral party in international disputes and conflicts. The
impartiality and independence of UN officials and diplomats are essential
for the credibility of the organization, particularly in peacekeeping or
conflict mediation efforts.

Relationship with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the

United Nations (1947)
While Article 105 of the UN Charter lays the groundwork for the privileges
and immunities of the UN, it is the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of the United Nations (1947) that provides a detailed legal
framework for the application of those privileges and immunities. The
Convention specifies the immunities of UN officials, the inviolability of the
UN's premises, and the legal protections for UN staff. It is based on the
authority granted to the UN under Article 105.
For example, the Convention provides that the UN’s headquarters and other
properties are inviolable and immune from search or seizure. Similarly, UN
personnel enjoy immunity from arrest and detention, and their official
communications are protected.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite the importance of Article 105, there have been criticisms and
challenges related to the implementation of the immunities granted to the
UN and its officials:
1. Abuse of Immunity: Some critics argue that immunity provisions can
be exploited, particularly in cases where UN personnel engage in
misconduct or criminal activities. There have been instances where
peacekeepers or UN staff have been accused of crimes such as sexual
abuse or corruption, and immunity from prosecution has made it
difficult to hold individuals accountable.
2. Accountability Issues: While the CPIUN provides some internal
mechanisms for addressing misconduct, there is no clear, uniform
system for holding UN officials accountable in cases of serious legal
violations, particularly when they enjoy immunity from national
courts.
 3. Tension with Sovereignty: Host countries sometimes express concerns
that the immunities granted to the UN and its officials infringe upon
their sovereignty. This can lead to tensions, particularly in countries
with authoritarian governments or in conflict zones.

Conclusion
Article 105 of the UN Charter is a foundational provision that ensures the
United Nations’ ability to operate independently and effectively within
member states, protecting its functions, personnel, and property from
undue interference. By granting the UN immunities and privileges
necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes, the article underpins the
organization’s ability to carry out its diverse roles, from peacekeeping to
promoting human rights. Although there are challenges related to the
implementation of these protections, Article 105 remains

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations

(1947)
The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations (CPIUN), adopted on February 13, 1946, and entered into force
on March 17, 1947, is a critical document that establishes the legal
framework for the privileges and immunities granted to the United Nations
(UN), its officials, and its specialized agencies. The Convention was drafted
with the goal of ensuring that the UN and its employees can operate freely
and without interference in carrying out their missions of international
peace and security, development, human rights, and diplomacy.
The Convention codifies the immunities required for the UN to function
independently and effectively, allowing the organization to carry out its
international tasks in a neutral and impartial manner. The provisions of this
document also extend to UN officials, employees, and representatives,
safeguarding their ability to work on behalf of the organization without
being subject to local legal constraints or actions by host countries.
Background and Purpose of the Convention
The UN was founded in 1945 with the intention of promoting international
cooperation and peace. In order to fulfill these goals, it was clear that the
UN must have the capacity to act autonomously, free from the influence of
any single member state. This independence required the creation of a legal
framework to protect UN officials, delegates, and assets from national
jurisdiction.
The main goals of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the United Nations are:
 To ensure the United Nations' independence by providing it with legal
protections against interference from member states.
 To grant specific privileges and immunities to UN officials, delegates,
and representatives, allowing them to carry out their responsibilities
without undue interference from host countries.
 To establish consistent and clear guidelines on the legal status and
treatment of UN personnel and assets in the countries where the
organization operates.
Key Provisions of the Convention
The Convention outlines the privileges and immunities afforded to the
United Nations as well as to its officials, representatives, and experts. It is
divided into several sections that address different aspects of immunity and
legal protections.
1. General Provisions (Article 1)
Article 1 of the Convention defines the scope of the agreement, establishing
that the United Nations, its specialized agencies, and related organizations
are entitled to the privileges and immunities necessary for the performance
of their functions. These privileges and immunities are meant to support the
organization’s ability to act independently and without interference.
2. Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (Article 2-5)
These articles outline the privileges and immunities granted to the United
Nations itself:
 Inviolability of premises: The property and archives of the UN are
inviolable. This means that the premises of UN offices and missions
cannot be entered, searched, or seized by the authorities of any
member state without the express consent of the UN (Article 2).
 Exemption from taxes: The UN is exempt from taxes, duties, and
other charges, whether direct or indirect, on its income, property, and
operations (Article 3). This exemption is essential for ensuring that
the organization’s resources are not taxed or diminished by the laws
of any one country.
 Immunity from legal process: The UN is immune from any form of
legal process (whether civil, administrative, or criminal) within the
territory of its member states, except where it has waived its
 immunity. This immunity protects the organization from lawsuits or
other legal actions that could interfere with its operations (Article 4).
3. Privileges and Immunities of Representatives of Member States
(Article 6)
This section focuses on the immunities granted to the official
representatives of member states (i.e., diplomats, ambassadors, and others
attending UN meetings):
 Inviolability: Representatives of member states are granted
inviolability of person, meaning they cannot be arrested or detained.
Their official documents and communications are also inviolable
(Article 6).
 Exemption from certain laws: Representatives are immune from
certain local laws and taxes in the host country, especially in relation
to their official duties (Article 6).
 Immunity from legal process: Similar to the UN itself, the
representatives of member states enjoy immunity from legal
processes relating to their official functions.
4. Privileges and Immunities of UN Officials and Experts (Articles 7-
9)
This section applies to the UN’s staff members, officials, and other experts
working on behalf of the organization:
 Immunity from legal action: UN officials are immune from personal
arrest or detention and from legal actions that could interfere with
their work (Article 7). This immunity extends to actions related to
their official functions, which are considered essential for the smooth
running of the UN’s activities.
 Exemption from certain taxes: Staff members are typically exempt
from national income taxes, although they may be subject to taxes in
their home countries (Article 8).
 Inviolability of official documents: The official documents and
communications of UN personnel are also protected under this
section.
5. Immunity from National Jurisdiction (Articles 10-14)
The Convention establishes the general principle that UN personnel,
including diplomats and staff members, are immune from the jurisdiction of
national courts in relation to their official functions. This immunity is
essential for the protection of the impartiality and neutrality of UN
personnel, allowing them to perform their duties without fear of harassment
or legal entanglements.
 Exceptions to immunity: Immunity does not apply in cases involving
private business activities or activities not related to official duties.
However, the immunity can be waived by the United Nations in cases
where it is deemed appropriate.
6. Settlement of Disputes (Article 15)
The Convention also contains provisions for the settlement of disputes
related to the privileges and immunities granted under the agreement. In
the event of a conflict, disputes are usually settled through diplomatic
channels or by a designated body, such as the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).
7. Special Provisions for Specialized Agencies (Article 19)
UN specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the
International Labour Organization (ILO), and UNESCO, are granted many of
the same privileges and immunities as the United Nations. However, there
are certain variations depending on the agency’s specific needs or
functions. The specialized agencies also have the option of negotiating their
own specific agreements with member states.

Importance of the Convention

The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations plays a crucial role in ensuring the effectiveness and neutrality of
the UN. Without these immunities, UN officials, delegates, and staff could
face harassment, arrest, or legal proceedings by host governments that may
not align with the organization’s objectives. The Convention protects the
independence of the UN by ensuring that it can act without interference
from member states.
1. Protection of the UN’s Mission: By safeguarding the UN’s ability to
act independently and impartially, the Convention enables the
organization to function effectively in areas such as peacekeeping,
diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and human rights.
2. Ensuring Functional Autonomy: The privileges and immunities
outlined in the Convention guarantee that the UN is not subject to the
laws or political pressures of any single member state. This is
 essential for maintaining the impartiality and objectivity of the UN’s
work.
3. Fostering International Cooperation: By establishing a clear legal
framework for the treatment of UN personnel and representatives,
the Convention supports an environment of international cooperation
and trust. This is especially important in conflict zones or politically
sensitive regions where the UN might be facilitating negotiations or
delivering aid.
4. Enabling Diplomatic Neutrality: The immunities granted to
diplomats and UN representatives ensure that they can engage in
peace talks or other diplomatic efforts without fear of intimidation or
arrest. This is especially important for mediators and peacekeepers in
conflict regions.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations is essential for the functioning of the UN, it has faced criticism in
some areas:
1. Abuse of Immunity: There have been instances where individuals
have used their UN immunity to avoid legal accountability,
particularly in cases of misconduct or serious crimes. Some critics
argue that this creates a situation in which individuals, especially
peacekeepers or humanitarian workers, are not held accountable for
their actions.
2. Immunity and Accountability: While immunity is vital for the
protection of UN personnel, there is ongoing debate about whether
the UN should be more transparent in its internal accountability
systems. Some believe that the organization should waive immunity in
certain cases of serious misconduct.
3. Tensions with Host Countries: The privileges granted to the UN
sometimes create tensions with host governments, especially when
the organization’s personnel engage in activities that may be viewed
as contrary to the host country’s interests or laws.

Conclusion
The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations remains a cornerstone of the UN’s legal framework, ensuring that
the organization can operate effectively, impartially, and without external
interference. By establishing the necessary protections for UN personnel,
its assets, and its diplomatic functions, the Convention enables the UN to
fulfill its mission of promoting peace, security, development, and human
rights around the world. While there are challenges and criticisms related
to the use of immunities, the Convention continues to play a vital role in
safeguarding the UN’s global mandate.

· Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

· Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies

Doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State

 is the freedom of the State before its own courts from legal
responsibility for its own actions. Itis the privilege of the State to be
free from the hazards of court litigation while performing its
governmental functions.
 The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now
embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, is one of
the generally accepted principles of international law, which we have
now adopted as part of the law of the land.
Test to determine if suit is against the state
1. When the republic is sued by name
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
3. When the suit on its face is against a government officer but the case
is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the
government
4. When the suit produces adverse consequences to the public treasury
in terms of the disbursement of public funds and loss of government
property.
EXPRESSED CONSENT TO BE SUED: must come from the State acting
through a duly enacted statute. Waiver of state immunity can be only made
through the positive act of legislative body by means of general law and
special law.
IMPLIED CONSENT TO BE SUED: When the state commences litigation,
state enters into a business contract and when it would be equitable for the
government to claim immunity
Rationale for State Immunity
The doctrine is grounded in two main justifications:
 Sovereignty: A sovereign state should not be subjected to the
jurisdiction of another.
 Non-Accountability for Government Actions: It ensures that the
State can perform its functions without the threat of litigation
hindering its ability to govern and serve the public effectively.
3. Scope and Application of State Immunity
 Public Acts (Jure Imperii): The doctrine applies to acts that are
purely governmental or sovereign in nature. These include legislative,
executive, and judicial functions, such as:
o Enforcing laws
o Diplomatic activities
o Military decisions
o Regulation of public services
 Private Acts (Jure Gestionis): The immunity does not extend to the
State’s commercial or proprietary activities. When the government
enters into commercial contracts or transactions typically reserved for
private individuals or corporations (such as trade or business
contracts), it may be held liable. This distinction is often referred to as
the jure imperii (sovereign acts) versus jure gestionis (commercial
acts) dichotomy.
4. Consent to be Sued
Although the State is generally immune from suit, it may consent to be
sued. Such consent can be given explicitly or impliedly.
 Express Consent: The State may pass laws, enter into contracts, or
make other official declarations that waive its immunity.
o Legislative Waiver: One example is the Commonwealth Act
No. 327, which allows the State to be sued under specific
circumstances for liabilities arising from contracts it has
entered into.
 Implied Consent: The State may also impliedly waive its immunity
by engaging in activities where it becomes a party to litigation.
o Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations
(GOCCs): When GOCCs act in a commercial capacity (such as
 the Philippine National Railways), they are deemed to have
waived immunity.
However, waivers of immunity are strictly construed, and mere
engagement in commercial activities does not automatically mean that the
government can be sued unless consent is clear and unequivocal.
5. Limitations of State Immunity
While the doctrine is broad, it has certain limitations:
 Suit vs. Officers in Official Capacity: The State cannot be sued for
acts committed by its officers in their official capacity. However, if the
officer acted beyond the scope of their authority or violated the
Constitution, the suit may proceed.
 Illegal Acts and Ultra Vires Acts: If a government official commits
an illegal act or exceeds their authority (ultra vires), the State cannot
invoke immunity to shield that official from legal action. In such cases,
the court may entertain the suit to ensure accountability.
 Tort Liability: Under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Book I,
Chapter 9, Section 38 and 39), government officials may be held
liable for torts or wrongful acts committed within the scope of their
official duties, provided it is proven that they acted with bad faith,
malice, or gross negligence. While the State itself may remain
immune, the officials responsible can be personally sued.
6. Exceptions to State Immunity
There are instances when State immunity does not apply:
 Eminent Domain: Although the State has the power to expropriate
private property for public use, it must pay just compensation. If the
government fails to do so, the aggrieved property owner may sue the
State, and this is considered an exception to the doctrine of immunity.
 Contracts: If the State enters into contracts that are commercial in
nature, it waives its immunity for disputes arising from those
contracts. For instance, if the government contracts with a private
company for infrastructure projects and defaults, the company can
sue for breach of contract.
 Government Agencies with Separate Charters: Some government
agencies or instrumentalities are vested with a corporate personality
and can sue and be sued, such as the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas or the Social Security System.
7. Judicial Interpretation in the Philippines
Philippine courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have developed a
nuanced interpretation of the doctrine of state immunity. The guiding
principle is that state immunity is not absolute, and the courts carefully
consider the nature of the State’s actions and the presence or absence of its
consent before allowing suits.
Notable cases that have shaped the interpretation of state immunity in the
Philippines include:
 Sanders v. Veridiano II (162 SCRA 88, 1988): This case
emphasized that State immunity is based on the nature of the act,
reaffirming that the State cannot be sued without its consent unless
the act involves a commercial or proprietary transaction.
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (204 SCRA 212, 1991): This case
illustrated that the immunity of the State does not extend to instances
where government officials act beyond their legal authority, in which
case they can be personally liable.
 Department of Agriculture v. NLRC (227 SCRA 693, 1993): The
court held that when the government engages in activities that can be
classified as proprietary or commercial in nature, it is deemed to have
waived its immunity from suit.
8. State Immunity and International Law
Under international law, the principle of state immunity operates within
similar parameters. The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional
Immunities of States and Their Property (2004), though not yet widely
ratified, formalizes the distinction between sovereign acts (jure imperii) and
commercial acts (jure gestionis), affirming that immunity only applies to
sovereign acts.
In the context of diplomatic relations, the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations (1961) provides diplomatic immunities and
privileges, extending the concept of immunity to foreign diplomats in a host
state.
9. State Immunity in Special Circumstances
 Foreign States and Sovereign Immunity in the
Philippines: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(FSIA), foreign states generally enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in
Philippine courts unless they engage in commercial or private acts.
  International Organizations: International bodies, such as
the United Nations, also enjoy certain immunities under
international agreements and host country arrangements.
Conclusion
State immunity, as applied in the Philippine legal system, upholds the
principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent, protecting its
sovereign prerogatives. However, through constitutional, legislative, and
judicial processes, the Philippine government has outlined specific
circumstances under which it may waive that immunity, particularly when
engaging in commercial activities or violating rights. The distinction
between sovereign acts and commercial acts is central to understanding the
boundaries of this doctrine.
[G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001.] JEFFREY LIANG
(HUEFENG), Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

This resolves petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision dated

January 28, 2000, denying the petition for review.

The Motion is anchored on the following arguments:

1) THE DFA’S DETERMINATION OF IMMUNITY IS A POLITICAL

QUESTION TO BE MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS.

2) THE IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IS ABSOLUTE.

3) THE IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO ALL STAFF OF THE ASIAN

DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB).

4) DUE PROCESS WAS FULLY AFFORDED THE COMPLAINANT TO

REBUT THE DFA PROTOCOL.

5) THE DECISION OF JANUARY 28, 2000 ERRONEOUSLY MADE A

FINDING OF FACT ON THE MERITS, NAMELY, THE SLANDERING OF A
PERSON WHICH PREJUDGED PETITIONER’S CASE BEFORE THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (MTC)-MANDALUYONG.

6) THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IS NOT

APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
 This case has its origin in two criminal Information for grave oral
defamation filed against petitioner, a Chinese national who was
employed as an Economist by the Asian Development Bank (ADB),
alleging that on separate occasions, petitioner allegedly uttered
defamatory words to Joyce V. Cabal, a member of the clerical staff of
ADB.
 MeTC Mandaluyong: Acting pursuant to an advice from the
Department of Foreign Affairs that petitioner enjoyed immunity from
legal processes, dismissed the criminal Information against him.
 Regional Trial Court of Pasig City: On a petition for certiorari and
mandamus filed by the People, Branch 160, annulled and set aside the
order of the MeTC dismissing the criminal cases.
 Supreme Court: Petitioner brought a petition for review which was
denied on January 28, 2000. The immunity granted to officers and
staff of the ADB is not absolute; it is limited to acts performed in an
official capacity. Furthermore, the immunity cannot cover the
commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name
of official duty.
 On October 18, 2000, the oral arguments of the parties were heard.
This Court also granted the Motion for Intervention of the Department
of Foreign Affairs. Thereafter, the parties were directed to submit
their respective memorandum.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the statements allegedly made by petitioner were
uttered while in the performance of his official functions fall
squarely under the provisions of Section 45 (a) of the "Agreement
Between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian
Development Bank”.

RULING:
No. As stated under Section 45(a) states the following:
Officers and staff of the Bank, including for the purpose of this Article
experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the
following privileges 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 Court found no cogent reason to disturb our Decision of January 28,
2000. The slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as
falling within the purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and
personnel. What is merely stated therein is that slander, in general, cannot
be considered as an act performed in an official capacity. The issue of
whether or not petitioner’s utterances constituted oral defamation is still for
the trial court to determine.

DECISION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motions for

Reconsideration filed by petitioner and intervenor Department of Foreign
Affairs are DENIED with FINALITY.

· Arigo vs Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014

Parties:
 Petitioners:
o Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa
o Most Rev. Deogracias S. Iniguez, Jr., Bishop-Emeritus of
Caloocan
o Various environmental and political activists, including Frances
Q. Quimpo, Clemente G. Bautista, Jr., Renato M. Reyes, Jr.,
Maria Carolina P. Araullo, Roland G. Simbulan, Teresita R.
Perez, and others, representing several groups such as
Kalikasan-PNE, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), and
others.
 Respondents:
o Scott H. Swift, Commander of the US 7th Fleet
o Mark A. Rice, Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian
o President Benigno S. Aquino III, Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines
o Various high-ranking government officials from the Philippine
Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA),
Department of National Defense (DND), and the Philippine
Coast Guard.

Factual Background:
This case arose after the USS Guardian, a U.S. Navy ship, ran aground on
Tubbataha Reefs, a protected marine sanctuary in the Philippines, in
January 2013. The grounding of the USS Guardian resulted in significant
environmental damage to the Tubbataha Reefs, a UNESCO World Heritage
site, causing the loss of coral reef habitats and biodiversity.
Following the incident, several environmentalists, religious leaders, and
activists, including the petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court. They sought to hold the U.S. military officials and the
Philippine government officials responsible for the environmental damage
caused by the USS Guardian incident.
The petitioners contended that the respondents were liable for violating
Philippine environmental laws and for failing to prevent the damage to the
Tubbataha Reefs. Additionally, they challenged the actions and inactions of
both the U.S. and Philippine governments, which they claimed were
involved in allowing the presence and activities of the USS Guardian under
the Philippines-United States Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
At the core of the dispute was whether the Philippine courts could exercise
jurisdiction over foreign military personnel, the actions of the U.S.
government within the Philippines, and the violation of Philippine
environmental laws.

Issues:
1. Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the environmental
damage caused by the USS Guardian's grounding on Tubbataha
Reefs, given the involvement of U.S. military personnel and the
Philippines-United States Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
2. Whether the petitioners can seek remedies for environmental damage
under Philippine law, considering the international agreements that
govern the presence of U.S. forces in the Philippines, such as the VFA.
3. Whether the actions of the Philippine government in its management
of the VFA and the oversight of U.S. military activities in the
Philippines can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, thereby dismissing
the petition filed by the petitioners. Below are the key points of the
decision:
1. Jurisdiction of Philippine Courts Over Foreign Military Actions: The
Supreme Court held that the Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction
over the acts of foreign military personnel unless the activities fall
within the scope of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) or other
specific international agreements. In this case, the Court found that
 the VFA provides for specific jurisdictional arrangements in cases
involving U.S. military personnel in the Philippines, including
provisions for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Philippine
government over environmental issues arising from U.S. military
actions.
2. Jurisdictional Scope of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA): The
Court acknowledged the VFA between the Philippines and the United
States, which governs the presence of U.S. military forces in the
country. Under the VFA, the United States is given primary
jurisdiction over its personnel and activities related to their official
duties. However, the Court noted that the Philippine government still
has jurisdiction over environmental matters that arise from the
actions of U.S. military personnel, particularly when the violation
concerns Philippine environmental laws, such as those governing the
protection of the Tubbataha Reefs.
3. Non-Reviewability of Political Questions: The Supreme Court
emphasized that issues concerning the conduct of foreign relations
and the application of international agreements like the VFA often fall
under the political question doctrine, which means that such matters
are generally beyond the scope of judicial review. The Court
concluded that while environmental concerns are valid, the
determination of the specific jurisdiction over military personnel and
the application of the VFA in this context should be left to the
executive branch of the government, not the judiciary.
4. Sovereign Immunity and Diplomatic Protections: The Court
considered the doctrine of sovereign immunity, noting that foreign
military personnel are typically afforded diplomatic immunity and are
generally not subject to local judicial processes for acts committed in
their official capacity. The grounding of the USS Guardian occurred
during an official U.S. military operation, and as such, the Court
determined that diplomatic and military agreements between the two
nations would take precedence over local claims for damages under
Philippine law.
5. Environmental Remedies and Philippine Jurisdiction: Despite the
Court's findings on jurisdictional issues, it also emphasized that the
Philippine government, through the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and other relevant agencies, had a
responsibility to hold the U.S. military accountable for the
environmental damage caused by the USS Guardian. However, the
Court ruled that the petitioners could not compel immediate action
 through the judiciary but should pursue remedies through proper
channels, such as environmental protection agencies.
6. Dismissal of the Petition: The Court ultimately dismissed the petition
on the grounds that the Philippine courts lacked the proper
jurisdiction to compel the U.S. military or the government of the
United States to answer for the alleged violations. The Supreme Court
concluded that the remedy lay with the executive branch of the
Philippine government, particularly in terms of diplomatic negotiation,
rather than in judicial intervention.

Key Legal Doctrines and Principles:

1. Jurisdiction Over Foreign Military Personnel:
o Foreign military personnel operating under an international
agreement (such as the VFA) are generally subject to the terms
of that agreement, which governs issues of jurisdiction. The
Philippine courts’ jurisdiction over the actions of U.S. military
personnel is limited by the provisions of the VFA and other
international accords.
2. Sovereign Immunity:
o The principle of sovereign immunity shields foreign
governments and their representatives (such as military
personnel) from local jurisdiction, particularly for acts
conducted in the performance of their official duties. This
principle also extends to foreign military actions that occur
under the scope of bilateral agreements, such as the VFA
between the Philippines and the United States.
3. Political Question Doctrine:
o The Supreme Court invoked the political question doctrine,
which states that issues relating to foreign relations and the
application of international treaties or agreements are primarily
within the purview of the executive branch and should not be
interfered with by the judiciary.
4. Environmental Protection:
o The case underscores the importance of environmental
protection laws in the Philippines, particularly regarding the
preservation of natural resources like the Tubbataha Reefs.
However, the Court noted that environmental disputes involving
 foreign military activities may require diplomatic negotiation
rather than judicial remedies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction
over the actions of foreign military personnel under the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) unless specific provisions allow for it. The Court also
emphasized that environmental concerns arising from military actions
involving foreign troops should be addressed through diplomatic and
executive channels rather than through the judiciary. Ultimately, the
petition was dismissed, and the Court left the responsibility for addressing
the environmental damage caused by the USS Guardian to the executive
branch of the Philippine government.
This decision reaffirmed the principle of sovereign immunity and the
political question doctrine in cases involving foreign military forces,
highlighting the limited role of the judiciary in such matters.
ANOTHER:
DOCTRINE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – If the judgement against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, the
suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been
formally impleaded.
FACTS
In January 2013, the USS Guardian ran aground the South Shoal of the
Tubbataha Reef in Palawan. Thereafter, the US Navy-led salvage team
proceeded in salvaging the ship around the reef. In April 2013, the
Petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan before the
Supreme Court. They impleaded Respondent Scott Swift, who was the
7th US Fleet Commander, and some others in the Petition.
Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging, and post-salvaging
operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental
damage in different provinces surrounded by the Sulu Sea, which events
violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology. They
also sought a directive for the institution of civil, criminal and
administrative suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws in
connection with the grounding incident. Ultimately, they wanted particular
provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) be declared
unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the Respondents asserted that the issuance of a Writ of
Kalikisan has become fait accompli because the salvaging operations on the
USS Guardian has been completed. Further, the petition improperly raises
issues involving the VFA.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the US Respondents.
RULING
NO. The Supreme Court held that while the doctrine of state immunity
prohibits 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 judgement
against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative
act to satisfy the same, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself
although it has not been formally impleaded.
In the present 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. The grounding incident took place while they were
performing official military duties. Considering the satisfaction of a
judgement against said officials will require remedial actions and
appropriations of funds by the US Government, the suit is deemed to be one
against the US itself. Therefore, the principle of state immunity bars the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the US Respondents.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition is DENIED.
1. Immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts
The inhibition to implead a foreign state in a local jurisdiction is expressed
in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. That is, all states are
sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. This 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.
The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the
USS Guardian on the TRNP was committed while the US respondents were
performing official military duties and working as commanding officers of
the US Navy who had control and supervision over the USS Guardian and
its crew. The suit is deemed to be one against the US itself as the
satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions
and appropriation of funds by the US government. Therefore, the principle
of State immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
2. 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. A ruling on the application or non-
application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US
personnel who may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS
Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition
for a writ of Kalikasan.
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States
troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote “common security
interests” between the US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for
the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and further
defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation
and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies. The invocation of US
federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper considering that it
is the VF A which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew
navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the
agreement.

· Raegan vs CIR, G.R. No. L-26379, December 27, 1969

FACTS: It appears that petitioner, a citizen of the United States and an employee
of Bendix Radio, Division of Bendix Aviation Corporation, which provides technical
assistance to the United States Air Force, was assigned at Clark Air Base,
Philippines, on or about July 7, 1959 ... . Nine (9) months thereafter and before his
tour of duty expired, petitioner imported on April 22, 1960 a tax-free 1960 Cadillac
car with accessories valued at $6,443.83, including freight, insurance and other
charges."4 Then came the following: "On July 11, 1960, more than two (2) months
after the 1960 Cadillac car was imported into the Philippines, petitioner requested
the Base Commander, Clark Air Base, for a permit to sell the car, which was
granted provided that the sale was made to a member of the United States Armed
Forces or a citizen of the United States employed in the U.S. military bases in the
Philippines. On the same date, July 11, 1960, petitioner sold his car for $6,600.00
to a certain Willie Johnson, Jr. (Private first class), United States Marine Corps,
Sangley Point, Cavite, Philippines, as shown by a Bill of Sale . . . executed at Clark
Air Base. On the same date, Pfc. Willie (William) Johnson, Jr. sold the car to Fred
Meneses for P32,000.00 as evidenced by a deed of sale executed in Manila." 5

As a result of the transaction thus made, respondent Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, after deducting the landed cost of the car as well as the
personal exemption to which petitioner was entitled, fixed as his net taxable
income arising from such transaction the amount of P17,912.34, rendering
him liable for income tax in the sum of P2,979.00. After paying the sum, he
sought a refund from respondent claiming that he was exempt, but pending
action on his request for refund, he filed the case with the Court of Tax
Appeals seeking recovery of the sum of P2,979.00 plus the legal rate of
interest.
ISSUE: Is the sale considered done in a foreign soil not subject to
Philippine income tax?
HELD: No. The Philippines is independent and sovereign, its authority may
be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is
beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands
paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must
submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and
personal. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Military Bases
Agreement that lends support to Reagan’s assertion. The Base has not
become foreign soil or territory. This country’s jurisdictional rights therein,
certainly not excluding the power to tax, have been preserved, the
Philippines merely consents that the US exercise jurisdiction in certain
cases – this is just a matter of comity, courtesy and expediency. It is
likewise noted that he indeed is employed by the USAF and his income is
derived from US source but the income derived from the sale is not of US
source hence taxable.