ARIGO vs.

SWIFT
G.R. No. 206510
735 SCRA 102, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
EN BANC
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:
In 2013, the USS Guardian of the US Navy ran aground on an area near the Tubbataha Reefs, a marine
habitat of which entry and certain human activities are prevented and afforded protection by a Philippine law.
The grounding incident prompted the petitioners to seek for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan with TEPO from the
SC.
Among those impleaded are US officials in their capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy. As
petitioners argued, they were impleaded because there was a waiver of immunity from suit between US and
PH pursuant to the VFA terms.
Petitioners claimed that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian violated
their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology since these events caused and continue to cause
environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect other provinces surrounding the Tubbataha Reefs. Aside
from damages, they sought a directive from the SC for the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits
for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding
incident. They also prayed for the annulment of some VFA provisions for being unconstitutional.
Issue 1: W/N the US Government has given its consent to be sued through the VFA
No. The general rule on states immunity from suit applies in this case.
First, any waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil
actions such as for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan. Hence, contrary to petitioners claim, the US
government could not be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.
Second, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who
have control and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. Since the satisfaction of any judgment
against these officials would require remedial actions and the appropriation of funds by the US government,
the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself. Thus, the principle of State Immunity in correlation with
the principle of States as sovereign equals par in parem non habet non imperium bars the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court over their persons.
Issue 2: W/N the US government may still be held liable for damages caused to the Tubbataha
Reefs
Yes. The US government is liable for damages in relation to the grounding incident under the customary laws
of navigation.
The conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted area in violation of RA 10067 and
caused damage to the TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the UNCLOS.
While historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the
UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of
the coastal State regarding passage through the latters internal waters and the territorial sea.

Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS, as a matter of long-standing policy, the US considers
itself bound by customary international rules on the traditional uses of the oceans, which is codified in
UNCLOS.
As to the non-ratification by the US, it must be noted that the US refusal to join the UNCLOS was centered on
its disagreement with UNCLOS regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep
seabed commonly owned by mankind. Such has nothing to do with the acceptance by the US of customary
international rules on navigation. (Justice Carpio)
Hence, non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines
as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. It is thus expected of the US to bear
international responsibility under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely
affected the Tubbataha reefs. ##
Other Issues
Claim for Damages Caused by Violation of Environmental Laws Must be Filed Separately
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is improper considering that it is the VFA which
governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the
objectives of the agreement.
As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special
civil actions. Since jurisdiction cannot be had over the respondents for being immuned from suit, there is no
way damages which resulted from violation of environmental laws could be awarded to petitioners.
In any case, the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan provides that a criminal case against a person charged with a
violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately. Hence, a ruling on the application or non-application
of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to a 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.
Challenging the Constitutionality of a Treaty Via a Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan is
Not Proper
The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the US as
attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the US government. The VFA being a valid and
binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and
provisions. A petition under the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan is not the proper remedy to assail the
constitutionality of its provisions.