1. To what it owes to the security agency
which was not paid, the NLRC ordered the garnishment of funds of the University
of the Philippines to pay for the salaries of the security guards assigned in
the UP Campus. Question: Is the garnishment of U.P. Funds proper? Is the
University of the Philippines immune from suit? Can it be sued? Explain your
answer.
2. The farmers who marched in Mendiola bridge
to pursue their cause that agrarian reform be implemented to their lands, were
killed by the military men in civilian
clothes after an armed confrontation, where some farmers also carried arms as
against the armed military men too. About
30 farmers were killed. The surviving heirs of the farmers sued the
Philippine government and the military officials for compensation. Question: Is
the Philippine government thru the President of the Philippines and the military officials liable for
compensation asked? Are they suable anyway? Explain.
3. A piece of land was donated by Mr. X to the
Holy See. Since the Holy See ( represented by the Pope) did not use the
property they decided to sell it to Star Corporation. In their contract, it is
the obligation of the Holy See to eject the squatters first, before the
complete payment shall be paid. Since the squatters were not evicted, and since
half of the payment was already made, the Star Corporation sued the Holy See
for damages. Question: Will the suit prosper? Explain.
4. The Bureau of Customs operated an arrastre
services in the Port of Cebu. Petron sent some of its products to Dipolog, but
which were not delivered as they were stolen along the way. Petron sued the
Bureau of Customs which countered that being a government agency it cannot be
sued. Is the contention of the Bureau of Customs correct? Explain.
5. Explain the following terms: (a)
prerogative of royal dishonesty (b) jure gestiones and jure emperii (c) pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic
stantibus (d) cite at least three examples of jure gestiones and jure emperii.
END OF THE EXAMINATION
Agapito Balili
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 594
Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com
Class: Political/Criminal
Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa
* The garnishment of UP Fumds is be sid toNOT proper. Even assuming that UP entered into contract with the Security Agency for the assignment of Security Guards at the UP campus, and despite the fact that this partakes of a money claims, the law provides that it should first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA). As a rule UP is immune from suit. However UP may be said to have waived its immunity if it no longer performs its governmental or juri imperii functions or it has enetered into a private or commercial contracts, in which case it is deemed to have gone down to the level of private individuals in entering contracts with them (juri gestionis).
* The Philippine Government thru the President and the militry officials is not liable for the compensation asked, because the state in this case is performing a governmental function, a requisite for non-suability under the principle of international law. In this case the state, Pbhlippines is not suable.
* Yes, the suit will prosper. The Holy See in this case went down to the level of private individual when it entered into contract with the buyer Star Corporation. Under the law on the matter, when a state enters into a commercial contract, as in this case, it effectively waives is immunity from suit. Hence, the Holy See may be sued for damages.
* The contention of the Bureau of Customs is not correct. True the Bureau in this case is a government agency who is supposed to be immune from suit. But this is true only if the office, i.e., the Customs bureau is in the pursuit of its governmental functions. In this case, however, it went down to the level of the buyer which is a private corporation when it enetered into such contract with the latter, and therefore it was not in th performance of a givernment functions, but rather a private function.
* a. Prerogative of royal dishonesty is another term for "state's non-suability or what amount to the same thing as state's immunity from suit. State's immunity from suit proceeds from the thought that a state cnnot be sued without its consent. Consent can be express or implied. It is said to be express when there is a geneeral provisions of law like Act. no, 3038 which provides that a state, Phillipines for that matter is suable., and that consent is implied when a state enters into a business or private contracts.
b. Jure gestiones is called, when a state or a government organ enters into commercial transaction thru a contract or agreement, in which case, a state waives here immunity from suit. In effect the state has given her consent to be sued. On the other hand jure emperii is called when a state is realy immune from suit, because, its act is a governmental function.
c. Pacta sunt servanda is a concept in international law which mandates that: what has been agreed upon should be complied with or followed, rebus sic stantibus is the exact opposite of the doctrine of pacta sunt survanda, in the sense that a state acting thru the President may not proceed with what has been agreed in a treaty for example, because the other party is perceived to be not true or sincere to the agreement. Examples of Jure Gestiones, is when a state enters into a business contract of Arrastre with a private peson or corporation. Examples of Jure Emperii is when a state engage in a military excercises.
Agapito Balili
2020-11-17
Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 694
Writing time: 70 minutes
Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
I
The garnishment UP is not valid, athough its funds may be subject for garnishment or levy, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be files with COA , which has the primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all debts and claims due from or owing the government or any of its subdivision.
UP is not immune from suit since it is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued.
In the given case, UP consented to be sued when it participated in the proceedings.
II
The Philippine govenment is not liable but the military officials is liable for their acts.
Generally, the state enjoys the right of immunity from suit. This is based on the principle that there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends. However, it may be sued if it gives consent whether express or implied. This immunity from suit is applicable also to officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharged of their functions and duties. But, in case where government officials acted beyond the scope of their authority the immunity from suit will not apply.
In the given case, the suit filed by the farmers does not qualify as a suit against the state because the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government. Since, although the military officers and personnel were discharging their official functions when the incident occured, their function ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority. Based on the commission findings, the use of firearms by the military officials and personnel is without justification and unnecessary in the dispersing. Hence, state immunity from suit cannot be invoked.
III
The suit will not prosper.
The restrictive application of State immunity from suit is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs (Jus gestionis). It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions (Jus imperii).
In the given case,the land acquired by the petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila was not made for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of the Pope, which is a right of a foreign sovereign recognized under treaty concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the Philippines.
Hence, it is an act jus imperii and the restrictive application of state immunity from suit will not apply.
IV
The contention of the Bureau of customs is correct.
Although generally, when the state engages in proprietary functions, it descends to the level of a private individual and may, therefore be vulnerable to suit. This will not however apply when the proprietary function is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the concerned government agency.
V
(a) The doctrine of royal prerogative of dishonesty means that there can be no right against the authority which makes the law on which right depends, However, it can be sued if it gives consent whether express or implied.
(b) Jure gestionis means a nation's acts that are essentially commercial or private in nature. While jure emperii are acts relating to the exercise of sovereign function.
(c)Pacta sunt servanda means "agreements must be kept. This principle refers to international agreements which prescribes the law between the parties in the contract and therefore implies that neglect of their respective obligations is a violation of the contract.
while the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is a clause in international conventions, agreements or treaties that provide for the unforceability of a treaty due to fundamentally changed circumstances.
(d)Examples of Jure Gestiones
1. Hiring of employees in the recreation center for profit operated by the US government to cater American servicemen and the general public.
2. Entering into a contract primarily for business and profit
3.renting out state owned property in a foreign country for commercial purposes.
Examples of Jure emperii
1.law making
2. granting of license to an investor
3. acts of expropriation
Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez
2020-11-17
Ameliano Himang
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 335
Email: mhelghimang@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review Class
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Ameliano G. Himang
Political Law Review Class
1. No. the garnishment of U.P. funds is not proper under the law the claimants should prosecute their money claims against the government and it further provides that government funds are not subject for garnishment, the money claim first be brought to the Commission on Audit.
2. It depends if the University of the Philippines entered into a commercial contract, hence, it can be sued because it decended into the level of private individual and open for the possible counter-claim. The general rule is that, the state may not be sued without its consent, The state consent maay be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be throught a general law or special law.
3. Yes it can be sued, however, under the doctrine of royal prerogative of dishonesty, it grants the state the prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability.
11. No, the Supreme Court decided that state cannot be held civilly liable for the deaths that followed the incident. Instead the liablity should fall on the named defendants, because they acted beyond the scope of their authority, hence, may be held liable for damages.
Yes, they are suable in their personal capacity because they acted beyond the scope of its power, the supreme court ruled that even, a high position in the government does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another.
111. Yes, the suit will prosper because they entered into a commercial transaction, hence, they waived its immunity from suit, and open for a possible counter-claim. By, entering into private transaction they decended into the level of individual, hence. it can be sued.
IV. No, the contentionof BOC is not correct, the general rule is that the government may not be sued without its consent, However, the BOC entered into a contract, it decended into the level of indiviudual waiving its immunity from suit because, it is answerable for any counter-claims from the other party.
Ameliano Himang
2020-11-17
Anilyn Evangelista
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 594
Writing time: 58 minutes
Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com
Class: Political LAw Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
I.
No. The garnishment of U.P. funds is not proper.
U.P., being an agency of the State, its funds cannot be the subject of garnishment. Settled is the rule that if the State or agency of the State is liable, there must be appropriation of funds by the COA to settle the judgment against them. The power of the court ends when the judgment is rendered. Hence, garnishment of funds cannot be properly executed by the NLRC.
The general rule is that the University of the Philippines is immune from suit if it acted in its sovereign or governmental functions or jure imperii but if it acted in jure gestionis, they cannot be immune from suit for they descend to the level of an individual if they entered into business contracts.
II.
The Philippine government thru the President of the Philippines is not liable for the compensation asked but the military officials are libale in their personal capacity.
The rule is that the state cannot be sued without its consent unless the state waive its immunity either expressly or impliedly. Settled is the rule that when the Sate act in jure imperii capacity, the State is immune from suit but if it acted jure gestionis, thet the state cannot invoke immunity from suit.
The military officials cannot invoke immunity from suit alleging that their act is the act of the state. The act of an official cannot be considered as an act of the state if it exceeds their authority or acted beyond the scope of their authority. In the given case, clearly the officials acted beyond the scope of authority, hence they are liable in their personal capacity and cannot invoke that their acts are acts of the State.
III.
No. The suit will not prosper.
The doctrine that the state cannot be sued without its consent is applicable in the case at bar. The Holy See can validly invoke that they are immune from suit and they did not waive its immunity either expressly or impliedly.
IV.
Yes, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is correct.
The Bureau of Customs has no personality separate and disticnt from that of the state, hence they can invoke immunity from suit being an agency of the State. The arrastre services cannot be considered as proprietary function for it is incidental to its purpose.
Hence immunity from suit can be properly invoked in the case at bar.
V.
a. prerogative of royal dishonesty-it grants the state the prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non suability or that the state cannot be sued withour its consent.
b. jure gestionis refers to act of the state in its private, commercial and proprietary capacity while jure imperii refers to act of the state in its sovereign and governmental functions. The former is subject to restrictive application of state immunity while the latter the state cannot be subjected to suit without its consent. Restrictive application of state immunity is when the state descends to the level of a private individual when it enters into business contracts.
c. pacta sunt servanda means agreement must be kept. Agreement should be complied with in good faith by all the signatories of such treaty and the party cannot invoke provisions in its domestic law for failure to perform. Rebus sic stantibus is where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances, the party to such treaty may withdraw or terminate the treaty.
d. Examples of jure gestionis are barbershop located in Camp John Hay,
Anilyn Evangelista
2020-11-17
Ariel Acopiado
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 819
Writing time: 69 minutes
Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com
Class: JD-IV
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1.
No. The garnishment is not proper.
Under the law, any claim payment of judgment against the government or any of its instrumentalities including GOCC's must be brought to the Commission on Audit for allowance or disallowance.
NLRC cannot order the garnishment of UP's funds since the university falls within government establishments under the purview of the COA.
No. UP is not immune from suit and can be sued.
Under jurisprudence UP is a juridicial entity separate from that of the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued.
Having an independent charter, it attains a separate personality. However, any claims against it must still be subject to the scrutiny of the COA by reason of law as mentioned in the previous item.
2.
No. The Philippine government is not liable for the compensation asked.
The law puts forth that the State is only liable if it (a) it consented to be sued in the first place and (b) it consents to pay the liability. Such consent may be express such as stated in the laws or when it initiates the suit or implied when the state enters into contracts through its propriety capacity. The state also cannot be made liable for the acts of government officials beyond their capacity.
In this case, the liability must be borne personally by those erring officials responsible for the killing and not the state.
Under the law, the state can be sued if it consents as aforementioned while goverment officials may be sued in their personal capacity. Except in this case for the president, who is immune entirely from suit during his tenure.
3.
No. The action for damages will not prosper.
Case law and international precepts provides that the Holy See enjoys the same immunity as those of diplomats albeit of a higher order since the former is considered as a sovereign.
In this case, the doctrine that state transactions involving propriety are suable does not apply since the contract entered as entered into by the Holy See was not entered into for profit but for mere disposal (since the case puts forth that the sale was for the non-use of the property). Further, the consent to be sued does not automatically translate to consent to liability. Hence, the Holy See canot be made liable for damages.
4.
Yes. BOC's contention is with merit
Under the law, a government instrumentality divests itself of its immunity from suit when it consents. Consent can either be express when the state creates laws allowing it to be sued or when it sues by itself opening itself to counter claim. Implied consent occurs when the state enters into a contract of proprietary nature and the same is not pertaining to its governmental functions.
In this case, despite being proprietary in nature, arrastre services (the hauling of goods in port) are an intergral part of the operations of the Bureau as without it it cannot perform its governmental mandate. Hence, the BOC cannot be sued. Such claim by Petron should be taken to COA.
5. (a) Prerogative of royal dishonesty means that there can be no right to the the authority that makes the law that provides for such a right. Under this rule the state can defeat any legitimate claim by invoking its non-suability. In other words, this doctrine embodies the immunity of the state to be sued, unless the same consents to it
(b) Jure gestiones are those acts of the state that are proprietary in nature and not in pursuance of governmental functions while jure imperii refers to acts of the state entered into in performance of its official and governmental functions.
(c) Pacta sunt servanda means international agreements must be performed and good faith. Rebus sic stantibus means that a state may withdraw from an agreement if there has been a fundamental change from the circumstances when the agreement has been established. The former provides for the duty of every state to perform what has been agreed upon with other states for the mutual agreement of the community if nations while the later constitutes a way out for a state when the original conditions of a treaty or contract were substantially different from the those agree upon in the treaty's conception.
(d) Examples of jure gestiones are those contracts entered into into for proprietary purposes like (i) the printing bureau printing gift cards for sale, outside of its functions for profit (ii) allowing commercial rentals in government spaces like the city hall and (iii) Concessions by foreign military bases to restaurants and barbershops in the area of the encampment.
Examples of jure emperii are those that relate to sovereign functions (i) entering into a contract with a construction company for the building of a sea wall (ii) procurement of goods by the DSWD to feed orphans and (iii) Procurement of automated counting machines by the Comelec for the upcoming elections.
Ariel Acopiado
2020-11-17
Arnold Bongcayao
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 424
Writing time: 56 minutes
Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. No, the garnishment is not proper.
University of the Philippines is not immune from suit in performing jure gestionis acts. Under the restrictive application of sovereign immunity, suits based on its commercial or private conduct are not covered.
In this case, the university entered into a commercial contract with the security agency. This act can be classified as jure gestionis act.
Hence, it can be sued.
2. No, the Philippine government is not liable for compensation to the victims.
Under the principle of state immunity, a sovereign state cannot be sued in courts except when it has given its consent.
In this case, the State did not give its consent to be sued. The military officers cannot invoke to release them from liability and the victims to indemnify them at the expense of the government. Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountablity.
Hence, only those who acted without authority will be liable for the death and injuries to the victims.
3. Yes, the suit will prosper.
Since the Holy See enjoys the status as a foreign sovereign, it enjoys immunity from suit with regard to public acts or jure imperii of a state but not with regard to private acts or jure gestionis.
In this case, the Holy See has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business, surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis.
4. Yes, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is correct.
5.
a) Prerogative of royal dishonesty refers to the privilege granted to State which defeats any legitimate claim against it by simly invoking its non-suability.
b) Jure Imperii or sovereign/government acts refers to acts in which the State is immune from suit without its consent.
While Jure Gestionis or private/proprietary/commercial acts refers to acts in which the State may be sued. The State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual, hence it can be sued.
c) Pacta sunt servanda means the observance of treaty in good faith.
While rebus sic stantibus stipulates that where there has been a fundamental chance of circumstances, a party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty in question.
d) Examples of jure gestiones are: the leasing of its properties to private individuals, State entering a commercial contract with foreign companies, operating a barbershop franchise.
Examples of jure imperii are: appropriating funds for the Covid pandemic, the purchase of Apache helicopters for the Air force, the repairs and maintenance of national highways and thorough streets.
Arnold Bongcayao
2020-11-17
Bobby Borces
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 801
Writing time: 65 minutes
Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
The garnishment of U.P. funds is not proper. Under the law, government funds like that of the University of Philippines funds cannot be the subject of garnishment because these are public funds intended for a particular purpose or purposes. If these funds will be allowed to be garnished, government's services will be put in peril. Thus, government or public funds cannot be garnished. Instead, what the claimant should have done is to lobby with the legislative branch for the enactment of a proper law for the provision of funds intended for their lawful claims.
It depends. If the University of Philippines is performing purely sovereign or governmental function, then it is immuned from suit. However, if the University of the Philippines is performing proprietary functions, then it can be sued.
Yes, University of the Philippines can be sued under the following instances: when the university entered into a contract, and when the university filed a suit, in which case, it is now open for a counterclaim.
The Philippine government thru the President of the Philippines cannot be held liable for the compensation being asked. The law provides that a government is immune from suit though such immunity is not absolute as it admits of some exceptions. Being immune from suit, it follows that the government cannot be held liable for any compensation asked by the claimants. However, with respect to the military officials, they are liable for the compensation asked. Although, the military officials were just acting on the orders of the President, these officials however exceeded their authority when they killed about 30 farmers. Such act of killing the farmers is no longer within the confine of their authority, hence, they can be held liable for compensation.
Yes, they are suable although the suit against them can be considered as a suit against the government for the reason that these officials have exceeded their authority in implementing the orders. By exceeding their authority, they have now descended to the level of a private citizen for which reason they can now be suit.
Yes, the suit will prosper. The law provides that the state, like the holy see, cannot be sued without its consent. This immunity however is not absolute as it has exceptions, one of which is when the state enters into a contract.
Gleaned from the facts given, the Holy See entered into a contract with the Star Corporation and the former obligated itself to eject the squatters first, before the complete payment shall be paid. By entering into a contract, the Holy See has descended now to the level of a private person, thus, it can now be sued. The suit will prosper considering that the Holy See was not able deliver its obligation in ejecting the squatters as clearly stated and made apparent from the tenor of their contract.
No. The contention of Bureau of Customs is not correct. The law provides that when a government agency acts in its proprietary functions, a suit against it will lie.
In the case at bar, the Bureau of Customs operated an arrastre services, which operation is in its proprietary function, The act having been done in its proprietary functions, then the Bureau of Customs cannot counter that it cannot be sued because it is a government agency. There is what we call an implied waiver to be sued on the part of the Bureau of Customs to be sued because it acted in opering an arrestre services in its proprietary functions. Therefore, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is not correct.
(a) Prerogative of royal dishonesty is referring to a doctrine by which the state is given the privilege to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. This doctrine however is not absolute because the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents.
(b) Jure gestiones refers to the acts of the states which are considered as private, commercial and proprietary acts.
Jure emperii refers to the acts of the states which are considered as sovereign and governmental acts.
(c) Pacta sunt servanda refers to a principle in international law that the agreement must be kept, complied and observed with good faith.
Rebus sic stantibus is a clause in international conventions that provides for the unenforceability of a treaty due to fundamentally changes circumstances.
(d) example of jure gestiones is:
-When the state enters into a private contract of buying lot for commercial purposes.
- When the state through the Department of Public Works and Highways entered into a contract for the construction of highway and fails to pay the contractor.
example of jure emperii is;
- When the state sent military forces abroad doing humanitarian job abroad.
Bobby Borces
2020-11-17
Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 484
Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1.
2.
A) No, the Philippine government thru the President and the military officials is not liable for compensation.
Although there are instances wherein the government may be sued, such as when a suit is filed against a public official and the liability rests on the government, the case at bar is not among such grounds.
In this case, the uniformed military officers are found to have exceeded their functions when instead of pacifying the riot and maintaining the peace, they fired at the rallyists. Thus, the government cannot be held liable for the injuries caused by these officers.
B) No, the president and the military officials are not suable.
As a general rule, a state cannot be sued without its consent. It bears stressing that the actions done by the government after the incident is not an implication of its waiver of its immunity from suit.
3. No, the suit against the Holy See will not prosper.
It is an established principle that sovereign immunity is only recognized if the government is acting in jure imperii or public acts. Moreover, one of the waivers of state immunity is when it enters into a contract in its commercial capacity or in execution of acts jure gestionis. With such, the state is deemed to divest itself from its cloak of immunity and steps into the shoes of an ordinary citizen.
However, in this case, the Holy See contended that it entered into a contract not in its commercial capacity since the land is intended for its mission, and not for profit. Thus, it cannot be sued.
4. Yes, the Bureau of Customs is correct.
As mandated by law, the BOC functions primarily for givernment services. Stated differently, whatever contract it may enter into is deemed to be an act jure imperii since it is a government instrumentality with no personality of its own.
Consequently, the suit filed by Petron will not prosper.
5.
A) Resting on the sovereign character of a state, the royal prerogative of dishonesty refers to the privilege of non-suability of a state under any circumstance.
B) Jure gestionis are acts of the state in its commercial or proprietary capacity, while jure imperii are acts of the state in its public or imperial capacity. In the former, the state is deemed suable but in the latter, the stateis immune from any suit or liability.
C) In international law, the principle of pacta sunt servanda means agrrements must be kept. Its implication is that the treatises or agreements between nations must be adhered to for they are binding between them.
D) Among others, the examples of jure imperii are expropriation proceedings, escheat proceedings, granting of permits and licences.
On the other hand, the following are some of the examples aof acts jure gestionis: leasing of government lands to private corporations, purchase of vessels for the navy, and grants of loans through government banks.
Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada
2020-11-17
Christian Val G Dionglay
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 410
Writing time: 52 minutes
Email: Christianval4680@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa
1. In a decided case, the same situation as provided above, the court has ruled the University of the Philippines is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued, therefore it cannot evade execution, and its fund may be subject to garnishment or levy. But before execution it is neccessary , the claim for payment of the judgment must be filed first at the commission on audit.
2.As a general rule, a state cannot be sued in courts while in the performance of governmental functions (jure imperii) except when acting on private, or proprietary acts (jure gestiones). In the case of republic vs sandoval, it was held that the state cannot be held liable for the deaths of the farmers, such liabilities should fall to the police officers because they have acted beyond the scope of thier authority.
3. The Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign. and the rule on state immunity applies only to acts public acts or jure imperii, but not with regards to private acts or jure gestiones. Therefore, the suit will not prosper.
But there is still a remedy to redress its grievances againts a foreign soveriegn, it is to ask our government to espouse his cause through a diplomatic channel (vinuya vs executive secretary).
4.
5. a. Pregogative of royal dishonesty - this a term used which also refers to the state immnutiy from suit. It would mean that a state cannot be sued while in the performance of governmental functions however this immunity will not apply when performing private or proprietary functions.
b. Jure gestiones - this refers to the private, commercial or proprietary functions of a state which is not immune from suit.
Jure imperii - This refers to the governmental functions of the state which the principle of state immunity will apply.
c. Pacta Sunt Servanda - it means that treaty shall be observed in good faith despite any supervening hardship on the contracting state, such as conflict between the treaty and its constitution.
Rebus Sic Stantibus - It is an exception to the rule of pacta sunt servanda, it means that things remain as they are. This principle justify the non performance of a treaty obligation.
d. Jure Gestiones - when a government instrumentality gives consent and allows to be sued upon any money claims involving liability from contracts. When the law
Jure Imperii-
Christian Val G Dionglay
2020-11-17
Cyrus Tingcang
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 507
Writing time: 48 minutes
Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com
Class: Fourth year Juris Doctor
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. The garnishment of U.P. Funds is not proper. It is settled that government funds are exempt from garnishment. While there are precendent cases in jurisprudence that the client establishment where the security guards of an agency were deployed can be held liable in case of non-payment of wages, the same liability can only be invoked if there be prior exhaustion Security Agency's resources which is wanting in this case. It is submitted that the University of the Pilippines cannot be sued without its consent inasmuch as it is engaged in the discharge of State's offcial function of provding quality education to the people which is considered Jure Imperii.
2. The Philippine government and the military officials cannot be sue without prior consent. However, this legal principle cannot be used to perpetuate criminality nor can it be used as a shield to countenance injustice. Hence, if it is proven that the President and the military officials had intentionally caused the killing of the farmers, then they can be held liable either crminally, civilly or administratively.
3. The suit in question will prosper. Jurisprudence dictates that when a State enters into a private contract, it effectively puts itself at risk of being sued for claims arising from the said contract. Here, the Holy See as a state, entered into a contract of sale with Star corporation and thus it can be sued for non-performance of its contractual obligations. A contrary ruling would countenance grave injustice.
4. The contention of the Bureau of Customs is not correct. It is settled that not all functions of the government are covered under the principle of State's non-suability. A review of the of official function should be made whether the same would constitute acts of state. In the case at bar, the operation of arrastre services is not primarily considered an inherent function of the state. Hence, the answer.
5.
A. Prerogative of Royal Dishonesty is inherently attributed to the principle of Non-Suability of State inasmuch as it can be used as a shield to stave off prosecution of wrondoing of state officials.
B. Jure Gestionis refers to those acts of states done in their private capacity while Jure Imperii are those considered acts of state and thus no claim can be maintained against any right arising therefrom.
C. Pacta sun servanda enunciates that treaty obligations must be complied with in good faith. On the other hand, Rebus sic stantibus is a justification for the State's non-compliance to a treaty obligation whenever there is a substantial change in the conditions that would make it difficult for State to perform its obligation under a treaty.
D. Under Jure gestionis, the act of selling a property to another; the procurement of products for the convenience of government officials and the act of enterring into a contract for the ornamentation of government offices may be calssified as Jure Gestionis. On the other hand, Jure Imperii these this may be exemplified by act of constructing public infrastruture; fighting against insurgents and implementing social welfare programs.
Cyrus Tingcang
2020-11-17
Dexter Kim Patron
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 659
Writing time: 67 minutes
Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com
Class: Political Law review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Dexter Kim Y. Patron
Political Law Review
1.
Is the Garnishment of U.P. funds proper?
NO, it is not proper.
The Univesity of the Philippines is a govenment school owned by the state. As generally accepted principle that a state can not be sued without its consent. However in this case, a general law was passed waiving the immunity of the state from suit, wherein teh Philippine Government consents and submits to be suede upon any money claims involving liability arising form contract, express or implied which could serve as teh basis for an action of the party. At this point the govenrment is decending to the level of the other party and divested itself from its sovereign immunity. The claimant have to prosecute their money claim against the government stating teh general law but subject to the limitation expressed that no execution shall be issued upon any judgment rendered by any court against the government.
The Supreme Court states that what the law allowed is only for the claimant to sue and prove its claim but not teh government has not consented to unrestrained execution against itself. The power of teh court ends when nteh judgment is rendered since theh government funds and properties may not be seized under writ of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgmen, based on public policy. Disbursement opf public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law.
2.
Is the Philippine Government through the President and teh Military Officials liable for compensation?
While it is true that the sovereigh state and its political subdivisions cannot be sued in courts unless it gives its consent which this cannot be invoked by the military personnel who caused teh slaughtering of the farmers and relieved them from their liability if any. The immunity from suit does not apply when teh relief demanded requires no affirmative offficial actionon teh part of teh state nor affirmative discharge of any obligation whcich belongs to teh state. The court has always invoked that even the high position in the goverenment does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another.
The state cannot be held liable but the personnel should be accountable as they have acted beyond the scope of their authority.
3.
The state immunity is now extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive application of state immunity is proper only when teh proceedings arise out of commercial transactions or foreign sovereign. The state may have decended to the level of an individual and could have actually given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. In this case there is a contract of sale wherein the Holy See decended to the level of the individual party.
The State can be sued and the suit will prosper.
4.
The Bureau of Customs is not correct.
It has been held that when the State enters into a contract of commercial transaction it has divested its sovereign immunity and decended to teh level of an individual and is now restricted to claim immunity from suit.
The Bureau of Customs (BC) entered into a contract with the Petron as an arrestre operator which caused damaged to the latter when its goods were stolen along the way.
BC cannot set up teh defense of immunity from suit.
5.
Royal prerogative of dishonesty - all states are equala and connot assert jurisdiction over the other.
Juri Gestionis - Nations act that are essentially commercial or private in contrast to its public acts.
Juri Imperii- Public acts of the government of a state.
Pacta sunt servanda - agreement must be kept
examples of Juri Gestiones
a) Government do export/import trading with a particular establishment.
b) Selling of the government real property in another state.
c) Purchase of real properties in another state.
examples of Juri Emperii
a) State visit of the government officials.
b) Peace talks conducted in other state
c)Treaty signing
Dexter Kim Patron
2020-11-17
ferdinand solas
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 578
Writing time: 55 minutes
Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com
Class: political law
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
I
The garnishment of U.P funds is not proper. Considering that U.P is a state university, such acts tantamount the garnishment of the state's funds.
The rule is that if the judgement against a governmental entity or official 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 impleaded.
Yes, University of the Philippines is immune from suit, being an instrumentality of the government. But the rule is not all encompassing as to be applicable as to all circumstances. As such, it can be sued by express waiver manifested by a law. It can also be sued when it entered into a contract in the exercised of its proprietary function. In this case, there is an implied waiver, the state is deemed descended to the levelof the other contracting party, divesting itself of its sovereign immunity.
II
No, the Philippine governement thru the President and the military officials liable for compensation.
In Animos, et al. vs. Philippine Veterans Affair, the Supreme Court held that, it is equally well settled that where litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether in the disbursement of funds or loss of property, the public official procceded against not being liable in his personal capacity then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be invoked.
But they are suable in their private capacity. In the same aforementioned case, the Sureme Court declared that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is sued in his private and personal capacity.
The cloak of protection is removed when they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arise where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him.
In the present case, killing civilians are not clearly within their official and authorized function. It is a well settled principle of the law that public official may be held liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his acts done in bad faith and with malice, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
Hence, they are suable in their personal capacity.
III.
No, the suit will not prosper.
The Holy See of the Vatican is a state. Under the principle, par in parem non habet imperium, all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.
Here, the suit is equivalent to a suit against a state and a state cannot be sued without ita consent. In such a situation, the Holy See may moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent.
IV.
Yes, the Bureau of Customs is correct.]
Under the law, a state may not be sued without its consent.
Here, the bureau operated the arrastre services in the exercised of its sovereign function, thus, the contention is correct.
V.
Royal Prerogative of dishonesty grants the state to defeat any legal claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability.
The doctrine is not absolute and does not say that the state cannot be sued under any circumstances. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent. By implication, it may be sued if it consents.
ferdinand solas
2020-11-17
Florencio Saministrado Jr.
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 498
Writing time: 45 minutes
Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. As a general rule the state cannot be sued without its consent except when the state gave its consent express or implied. The consent is express when the state through a legislative issue a law that it may be sued for such particular act, either by a special law or general law, on the other hand it is implied if the state enters into a contract or institute a suit hence it opens itself to a counterclaim. In the case at bar UP is a government educational institution imbued with some governmental powers and since it enters into a contract with a security agency then it cannot invoke state immunity from suit, however the funds of UP cannot be garnished because such fund must be covered by appropriation approved by congress.
2. The general rule of state immunity cannot be invoked by public officials whose actions taken were beyond the authority conferred or granted to them, hence they cannot escape liability if they act beyond the scope of their authority. In the case at bar the military acted beyond the scope of their authority when they fire shots at the farmers, hence they may be held liable for such act.
3. Under International law, it states that all state are equal and one state cannot assert right over another state, such doctrine is applicable in the instant case, however, it necessary to determine if the said act of the state is a govenmental act or proprietary act. If the act is governmental act, then state immunity applies, if the act pertains to proprietary act then the state may be sued. In the case at bar the the Holy see (represented by the pope) clearly enters into a commercial transactions when it sold the property donated to it, hence it decended into the level of the the star corporation, therefore the suit will prosper.
4. Since the Bureau of Custom is government agency task with the operation of arrastre services, acting as such then they are immune from suit. Therefore the contention of the Bureau of Custom is correct.
5. a. Prerogative of Royal dishonesty is commonly known as State immunity from suit.
b. jure gestiones pertains to the actions of the state which are proprietary in nature, while Jure Imperii pertains to acts of the state which are governmenttal act or sovereign act.
c. Pacta sunt servanda, when a state enters into a treaty with another sovereign state it must faithfully comply with such treaty, while rebus sic stantibus the state must continue complying with the said treaty so long as their respective condition stated in the treaty have not change.
d. when a state enters into a barbershop business is an act Jure Gestiones, when the state operate sa restaurant that caters to the public for a fee is an act Jure Gestiones and when the state enters into an agreement for the construction of a wharf essential for its defenses, is an act Jure emperii.
Florencio Saministrado Jr.
2020-11-17
Florencio Saministrado Jr.
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 1
Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.
Florencio Saministrado Jr.
2020-11-17
Frilin Lomosad
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 559
Writing time: 59 minutes
Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com
Class: Political Law
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. No, the garnishment of the UP funds will not prosper. As a general rule a state university is considered immune from suit. UP was established by the Philippines to be a public non-profit school. However, it is not absolute. Money claims are among the cases wherein the Philippines gave its express consent to be sued. For that action to prosper, the security agency must however follow the procedures as provided by law, and not through garnishment.
2. No, the Philippine Govenment cannot be compelled to compensate the surviving heirs of the farmers. As a general rule, the Constitution provides for state immunity including the President and those officials which are considered as alter ego of the President while they are acting on thier official functions. It could only be suable when it provides its consent, which is not the case in the herein.
However, in the case at bar, the military officials are considered to have exceeded their official functions when they violated the law which could make them suable. The carrying of firearms as well as by wearing civilian clothes during the incident is a clear violation of the law. Hence, the military officials shall be individually liable to the farmers and not the Philippine Government.
3. Yes, the suit will prosper. Holy See who entered into a private contract with Star Corporation should have to comply with the conditions as provided therein. Failure of one of the parties to make good of such conditions could make it liable for damages.
4. No, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is not correct. Providing arrastre services to its clients is not among it official functions. As a rule, being a government agency, it should be immune from suit. However, the Bureau of Customs impliedly gives its consent to be sued the moment is enters into private contract. Such transaction cannot be considered as a sovereign or governmental acts but it is considered as a private act which make it suable.
5. a. Prerogative of royal dishonesty is sometimes correlated with the State Immunity from Suit. Because of such immunity provided by the Constitution, it somehow grant the state with a defense to defeat a legitimate claim against it. However, such privilege is not absolute.
b. Jure gestiones are those acts which are considered private, commercial or proprietary, while Jure imperii are those acts of the State which can be considered as sovereign or governmental act.
c. Pacta sunt servanda is an international principle which provides that international agreements must be performed and complied with in good faith, while Rebus sic stantibus provides that when the parties stipulate in an agreement in consideration with the prevailing conditions during the agreement, the cessation of this conditions would also make such agreement inexistent.
d. Jure Gestiones
1. The LGU contracted with private individuals to rent its building with the intention to gain profit.
2. A government agency opens a restaurant which caters not only its employees but also the general public for a fee and for profit.
3. A government agency which creates a pool open to the public for a fee and for profit.
Jure Imperii
1. A Government Agency contracting a security agency for security services.
2.A Government Agency contracted with private construction company for the construction of their office.
3. PNP conducting a buy bust operation.
Frilin Lomosad
2020-11-17
Immanuel Granada
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 596
Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. No. The garnishment of U.P. Funds to pay for the salaries of the security guards is improper.
Yes. The University of the Philippines is immune from suit since it is a governmental entity belonging to the State, which is immuned from suit as provided for under the Constitution.
Yes. The university can, however, be sued if it waives its non-suability either expressly or impliedly. It is express when a general law or a special law so provides. It is implied if it commences litigation or enters into a contract in its proprietary capacity.
However, in the problem, there is no showing that the university waives its non-suability.
2. As to the Philippine government, it is not liable. Jurisprudence, invoking public policy, prohibits the Government to be liable for any damages since it has nothing to pay except the public funds which is exclusively appropriated for public use and is prohibited by law for malversation.
As to the President, he enjoys immunity from suit during his incumbency.
As to the military officials, they may, however, be liable if they acted beyond their official functions as in the instant case when they are armed, not wearing the military uniform, and even killed the rallyists, which are clear violations of the law.
On the other hand:
As to the Republic of the Philippines, it is not suable since it does not give its consent either expressly or impliedly. There is no general law or special law which expressly divest the State of its non-suability nor the State commences any action or enters into a proprietary contract.
As to the President, he enjoys immunity from suit during his incumbency.
As to the military officials, they are suable, as they acted beyond their duties to perform in violation of the law when they armed themselves, not in their military uniform, and even killed some of the rallyists.
3. Yes. The action will prosper.
Under the law, the parties to a contract shall be liable for any damages which each may incur by virtue of their agreement.
Further, the Holy See entered into a private contract. Additionally, nowhere in the law that the Holy See is a governmental entity. It is rather a religious institution.
4. No. The contention of the Bureau of Customs is incorrect.
Under settled jurisprudence, the doctrine of immnunity from suit only applies if the State or through its subdivisions does not give its consent or waives its right of non-suability either expressly (by general or special law) or impliedly (commencing litigation, performing prorietary functions). If however the State or its subdivisions engaged in business transactions, as in this case, it impliedly gives its consent.
5.
(a) Prerogative of Royal Dishonesty is also called the Doctrine of Immunity from suit. It grants the State the privilege to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability.
(b) Jure gestiones means private, commercial, and proprietary acts while jure imperii mean sovereign or governmental acts.
(c) Pacta sunt servanda is an international principle which presupposes that the States under a treaty shall perform the obligations stipulated under it in good faith. The terms in the treaty must be treated not merely moral obligations but rather legal obligations which States are bound to perform.
(d) Examples of jure gestiones are when the State entered into a road construction contract with a private party, when it engages into business, or when it entered into private contracts.
On the other hand, examples of jure imperii are when the State builds bridges using public funds, impose tax, and issues ordinances.
Immanuel Granada
2020-11-17
Karl Rigo Andrino
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 833
Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. No. The garnishment of the UP funds is not the proper remedy of the security agency. Under the law, any liability incurred by the branches and instrumentalities of the government must be filed before the Commission on Audit. The UP funds are in the nature of public fund for the purpose of education, hence, such garnishment is not allowed. Therefore, the UP funds cannot be subject for garnishment.
The University of the Philippines being an instrumentality of the Philippine Government, it is immune from suit. As rule by the time-honored principle that a state cannot be sued without its consent.
It depends, if the acts of the University of Philippines are in its private or commercial capacity, or it is in their soverign or public capacity. In this case, it is clear that the security agency was hired for the purpose of maintaining the peace and order of the state college. This is a clear sovereign act of the University of the Philippines, hence, it it cannot be sued.
2. a.) It depends, the President and the military officials are not liable for the compensation asked for by the surviving heirs of the farmers. The general rule is that the president and military officials exercising their duties and responsibilities within the authority imposed upon them is not liable for damages caused to civilians. However, such a rule is not absolute. When the military officials go beyond the authority vested in them, they can be liable in their personal capacity for the damage caused to private persons.
In this case, it is clear that several military officials performed their duties beyond the authority vested in them. Therefore, those who exercised their powers beyond the authoriy given to them is liable in their private capacity to compensate the heirs of the 30 victims.
b.) As a general rule, the President and military officials are not suable in the performance of their duties. Nevertheless, the President has absolute immunity from suit during his term as president. However, as an exception, if the military officials go beyond the authority given to them, they can be sued in their private capacity.
3. No, the suit will not prosper. The principle of par en parem no habet imperium means that all states are equal and cannot jurisdiction over one another. This simply means that a state is immune from suit. The Holy See being a recognized independent state is immune from suit.
4. Yes. The contention of the Bureau of Customs is correct. It is time-honored rule that a state cannot be sued without its consent. The Bureau of Customs cannot be sued because it is a political subdivision of the government. It is ruled by the Supreme Court that the custom arrastre services are part of the machinations of the governmentand such is not a private activity or commercial activity of the government. Therefore, it cannot be sued.
5. a). The prerogative of royal dishonesty is a principle that a state can simply excuse itself from liability by invoking that it is immune from suit without its consent. This principle does not necessarily amount to injustice, after all such principle's purpose is to avoid distraction and hindrance in the machinations of the government. However, the state may actually be sued if there is an express consent or an implied consent. An express consent is legislative act by virtue of which a statute is enacted for the purpose that the government can be sued. On the other hand, an implied consent happens when the state contracts itself with a private person or corporation, or it commences litigation.
b.) Jure gestiones and Jure imperii are the two grounds whether a state can be sued. In Jure gestiones, the state can be sued because these acts are proprietary acts of the state. It simply means that these acts are states contracting power in a private capacity. On the other hand, Jure emperii is the governmental or public acts of the state. Acts in governmental or in public capacity of the state is not suable.
c.) Pacta sunt servanda is latin for "agreements must be kept", this means that agreeing states or countries must comply with the treaty obligations. In contrast, rebus sic stantibus is a principle wherein the parties stipulate certain conditions, and once these conditions cease to exist, the contract also ceases to exist. This simply means that when contracting parties stipulate conditions that are applicable during their inception, can no longer be effective if such conditions no longer exist.
d.) Some examples of jure impereii are the following:
1. Payment of just compensation in exercising the power of eminent domain wherein the land is for the benefit of the public welfare.
2. Military officials in the performance of their duties
3. Engaging in contractors for building public utilities
Examples of jure gestionis are the following:
1. Contracting concessions in private capacity of the government
2. The states dealings with its patrimonial properties
3.
Karl Rigo Andrino
2020-11-17
Lady Rubyge Denura
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 485
Writing time: 81 minutes
Email: ladybyge@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.) The garnishment of UP funds is not proper since the government funds and properties may not be seized under writs or execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment because disbursement of public funds must be covered by correspondent appropriation as required by law.
The universal rule that where the State gives it's consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit the claimants action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution.
2. ) While it is true that nothing is berrer settled tgan the general rule that a state and its political subdivisions cannot be sued without its consent, it cannot be invoked by them to release them from any liability, and by the heirs nd victims to demand indemnification from the government. The principle of state immunity will not apply in such a case when a relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor the affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs to the state in its political capacity.
3.) No, the suit will not prosper. Although Holy Sea enetered into a contract with Star Corporation and binding between the parties. Invoking state immunity, the State or its agent cannot be sued without its consent.
4.) The Contention of the Bureau is correct. Invoking the state immmunity, the BoC acting as part of the mechinery of the national government in the operation of the arrastre services, pursuant to express legislative mandate and as a necessary incident of its prime government function, is immune from suit.
5. A.) The prerogative of royal dishonesty means that a state cannot be sued without its consent. The privilege it grants the state is to defeat any claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without itsconsent, which clearly imports that it can be sued if it consents.
B.) Jure Gestiones means that a state may be sued if it enters into a business or a contract and if its acts essentially commercial or private, in contast to its public act while Jure Emperii are activities by the state in its sovereign rights.
C.) Pacta Sunt Servanda means that agreement must be kept. It refers to all treatis and ocuments to produce juridical effects and craetion of rights and obligations while Rebus Sic Stantibus provides for the unenforceability of a treaty due to fundamentally chaned circumstances.
D.) Examples of Jure Gestiones are when a state enters into a contract with barbers to give services to the Armed Force, when it purchase fighter planes for the airforce and when it rents out its property for commercial purposes. Example of Jure Emperii are when it makes a law, when it grants license to investors and acts of exproriation.
Lady Rubyge Denura
2020-11-17
Liwayway Elumbaring
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 337
Writing time: 46 minutes
Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
* yes, the garnishment of U.P. funds was proper. U.P. is a government entity witha separate and distinct personality from the National government and has its own charter granting it the right to sue and be sued. It therefore cannot avail of the immunity from suit of the government. Not having immunity from suit, therefore U.P. can be held liable and execution can thus ensue.
*No, the Philippine government thru the President of the Philippines and the military officials is not liable for compensation asked. It is important to note that whatever acts or utterances that the President may have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit. The president's act of joining the marchers days after the incident does not mean that there was an admission by the State of any liability..
*Yes, the suit will prosper. The moment the Holy See entered into a contract to sell of the property, they already waived their right to the immunity from suit.
*No, the bureau of Custom is not correct. They can be sued and cannot invoke that they are a government agency. The moment they entered into a private contract, they waived its right on not to be sued.
* Prerogative of royal dishonesty means all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over another. This is also called because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate against by simply invoking its non stability.
jure gestiones means. nations acts that are essentially commercial or private in contrast to its public acts.
jure emperii means the imperial public acts of the government of the State.
pacta sunt servanda means agreement must be kept.
rebus sic stantibus is a clause in international conventions that provides for the unenforceability of a treaty due to fundamentally changed circumstances.
d. ) jure gestiones example.
a claim arising from detention and torture
jure emperii example...
any action by the state like law making, grantingof license.
Liwayway Elumbaring
2020-11-17
Marnelli Pastorfide
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 364
Writing time: 45 minutes
Email: moulan09@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. Under Article XVI of the Constitution, "the state may not be sued without its consent." The state being a sovereign entity cannot be hold accountable in its exercise of its sovereignty, hence, it is insulated from the jurisdiction of the courts. When a government instrumentality enters into a contract, the wholeness of the contract will determine whether said instrumentality has waived its immunity from suit. It is imperative to determine in what capacity did the instrumentality enter into. Was it in furtherance of its mandate or was the contract entered into leans more towards a proprietary character? In the case at bar, the NLRC cannot order the garnishment of the funds of UP. UP as a government instrumentality is funded by the money of the people, hence, it cannot be subjected for garnishment. All money claims against a government agency should be course through the Commission on Audit.
2. The government cannot be made liable under the given circumstances. The government was obviously exercising one of its governmental functions. The case will not prosper. When there is no suit, it follows that there is no compensations to be paid.
3. The suit will not prosper. The sale was premised on a condition. When one of the conditions is not realizable, the sale can be rescinded.
4. In the instant case, the Bureau of Customs engaged in proprietary acts. The BOC is not a government agency mandated to operate an arrastre services but to collect taxes and regulate the entry of goods in our ports. A suit against BOC will prosper under the said facts.
5. a) All states are considered equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. Therefore, it means that a state cannot be sued without its consent. This is what royal prerogative of dishonesty is all about. Any legitimate claim against the state can be defeated by simply invoking this rule. b) Jus gestionis refers to a nation's act that are private or commercial in nature as oppose to Jus Imperii wherein the government acts in its element. c) pacta sunt servanda simply translate to " agreements must be kept" while rebus sic stantibus means "things stsnding thus."
Marnelli Pastorfide
2020-11-17
Marnelli Pastorfide
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 0
Email: moulan09@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law REview
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Marnelli Pastorfide
2020-11-17
Mendel Casao
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 448
Writing time: 75 minutes
Email: delsky056@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Answer:
1. The garnishment of the U.P. Funds as ordered by the NLRC is not proper. The funds of the University of the Philippines is exempt from garnishment under the law because as a public school, all funds held by U.P. is considered as public funds and as such, it is exempt from garnishment.
The University of the Philippines is a government instrumentality and as such, it is immune from suit. It cannot be sued without its consent.
2. The Philippine government through the President of the Philippines and the military officials is not liable for compensation asked by the petitioning farmers. The Philippine Constitution provides that the government cannot be sued without its express or implied consent. In this case, there was no express or implied consent by the government, hence, the compensation suit would not prosper.
The President being the highest official of the land cannot be sued because of Presidential Immunity but he can be sued after his tenure as President has ended. The military officials involved therein can be sued in their own personal capacity.
3. In the suit filed against the Holy See, the Holy See after having entered into a contract of sale with Star Corporation, has opened itself for being sued due to its implied consent when it entered into such contract of sale.
4. In the case at bar, the Bureau of Customs, having operated the arrastre services which is a business or for profit services, it is considered as an implied consent to be sued. Therefore, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is incorrect.
5. a.) prerogative of royal dishonesty is a doctrine in international law when a state invoke its non-suability from suit
b.) jure gestionis is an act of a state in commercial functions, this doctrine is an exception to the non-suability of a state; while jure emperii is purely a governmental act. This is the doctrine where a state can fully invoke its non-suability or state immunity from suit.
c.) pacta sunt servanda is the doctrine in international law where a state is obliged to comply or fulfill its obligations to the community of nations or in the contracts it entered into.
rebus sic stantibus is the unenforceabilty of a treaty due to changed circumstances.
d.) acts jure gestionis: City of Manila operating a mall, City government of Dipolog operating a canteen within the City Hall building, Province of Zamboanga Del Norte opening and operating a Sardines factory.
acts jure emperii: issuance of Business Permit by the City government of Dipolog, LTO conducting driving tests to new applicants of Driver's License, issuance by NBI of clearances to work applicants.
Mendel Casao
2020-11-17
Neah Hope Bato
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 486
Writing time: 78 minutes
Email: neahkalowka26@gmail.com
Class: Political Law review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
1. NO. The garnishment of the U.P funds is not proper.
The NLRC cannot order the Garnishment of funds of the University of the Philippines to pay the unpaid salaries of the secuity guards. It is the COA whow has the jurisdiction and authority to settle or audit claims from any government owned or government controlled institution
NO. The University of the Philippines is not immune from suit.
UP is separate and distinct from the government. It has a juridical personality, which has the right to sue and be sued.
YES. University of the Philippines can be sued.
It is separate and distintc from the government which has its juridical personality. Thus, it can be sued.
2. No. The government thru the President cannot be held liable for compensation for the death of the farmers. The said case is not a case against the Government or the State.
However, those militay officials can be held civilly liable for they were not in their official duty during the incident. Thus, they acted beyond the scope of their authority and shall be liable for damages.
3. Yes. The suit will prosper.
The Holy See has a juridical personality which has the capacity to sue and be sued. In the case at bar, the contract shall be the law binding Star Corporation and Holy See. It is stipulated in th contract that it is the obligation of the Holy See to eject the squatters and upon which the complete payment shall be made. However, the Holy See failed to somply with its obligation as agreed upon and yet there was already payment made. Thus, it can be sued.
While it is true that the Bureau of Customs is agovernment agency, it does not necessarily attach to it the guarantee of the constitution to the State of immunity from suit. The Bureau of Customs is separate and distinct from the state, thus it has the capacity to be sue and be sued.
5. a. Prerogative of royal dishonesty means that the privilege of the state to defeat any legal claims against it by invoking its non suability. This is in pursuat to Constitutional guarantee that the State is immune from suit.
b. Jure gestiones means private, commercial and propriety act. Jure emperii, on the other hand means sovereign and governmental acts.
c. Pacta sunt servanda means that agreements must be kept. While rebus sic stantibus means things thus standing.
d. The following are 3 examples of Jure gestiones and Jure emperii:
1. A conduct for hiring PAO Lawyers (Jure emperii) and the hiring of janitor in the office (Jure gestiones)
2. A conduct for bidding of constructing public bridges (Jure emperii) and the hiring of laborers (Jure gestiones)
3. An act of filing for candidacy as a Senator (Jure emperii) and the hiring of campaign manager (Jure gestiones)
Neah Hope Bato
2020-11-17
Oscar Abadies Jr
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 396
Writing time: 70 minutes
Email: oabadiesjr@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R
1. No, the garnishment of U.P. funds is not proper because NLRC has no jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all debts owing to the security agency. Instead, it is the Commission on Audit (COA) which has the power to act on the said claim. Hence, the said action must first be filed with the COA.
Generally, a state may not be sued without its consent. However, U.P. in this case admitted its liability and thus it impliedly opens itself from being sued, not to mention that in this case, UP enters into a contract in its proprietary capacity.
2. No, because the President or the government is immune from suit as enshrined under the fundamental law, unless it has given its consent to be sued. However, the immunity from suit cannot be invoked by the military officers because the relief that the victims demanded does not require affirmative official action on the part of the government.
3. Yes, the action will prosper. Albeit it has been held that the Holy See presents a unique instance of an entity that has internationally recognized sovereign status and thus cannot be sued without its consent, the same cannot be invoked since it has entered into a contract in its proprietary capacity.
4. Yes, because the Bureau of Customs is part of the machinery of the government. The fact that it entered into the operation of the arrastre service does not imply that it can be sued because the arrastre service is only incidental to its primary governmental function.
5.
a. The prerogative of royal dishonesty grants a certain state to frustrate any claim against it by invoking immunity from suit.
b. Jure gestiones are proprietary acts of a state which opens itself from any claim against another; whereas, jure imperii are acts of a sovereign nature which protects the state from suability.
c. Rebus sic stantibus implies that the stipulations of the contracts can be modified in the event of substantial alterations to the situation; while pacta sunt servanda implies that the agreements, even when conditions have changed, must be satisfied.
d. Examples of jure gestiones include the propritary act of state like entering into a commercial act of buying lands to a natural or juridical person.
On the other hand, jure imperii include the incidental act of the Bureau of Customs in doing arrastre service.
Oscar Abadies Jr
2020-11-17
Pamela Rubi-Anito
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 363
Writing time: 38 minutes
Email: pamela12813@gmail.com
Class: Political LAw Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1. No, the University of the Philippines is not immune from suit.
When the University conducted business with the public, it waives its immunity.
The garnishment, however, as it requires appropriation, must be presented before the Commission on Audit. There can be no execution against government funds or properties.
2. State immunity from suit can also be invoked by public officials when sued for offenses related to the performance of their duties. Here, as the President and the military men are performing their public functions, they can invoked immunity from suit. Hence, the case shall not prosper.
3. No, the case will not prosper.
The Holy See may invoked immunity from suit. The doctrine maybe invoked by any foreign state when it is sued in the country as the Philippines may invoke sovereign immunity from suit filed in foreign country. Except when the foreign state waives its immunity, the suit against it will not prosper.
4. The contention of the Bureau of Customs is not correct.
The general rule is that the state cannot be sued without it consent. However, the state can be held liable for contractual agreements it entered with private parties. In entering such contract, the state descended to the level of an individual and can held liable for business contracts entered into by the state.
5. a. The doctrine of state immunity from suit is also refered to as prerogative of royal dishonesty. The doctrine grants the state the privilege to defeat any legitimate claim against the state simply by invoking its non-suability.
b. Jure Imperii refers to acts of a sovereign nature. These acts are subjected to immunity. Jure gestones, on the other hand, are commercial acts of which the state is not immune from suit. These acts are subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign.
c. Pacta sunt servanda is a principle in international law which provides that the terms of the treaties entered into by the agreeing states should be upheld by both parties. Rebus sic stantibus, on the other hand, refers to a clause in treaties or international agreement which provides the unenforceability of such treaty or agreement due to fundamentally changed circumstances.
Pamela Rubi-Anito
2020-11-17
Paula Bianca Eguia
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 764
Writing time: 60 minutes
Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com
Class: Political Law
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
1.
No, it is not proper. The law states that the State can be sued upon any money claims involving liability arising from contract whether it is express or implied and such money claim must first be brought to the Commission on Audit.The law further provides that state's consent only extends to the completion of proceedings and government funds may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment in order to satisfy any judgement rendered by the courts. In this case, the garnishment should be nullified since the law expressly prohibits the courts from garnishing any government funds. UP is no longer immune from suit since it impliedly waived its consent by entering into a contract with the said security agency.
2.
No. The doctrine of state immunity shall not be covered for complaints filed against officials of the state for acts that, although performed by them in the discharge of their duties, did so by acting beyond the scope of their authority as to persecute or recklessly injure another. Instead, the liability shall befall upon said military men. The State cannot be sued because the relief so demanded under this case does not require any official action on the part of the State nor any official discharge of any obligation on the part of the State in its political capacity, even though the said military men are said to have acted as agents of the State.
3.
Yes, the suit will not prosper. The law states a a state is deemed to impliedly waived its immunity from suit if it has entered into a contract in its private, commercial or proprietary capacity. Further, if the state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade and the act is a sovereign activity or merely an incident thereof, then it can be considered as Jure Imperii which is covered by the non-suability privilege of the State. The act of Holy See will be subject to a suit since the act is not in the pursuit of any government or sovereign capacity.
4.
No, the contention of Bureau of Customs is incorrect. Under the doctrine of non-suability of State, a state is deemed to impliedly waived its immunity from suit if it has entered into a contract in its private, commercial or proprietary capacity. The operation of arrastre services by the Bureau of Customs which consequently led them to have a contract with the port of Cebu is not part of its official government duties but rather can be held as a commercial activity which is not part of their regular course of business. Since it is a proprietary act, Bureau of Customs is deemed to have waived its immunity from suit and can no longer invoked it as a defense.
5.
a.
Prerogative of Royal Dishonesty is a privilege granted to the State to defeat any legitimate claims against it by simply invoking its non-suability. This priniciple states that the state may not be sued without its consent and hence, it may be sued if it consents.
b.
Jure Gestionis is any private, commercial or propriety act of a State which can be subject to a suit if a State enters into a contract with such capacity. Jure Imperii on the other hand is the official and governmental act of the state in its sovereign nature which is cloaked with the privilege of the State's immunity from suit.
c.
Pacta Sunt Servanda is a principle in international law which states international treaties should be upheld by all the State signatories and is primarily based upon the principle of good faith. Rebus Sic Stantibus on the other hand is a principle which states that there is an attempt to formulate a legal principl which would justify the non performance of an obligation if the conditions with relations to which the parties contracted have changed so drastically and materially as to create a circumstance in which the exaction of perfomance would be unreasonable and unjust.
d.
Examples of Jure Gestionis are the following: bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base; hiring of cook in a recreation center at the John Hay Air Station in order to cater to American servicemen and the general public; and contracting with a security agency by the NLRC.
Examples of Jure Imperii are the following: the lease by a foreign government of apartment buildings for use of its military officers; the change of employment status of base employees; and the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a US Naval Stattion.
Paula Bianca Eguia
2020-11-17
Paula Bianca Eguia
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 0
Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com
Class: Criminal Law
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
Paula Bianca Eguia
2020-11-17
Perigrino Varquez
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 624
Email: peridoy@yahoo.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa
-No, the garnishment U.P. Funds is not proper because the claim against U.P. being an instrumentality of the government should be filed first with the Commision on Audit. The University of the Philippines is not immune from suit because its charter provides that it can sue and be sued. Hence, U.P. can be sued when it enters into a contract because its charter provides that it can be sued but however, if it is performing a goverment function then it is not liable while it can be sued but it does not mean that it is liable.
-No, the Philippine government through the President and the military officials are not liable for the compensation prayed by the heirs of the 30 farmers who were killed by the military in the course of their protest. From the facts of the case, it appears that the military men have exceeded their action when they shot all the 30 farmers who marched in Mendiola. Their action can not be passed on to the state as it is not in accordance to law for having performed excessive force towards the farmers. They are the ones responsible and should be held to account for their action and not the state.
-No. The suit will not prosper. The Holy See being a state is immune from suit and the action for damages should be dismissed immediately. Under international law, a state is not liable for any action civil or criminal if it does not give its consent to be sued. In this case, Holy See did not give its consent to be sued, thus the suit for damages filed against it should be dismissed.
-No. The contention of the Bureau of Customs is not tenable. While it is true that it is a government agency but still it can be sued when it is performing a proprietary function (jure gestiones). In this case, the Bureau of Customs operated an arrastre services which is proprietary or commercial in nature. As provided by law, when the government is performing proprietary function it waives its immunity and is subject to suit and liability. Thus, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is bereft of merit.
-a) Prerogative of royal dishonesty is a doctrine in law wherein it is provided that the state is immune from suit because of the principle that there can be no legal right against the state which makes the law and on which the right depends. b) Jure gestiones is a doctrine which provides that the state when it enters into a contract and it is proprietary or commercial in nature it is liable, hence it can be sued, while jure emperii on the other hand, the state is not suable because it is performing a governmental function, therefore it is not liable. c) Pacta sunt servanda, is a doctrine in international law which provides that a contracting party must comply its treaty obligations in good faith and rebus sic stantibus means that a party is no longer oblige to comply its treaty obligations because of the substantial changes of the terms and conditions of the treaty in other words it is justified in not complying its obligations because of the substantial changes which materially affected its obligation and responsibility in the treaty. d) The examples of jure gestiones are: when the state operates a commercial establishment for rent to the public; when the state operates hotels for commercial purposes and when the state owns a restaurant for commercial purposes.
While jure imperii: when the state makes bridges and roads; when the state constructs wharves for its battleships and when the state enters into a contract with a corporation supplying military equipments to its armed forces.
Perigrino Varquez
2020-11-17
Perigrino Varquez
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 1
Email: peridoy@yahoo.com
Class: Criminal Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
-
Perigrino Varquez
2020-11-17
Renante Carumba
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 576
Writing time: 48 minutes
Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Batasta
I.
Since the claims of the security agency is a money claim, the security agency shall first file their money claim before the Commission On Audit. Here, considering that the government had already discharge its obligation, that is, there was already an appropriation intended for that claim, the U.P funds can be garnished.
No. the UP is not immune from suit becasuse the its Charter provides otherwise. hence. the University of the Philippines can be sued.
II.
No. The President during his incumbency or term of office is immune from suit, otherwise he devote himself in defending in court. That he should be free from any unwarranted interference.
As to the military officials, they can be sued in ther respective personal capacities/ They exceeded their official functions that resulted to the death of the farmers. Hence, being an ultra vires act, the state immunity from suit cannot be used as a shiled of their liability and state immunity from suit cannot be used to perpetuate injusstice.
III.
No. The suit will not prosper. the Holy See is considered as an State, the Pope, is considered as their Prime Minister and under the International Law, the Pope is the Head of the State of the Holy See.
IV.
Yes. The contention of the Bureau of Custom is correct. The Bureau of Custom cannot be sued and it is immune from suit. It os an entity of the government performing governmental function. the mere fact that it operated an arraster servive does not divest mean that the government goes down to the level of individual. the said arrastre service is merely incidental to the prrimary governmental function of the Bureau of Custom/
B
a. The principle of Prerogative Royal Dishonesty is claim of immunity from suit of the state, whereby the government evade its obligation after it had goes down to the level of individual be entering into a contracts. the concept was applied in the case of U.S versus Ruiz,. in said case the government enters into a contract with contractor necessary for the repair of wharves of the subic bay. after the project was completed, the government did not paid the contractor, it instead claom that subic bay is necessary for the defense of the state, it is therefore performing a governmental function/
b. Jure Gestiones, whihc is literraly mean proprietary functions. Under this principle., the Government or any of its instrumentalities, agencies, subdivisions, including GOCC, are not immune from suit because of the nature of the function, which is commercial in nature.
Jure emperii, which means a governmental function. Here, the State or any of its instrumentalities is immune from suit because of the nature of the functions, it cannot be sued notwithstanding that it entered into contract with any individual.
c. The principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda which means good faith in compliance with the treaty. That in order to have legal force and effect, the State must legistlate a measure and adapting such treaty as part of the laws of the land.
d. Ribus Sic Stantibus is one where the foundation of the treaty ceases, then the treaty itself unilaterally withdraw and have no more binding legal effect between and among the contracting states. However, to invole the principle,, it is necessary that state who invoke must not be at fault, the disappearance of the foundation to which the was based is unforeseeable and must be invoked within reasonable time.
Renante Carumba
2020-11-17
Rey Gavino Cadag
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 332
Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.com
Class: Political Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
a. No. garnishment of UP Funds is not proper because UP funds cannot be subject to garnishment because it is a government funds under the principle of non suabiity from suit and it is based on public policy.
No. UP is not immune from suit because UP its transaction pertains to jure gestionis or commercial act of the state. UP can be sued.
b. No. the Philippine Government through the president is immune from suit because the state cannot be sued in the exercise of its goverment function under the principe that the state cannot be sued without its consent.
The military men are suable by the crime committed in killing the farmers in their owned personnal act.
c. No. the suit against the Holy See will not proper under the principle that a state cannot be sued without its consent. The Holy See is considered a head of a state which is the Vatican City.
D. No. the contention of the Bureau of Custom that it cannot be sued is not correct because the government instrumentality exercising a proprietary function can be sued. it is not exempted from suability from suit.
e. Prerogative f royal dishonesty means that all states are sovereignt and cannot assert jurisdiction over the other.
Jure gestionis means that the government is exercising an acts which is private, commercial, and proprietary acts or dealings with a private person or corporation for bussiness.
Jure emperii means that the government is exercising an governmental acts or function for the building the state for its progress in the economy or military for the benefit of the state.
Pacta sunt servanda means that an agreement must be keep that when two partners entered into a contract, the term of the contract should be uphold.
Example of jure emperii- airport construction, naval base construction and military base construction of the state
Example of jure gestionis- state entered into a project of building construction with private individua, school construction and road constrction.
f.
Rey Gavino Cadag
2020-11-17
ROJEAN CULANAG
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 604
Writing time: 55 minutes
Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com
Class: POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA
I.
The Garnishment of U.P. Funds is not proper because it is a government funds.
Well-settled is the rule that government funds may not be subjected to execution, levy and garnishment unless otherwise provided for by law.
Here, the funds sought to be garnizhed is the funds owned by U.P which is an institution owned and/or controlled by the government. As such, their funds is considered as government funds.
Thus, it cannot be subjected to garnishment.
No, the University of the Philippines is not immune from suit.
Well-settled is the rule that government owned and/or controlled corporations with original charter is not immune from suit because their charters expressly provides that they can sue and be sued,
The University of the Philippines is a government owned and controlled corporation with original charter.
Hence, it is not immune from suit.
II
The Philippine government thru the President of the Philippines is not liable for compensation asked because it is absolutely immune from suit. As held in one case, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune from civil, criminal and administrtive suits duirng his tenure.
However, the military officials is liable for the compensation asked in their personal capacity and thus, they are suable because they acted in excess or beyond the scope of their auhority. The rationale for this is that the doctrine of State immunity cannot be used to perpetrate injustice.
III
Yes, the suit for damages filed by the Star Corporation will prosper.
The doctrine of State Immunity is not absolute. This principle cannot be invoked when the State entered into a proprietary contract since in such case, the State redounded to the level of an ordinary individual.
Here, the contract of sale entered into between the Holy See as represented by the Pope and Star Corporation is proprietary in nature.
Hence, the suit for damages will prosper.
IV
Yes, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is correct.
Well-settled is the rule that the State, including its governmental agencies performing governmental functions cannot be sued without its consent.
Here, the Bureau of Customs is a government agency without a separate legal personality performing governmental functions. They are charged with the collection of tariff and taxesgovernmental functions.
The fact that they collected fees for arrastre services is immaterial and is merely incidental to their governmental functions.
Thus, their contention that they cannot be sued is correct.
V
a.) Prerogative Royal Dishonesty is a principle that provides that the State cannot be sued without its consent. The rationale of this principle is that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
b.) Jure gestiones refers to the functions perform by the State or government in its proprietary capacity while Jure emperii refers to the functions perform by the State in its governmental capacity.
c.) Pacta sunt servanda is a principle in International Law which provides that every state, in complying with the treaty must act in good faith while Ribus sic stantibus provides that when the foundation of the treaty ceases, it can be unilaterally withdrawn by one of the contracting parties. In order that it can be invoked, the party invoking it must not be at fault and the disappearance of the foundation upon which the treaty is based is unforseeable and must be invoked within the reasonable time.
d.) Examples of jure gestiones is when the State enters into a proprietary contract with private persons.
Example of Jure emperii is when the State undertake to contruct roads for the the public.
ROJEAN CULANAG
2020-11-17
Vera Nataa
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 460
Writing time: 65 minutes
Email: vnataa@gmail.com
Class: Political Law Review
Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa
No, the garnishment of UP funds is not proper. Generally, a state is exempt from being sued without its consent except if it enters in a contract in its proprietary capacity. In this case, the University of the Philippines merely acted in its governmental function. Moreover, even if the UP waived its immunity, it only gives the other party the opportunity to prove that the school is liable.
No, the Philippine government thru the President of the Philippines cannot be held liable for compensation ask. However, the military officials may be liable should it be proven than they acted beyond their authority. The Philippine government cannot be sued, but the military officials may be sued, and consequently liable, if acted beyond their authority.
No, the suit will not prosper. The general rule is that the state is immuned from suit. However under the restrictive theory, a state may be sued when it enters into a purely commercial transaction (jure gestionis). In this case, the mere selling of the land to Star Corporation can be considered as covered within the authority of a diplomatic representative to engage in a transaction relating to the real property.
Yes, the contention of the Bureau of Customs is correct. Arrastre services is deemed necessary in the primary functions of the bureau as a government agency. Hence, the BOC cannot be sued since it is engaged in services necessary to perform its function.
a. The doctrine of prerogative of royal dishonesty grants the state the prerogative to defeat the legitimate claim of a claimant against the state by invoking its non-suability. This is the other term for the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
b. Jure gestiones constitutes the acts of the state in its private capacity, or its commercial and proprietary acts. Jure emperii constitutes the governmental acts of the state to which the state is exempt from suit which may arise from such acts.
c. Pacta sunt servanda means that a treaty or any international agreement must be performed in good faith. Rebus sic stantibus literally means "things standing". Under international law, these two maxims are among those fundamental principles which mandate that international agreements must be kept and must be adhered to since they legally bind the contracting parties.
d. Examples of jure gestiones are those activities engaged by a US Airforce officer in commercial transactions like barbershop, where a diplomat contracted a business in his private capacity, and in other cases wherein government officials acted beyond their authority. Examples of jure emperii are governmental functions like an arrastre services engaged by the BOC incident to its primary function, as special agents of US Airforce assigned in drug operations conducted a buy-bust operation, and other governmental functions or incidental thereto performed by a government agency.
Vera Nataa
2020-11-17
Virgilio Encabo
Exam: QUIZ NO 4 IN POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
Word count: 243
Writing time: 57 minutes
Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com
Class: Political Law
Teacher: Judge Bastasa
. Yes, the garnishment of U.P Funds is proper as payment of its contractual obligation towards its security guards. The University of the Philippines has separate juridical personality from that of the Republic of the Philippines and therefore, it is not immune from suit.
. The State cannot be sued without its consent. Here, the action instituted by the heirs of the farmers will result in the financial liability on the part of the State, the action is a suit against the State, therefore, the Philippine government is immune from suit. They are suable if they had acted ultra vires or beyond the scope of their authority but if the Public Official acted as an agent of the State, then they are not suable.
. No, the Bureau of Custom'scontention is not correct. The contract is connected with a proprietary function, the operation of the arrastre services. The Bureau of Customs cannot be allowed to invoke its immunity from suit.
. a. Prerogative of royal dishonesty is connected with the invocation by the State of its immunity. It states that there can be no right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends.
b. jure gestiones - the state may be sued if it acts in the propriety character or related to commercial realtions.
jure imperri is an exercise of sovereign functions.
c. Pacta sunt servanta is a principle in International Law which oblige parties or state to observe the treaty provisions.
.
Virgilio Encabo
No comments:
Post a Comment