CHAPTER 4 – The Doctrine of State Immunity
Jure imperii – State acts is in pursuit of a sovereign activity (esp when it is not undertaken for gain or
profit)
A sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign.
(German Agency for Technical Cooperation v. Court of Appeals) p. 120
(China National Machinery & Equipment Corporation v. Sta. Maria) p. 121
(Sanders v. Veridiano) p. 122 – two American employees of the Subic Naval Base sued its commanding
general and the director of special services for damages for allegedly defamatory remarks made by the
defendant.
(University of the Philippines v. Dizon) p. 123 –

Where a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury caused by him is his
own personal liability and cannot be imputed to the State.
(Holy See v. Rosario) – p. 126
Doctrine of Sate immunity – royal prerogative of dishonesty ( State doesn’t avail itself of this rule to take
undue advantage of the parties that may have legitimate claims against it.
-
The state may divest itself of its sovereign immunity and thereby
voluntarily open itself to suit.
FORMS OF CONSENT:
Express consent – manifested either through a general law or special law.
Implied consent – given then the state itself commences litigation or when it enters into
a contract.
Act No. 3083 – Govt of the Phil. Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upod
any moneyed claim.
Under CA No. 327 (amended by PD No. 1445) – claim against govt must first be filed in
COA which must act upon it within 60 days.
(Republic v. Purisima) p. 129
(Amigable v. Cuenca) – p.129
STATE IMMUNITY
“The doctrine of sovereign immunity was not an instrument for perpetrating any injustice on a citizen.”
Jus imperii – sovereign and governmental acts
Jus gestionis –private, commercial and propriety acts
(Santiago v. Republic) – p. 131
(Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shippin Co.) – p. 131
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan) – p. 132
(Santos v. Santos) – p. 132
(Lyons v. USA) – p. 132

Govt contracts do not result in implied waiver of the immunity of the State from suit
THE TRADITIONAL RULE OF STATE IMMUNITY EXEMPTS A STATE FROM BEING SUED NI THE COURTS
OF ANOTHER STATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT OR WAIVER.
When the state gives it consent to be sued, it does not herby also consent to the execution of the
judgment against it.
(University of the Philippines v. Dizon) – p. 137
SUITS AGAINST GOVT AGENCIES:
Incorporated agency – has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridicial
personality
(Bermoy v. Philippine Normal College) – p.139
Unincorporated agency – no separate judicial personality but is merged in the general
machinery of the government
(National Airports Corporation v. Teodoro) – p. 140 *P. 120(Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. v. Jalos) – P. 143
(Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation v. Pacana) – P. 143
(GSIS v. Group of Management Corporation)
Chapter Five – Fundamental Principles and State Policies (P. 149)
Chapter Six – Separation of Powers (P. 199)
Chapter Seven – Delegation of Powers (P. 230)