IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
G.R. Jurisdiction of a state within its territory is
complete and absolute.
E.T.R.
a) Sovereign immunity
b) The immunity of the representative of states or
diplomatic and consular immunities
IMMUNITY OF HEAD OF STATE
-Enjoyed by both the head of the state and by the state
itself
Mighell v. Sultan of Johore- (sued for breach of promise
to marry) The subject of the suit therefore was a private
matter, not a state matter. The case was dismissed , the
immunity recognized is absolute.
Pinochet case- One who no longer was a head of state
but whose immunity for official or governmental acts
was recognized
-Pinochet did not enjoy immunity from prosecution as a
former head of the state and could be extradited to
Spain. This decision based largely on customary
international law, was set aside, however when one of
the judges who heard the appeal was found to have ties
to Amnesty international.
Regina v. Bartle and the commissioner of police
-Whether the alleged organisation of state totrture by
Senator Pinochet would constitute an act committed by
Sen. Pinochet as part of his official functions as head of
state
-Individuals who commit international crimes are
accountable for them is now an accepted part of
international law.
-A head of state will personall be liable to be called to
account if there is sufficient evidence that he authorized
or perpetrated such serious international crimes.
- Will not give rise to immunity ratione materiae (“By
reason of the matter.”) because such actions were
contrary to international law.
STATE IMMUNITY
The state may not be sued without its consent
-Applicable to both municipal law and
International law---- necessary consequence of the
principles of independence and of equality of states: par
in parem non habet imperium
-Immunity of the sovereign head is seen also
communicated to sovereign state- mutual intercourse
Jure imperii-governmental acts
Jure gestionis- Commercial act
-Because the activities of states have multiplied
State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii.
-A state may be said to have descended to the level of
an individual and can be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters into business
contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates
to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
United States v. Hon. Luis Reyes
-Claim of immunity was rejected when it was shown that
the acts of the American official were committed not only
outside the scope of her authority but also contrary to
law.
-While claiming to act for the state, he violated or
invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff.
RATIO: doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetration of justice.
TEST OF IMMUNITY
a) The mere entering into a contract by a foreign state
with a private party cannot be the ultimate test
b) The test is whether the foreign state is engaged in the
activity in the regular course of business
c) If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity or incident
thereof, then it is an act jure imperii especially when it is
not undertaken for gain or profit
HOW A STATE CLAIMING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
PROCEED
-It request the Foreign office of the state where it is sued
to convey that said defendant is entitled to immunity.
Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon
-Vinzon claims that the aforesaid termination was
arbitrary and unlawful
-Petitioner on the other hand filed a motion to dismiss,
alleging that Indonesia has sovereign immunity from suit
-Notwithstanding the maintenance agreement that it is
alleged that Indonesia had waived their immunity form
suit.
-The existence alone, of a paragraph in a contract
stating that any legal action out of the agreement shall
be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by
a specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a
waiver of sovereign immunity.
- Submission by a foreign state to local jurisdiction
must be clear and unequivocal. It must be given
explicitly or by necessary implication.
DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR IMMUNITIES
-Official representatives of a state are given immunities
and privileges when they are within the territory of
another state.
-The purpose of the immunities given them is functional,
that is to enable them to perform their functions properly.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES
-Diplomats are concerned with the political relations of
states
-Diplomatic relations between states are purely by
mutual consent.
-Before head of mission is sent to the receiving state, an
agreement must first be obtained
-The receiving state is under no obligation to give
reasons for refusing an agreement. (Receiving state may
refuse even without reasons)
The receiving state may at any time and without having
to explain its decision, notify the sending state that the
head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic
staff or mission is persona non grata (not acceptable)

CONSULAR AND CONSULAR IMMUNITIES

-Not concerned with political matters. They attend rather
to administrative and economic issues

THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE

-Whether US courts could consider the validity of acts of
a foreign state alleged to be in violation of international
law.
-Every sovereign state is bound to respect the
independence of every other sovereign state, and the
courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts
of the government of another, done within its own
territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such act
must be obtained through the means open to be availed
of by sovereign powers as between themselves.