FYDAH MARIE SABANDO 

USA LLB-4B
Remedial Law 2| Case Digest: Arigo vs Swift (2014) 
 

MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, ET.AL. V. SCOTT H. SWIFT, ET.AL.  

G.R. No. 206510    September 16, 2014 

VILLARAMA, JR, J
​ .  Nature: P
​ etition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with 
prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection 
Order (TEPO)​ under Rule 7 of RPEC over the January 17, 2013 
grounding of US minesweeper USS Guardian on the protected 
area known as a United Nations Heritage Site 

FACTS: 

❖ R.A. No. 10067 (RA 10067), otherwise known as the “Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009”, was 
enacted to ensure protection and conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for the enjoyment of 
present and future generations. Under the “no take” policy, entry into the waters of the TRNP is strictly 
regulated and many human activities are prohibited, penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, destroying 
and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. 
❖ The US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for the USS Guardian (“Ship”) ​“to enter and 
exit the territorial waters of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship 
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.” 
❖ On 17 January 2013, while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal 
of the Tubbataha Reefs. No one was injured in the incident and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or 
oil.  
❖ US 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift expressed regret for the incident in a press statement. 
Petitioners Arigo, et.al. on their behalf and in representation of their respective sector/organization and others, 
including minors or generations yet unborn filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer 
for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for 
Environmental Cases.  

Petitioners’ contention 

➢ The grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the ship cause and continue to cause 
environmental damage of such magnitude as to affect various provinces in the country which violate 
their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology 
➢ There should be a directive from the Supreme Court for the institution of civil, administrative and 
criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in connection with 
the grounding incident 
➢ US respondents committed the following violations under RA 10067: unauthorized entry; non-payment 
of conservation fees; obstruction of law enforcement officer; damages to the reef; and destroying and 
disturbing resources 
➢ The VFA provides for a waiver of immunity from suit 

Respondents’ contention 

➢ The grounds relied upon by petitioners for the issuance of TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become ​fait 
accompli​ as the salvage operations on the ship were already completed 
➢ The petition is defective in form and in substance 
➢ The petition improperly raises issues involving VFA between Philippines and USA 
➢ The determination of the extent of responsibility of the US Government regarding the damage to the 
Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the executive branch 

ISSUE/S: 

1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents 

2. Whether or not the waiver of immunity provisions of the VFA applies 
3. Whether or not damages be granted from violations of environmental laws caused by the grounding 
4. Whether or not the petition has become moot 

RULING:  

1. The  ​Court  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  erring  US  servicemen  however  expects  that  US  bear  “international 
responsibility  under  Art.  31  of  UNCLOS  in  connection  with  the  USS Guardian grounding which adversely affected 
the Tubbataha reefs. 
2. No.  ​Any  waiver  of  State  Immunity  under  the  VFA  pertains  only  to  criminal  cases  and  not  to  special  civil  cases 
including the writ of kalikasan. 
   
 In  fact,  it  can  be  inferred  from  Section  17,  Rule  7  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  for  Environmental  Cases  that  a  criminal 
case against a person charged with a violation of an environmental law is to be filed separately: 
 
“SEC.  17.  Institution  of  separate  actions.  –  The  filing  of  a  petition  for  the  issuance  of  the  writ  of  kalikasan  shall not preclude the 
filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions.” 
 
The  Court  however  declined  to  review  the  VFA,  pointing  out  that  ​a  writ  of  kalikasan  plea  is  not the proper course of 
action to question the constitutionality of the VFA. 
​______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
1.   ​The  ​Court  cannot  grant  damages  ​which  have  resulted from the violation of environmental laws. Section 15, Rule 7 
of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  for  Environmental Cases enumerates the reliefs which may be granted and the same rule 
excludes  the  award  of  damages  to  individual  petitioners.  ​This  should  fall  under  a  separate  civil  suit  or  as  a 
consequence of any criminal action. 
​______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
2. The  ​Court  ruled  that the ​petition for the issuance of the privilege of a writ of kalikasan with prayer for the issuance 
of  a  Temporary  Environmental  Protection  Order  has  become  moot  ​in  the  sense  that  the  salvage  operation  of  the 
US  military  ship  USS Guardian which ran aground over the Tubbataha Reefs sought to be enjoined or restrained had 
already been accomplished.  
 
However,  insofar  as  the  directives  to  Philippine  respondents  to  protect and rehabilitate the coral reef structure and 
marine  habitat  adversely  affected  by  the  grounding  incident  are  concerned,  petitioners  are  entitled  to  these reliefs 
notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral reef. 
 
The  Court  stresses  the  resort  to  exploring  avenues  for  settlement  of  environmental cases as this is not proscribed 
by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.  
 
On  the  matter  of  compensation  and  reef  rehabilitation  measures  through  diplomatic  channels,  the  high  court 
deferred  the  authority  over  these  issues  with  the  executive  department  and  pronounced  that  it  ​"is  not  subject  to 
judicial inquiry or decision." 

NOTES:  

Procedural liberality as to legal standing in environmental cases should be allowed only when: 
a)​ there is a clear legal basis for the representative suit;  
b)​ there are actual concerns based squarely upon an existing legal right;  
c)​ there is no possibility of any countervailing interests existing within the population represented or those that are 
yet to be born; and 
d)​ there is an absolute necessity for such standing because there is a threat of catastrophe so imminent that an 
immediate protective measure is necessary.