This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| International law is founded largely upon the principles of reciprocity, comity, independence, and equality of States which were adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. As enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II, the practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. In the case of foreign States, the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary attitude would "unduly vex the peace of nations."[95] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The exception established in the foregoing cases is particularly appropriate presently since the "indirect" sale of PLDT common shares to foreign investors partook of a propriety business transaction of the government which was not undertaken as an incident to any of its governmental functions. Accordingly, the government, by concluding the sale, has descended to the level of an ordinary citizen and stripped itself of the vestiges of immunity that is available in the performance of governmental acts.[112] | |||||