Basis (Republic vs.

Villasor, 54 SCRA 83) The Doctrine of State Immunity sometim es called the royal prerogative of dishonesty as declared in the Constitution affi rms, The state may not be sued without its consent . This provision is merely reco gnition of the sovereign character of the state and an express affirmation of th e unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the courts of justice. A ccording to Justice Holmes the doctrine of non-suability is based not on any for mal conception or obsolete theory but on the logical and practical ground that t here can beno legal right against the authority, which makes the law on which th e right depends. Another justification is the practical consideration that the d emands and inconveniences of litigation will divert the time and resources of th e state from the more pressing matters demanding its attention, to the prejudice of the public welfare. The doctrine is also available to foreign states insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local state. The added basis in this case is the principle of the sovereign equality of states, under which one state cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so would unduly vex the peace of nations. 2.Ho w may consent of the State to be sued given? The consent of the state to be sued may be givenexpressl y or impliedly. Express consent may be manifested either t hrough a general law or a special law. Implied consent is given when the State i tself commences litigation or when it enters into a contract. The general law pr oviding for the standing consent of the State to be sued is Act No. 3083, declar ing that the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, expres s or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parti es. Under C.A. No. 327 as amended by P.D. No. 1445, a claim against the governmen t must first be filed with the Commission on Audit, which must act upon it withi n sixty (60) days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court oncertior ari and in effect sue the state with its consent. The express consent of the State to be sued must be embodied in a d uly enacted statute and may not be given by a mere counsel of the government. It should also be observed that when the State gives its consent to be sued, it do es not thereby also to the execution of the judgment against it. Such execution will require another waiver, lacking which the decision cannot be enforced again st the State. 2 3.When is a suit against a public official deemed to be a suit against the State ? Because actions are rarely instituted directly against the Republic of the Phi lippines, the usual practice is to file such claims not against the State itself but against the officer of the government who is supposed to discharge the resp onsibility or grant the redressed demanded. It is important then, to determine i f the State is the real party in interest, that is, that the claim if proved wil l be a direct liability of the State and not merely of the officer impleaded. If this is shown, the action can be dismissed as a suit against the State unless i ts immunity had been previously waived. There are many instances when a public o fficer may be sued in his official capacity without the necessity of first obtai ning the consent of the State to be sued. A public officer may be impleaded to r equire him to do a duty required by law, or to restrain him from doing an act al leged to be unconstitutional or illegal, or to recover from him taxes unlawfully assessed or collected. It has been held also that where an action is filed agai nst a public officer for recovery only of title or possession of property claime d to be held by him in his official capacity, the said action is not a suit agai nst the State for which prior waiver of immunity is required. But it is differen t where there is an addition a claim for recovery of damages, such as accrued re ntals, inasmuch as it allowance would require the government to appropriate the necessary amount for the satisfaction of the judgment. Assuming the decision is rendered against the public officer impleaded, enforcement thereof will require an affirmative act from the State, such as the appropriation of the needed amoun t to satisfy the judgment. If it does, the suit is one against the State and its inclusion as party defendant is necessary. If on the other hand, the officer im pleaded may by himself alone comply with the decision of the court without the n ecessity o involving the State, then the suit can prosper against him and will n

ot be considered a claim against the State. Lastly, when a public officer acts w ithout or in excess of jurisdiction, any injury caused by him is his own persona l liability and cannot be imputed to the State. 4.What are the instances when a suit against the State is proper? Three instances are considered suit against th e state. These are: When the Republic is sued by name. To sue the State, its exp ress consent should be ask and be manifested through a general law or a special law, while the implied consent is given when the State commences litigation or t he state entering into a contract. The general law that provides for the consent of the State to be sued is Act No. 3083( t he Government of the Philippine Islan ds hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liabi lity arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. ). When an Unincorporated government agency is sued. If suit is filed against one of the government entities, it must be asc ertained whether or not the State, as the principal that may ultimately be held liable, has given its consent to be sued. This ascertainment will depend in the first instance on whether the government agency impleaded is incorporatedor unin corporated. An incorporated agency has a charter of its own that invests it with a separate juridical personality, like the Social Security System, the Universi ty of the Philippines and the City of Manila. On the other hand, the unincorpora ted agency has no separate juridical 3