exam 3

1. In the case of THE HOLY SEE vs. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., ET AL. (G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994) the procedure is outlined pursuant to public international law in pleading sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court.

l. State the procedure.

2. In the United States the procedure followed is the process of “suggestion”. EXPLAIN THE “process of suggestion”.

2. STATE THE (4) EFFECTS OF RECOGNITION OF BELLIGERENCY.

3. FACTS: The private respondents are suing several officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base.

On February 24, 1986, the Western Pacific Contracting Office, Okinawa Area Exchange, U.S. Air Force, solicited bids for such contracts through its contracting officer, James F. Shaw. Among those who submitted their bids were private respondents Roberto T. Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo C. del Pilar. Valencia had been a concessionaire inside Clark for 34 years; del Pilar for 12 years; and Tanglao for 50 years.

Ramon Dizon, won the bidding over the objection of the private respondents, who claimed that he had made a bid for four facilities, including the Civil Engineering Area, which was not included in the invitation to bid.

The private respondents complained to the Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX). The latter, through its representatives, petitioners Yvonne Reeves and Frederic M. Smouse explained that the Civil Engineering concession had not been awarded to Dizon as a result of the February 24, 1986 solicitation. Dizon was already operating this concession, then known as the NCO club concession, and the expiration of the contract had been extended from June 30, 1986 to August 31, 1986. They further explained that the solicitation of the CE barbershop would be available only by the end of June and the private respondents would be notified.

On June 30, 1986, the private respondents filed a complaint in the court below to compel PHAX and the individual petitioners to cancel the award to defendant Dizon, to conduct a rebidding for the barbershop concessions and to allow the private respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction to continue operating the concessions pending litigation.

Upon the filing of the complaint, the respondent court issued an ex parte order directing the individual petitioners to maintain the status quo.

On July 22, 1986, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction on the ground that the action was in effect a suit against the United States of America, which had not waived its non-suability. The individual defendants, as official employees of the U.S. Air Force, were also immune from suit.

Question: AS JUDGE WOULD YOU DISMISS THE CASE? EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER.

4. . What is the doctrine of sovereign immunity under international law?