2013 (Political Law) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 10

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or see Political Law Instructions; Political Law Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 911 and 12; Political Law Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


The Ambassador of the Republic of Kafirista referred to you for handling, the case of the Embassy’s Maintenance Agreement with CBM, a private domestic company engaged in maintenance work. The Agreement binds CBM, for a defined fee, to maintain the Embassy’s elevators, air-conditionaing units and electrical facilities. Section 10 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement shall be governed by Philippine laws and that any legal action shall be brought before the proper court of Makati. Kafiristan terminated the Agreement because CBM allegedly did not comply with their agreed maintenance standards.

CBM contested the termination and filed a complaint against Kafiristan before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Ambassador wants you to file a motion to dismiss on the ground of state immunity from suit and to oppose the position that under Section 10 of the Agreement, Kafiristan expressly waives its immunity from suit.

Under these facts, can the Embassy successfully invoke immunity from suit? (6%)


  1. Yes the Embassy can successfully invoke state immunity. CBM cannot sue the state of Kafiristan. International law recognizes the immunity of states from suits without its consent. It would be different, had CBM sued the embassy staff. Under the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations In terms of contractual obligations, the immunity from suit enjoyed by the staff of embassies is limited.

    I had to make sure CBM was suing the STATE hahaha. Case to, Rep. of Indonesia. Ponente is J Azcuna… hmmm siya nga kaya ang examiner natin?

    1. Yes. The maintenance contract is a contract jus imperii because the repair of electrical equipment is indispensable to the performance of the official functions of the government of karifistan. The contract is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, in which case, the state cannot be deemed to have waived its right to immunity. -taken from the suggested answers to bar qs, 2005

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *