In Constitutional Law, immunity from suit usually refers to the non-suability of State. The generally accepted principle that the State may not be sued without its consent is now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. Immunity from suit is usually invoked by the State and by public officers, who, by law were given immunity from suit. An example of this law is Executive Order No. 1 issued on February 28, 1986 by then President Corazon Aquino. Section 4(a) of said law states that “no civil action shall lie against the commission or any member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by this order”. Another example is the immunity of judicial officers from suit, as held in the case of Louis Vuitton vs. Villanueva,[1] ". . . it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.' This concept of judicial immunity rests upon considerations of public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary." It should be noted however, that this immunity refers to immunity from civil actions and does not include immunity from criminal actions or from administrative cases.

We now ask, can BSP examiners invoke immunity from suit? We must first make a distinction between suability and liability. Suability is the ability to sue and be sued; it is the result of the express or implied consent of the State to be sued. Liability, on the other hand, is determined after hearing on the basis of the relevant laws and the established facts.

Public officers have three-fold liabilities:

1. Criminal liability;

2. Civil liability; and

3. Administrative liability.

As a general rule, if a public officer is performing his official functions, he is not liable. The exception is when there is grave abuse of right. If he is performing his tasks outside of the scope of his authority, or without authority, he is personally liable. If he does it beyond the scope of his authority, he is not entitled to any protection.

The Philippine jurisprudence is rife with cases on the immunity from liability of public officers. A case in point is Metran vs. Paredes[2] where the Supreme Court ruled that the immunity of public officers from liability arising from the performance of their duties is necessary to protect the performance of governmental and public functions from being harassed unduly or constantly interrupted by private suits. This immunity from suit of public officers however, is not without its parameters. Immunity from suit may only be invoked for acts done by officers in the performance of official duties within the ambit of their powers. As held in Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield “no one can be held legally responsible in damages or otherwise for doing in a legal manner what he had authority, under the law, to do.” But this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untrammeled by any constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the Constitution.[3]

The Supreme Court however, in several cases had the opportunity to settle the issue of suability of GOCCs. A government owned and controlled corporation has distinct personality of its own. Accordingly, it may sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation. If the BSP itself may sue and be sued, then it follows that its employees may also sue and be sued. It would have been different if the BSP charter specifically granted BSP examiners immunity from suit, as in the case of PCGG members. Hence, unless a law is passed granting immunity from suit to BSP Examiners, we will see no end to several suits, some maliciously filed, against BSP Examiners. However, it does not necessarily mean that if BSP examiners are suable, they are also liable. By being suable, the complainant is merely given the opportunity to prove, if it can, that BSP examiners are liable. Examination of banks is neither for the weak nor the faint-hearted, thus, BSP examiners must face their duties without fear and must bear in mind that as public officers, they are servants of the people who should serve them with utmost responsibility and integrity.