WHO vs aquino

Jeffrey Liang vs People

-Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its regional

office in Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health
Services.
-His personal effects, contained in twelve (12) crates, were
allowed free entry from duties and taxes.
-Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) suspected that
the crates contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods
beyond the official needs of Verstuyft.
-Upon application of the COSAC officers, Judge Aquino issued
a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal
effects of Verstuyft.

-Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian

Development Bank (ADB).
-Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words
against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged
before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of
oral defamation.
-Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the
MeTC. After fixing petitioners bail, the MeTC released him to
the custody of the Security Officer of ADB.
-The next day, the MeTC judge received an office of
protocol from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by
immunity from legal process under section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government
regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country. Based
on the said protocol communication that petitioner is
immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the
prosecution dismissed the criminal cases.
-The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was
opposed by the DFA. When its motion was denied, the
prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with
the RTC of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and
ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it
earlier issued.
-After the motion for reconsideration was denied, the
petitioner elevated the case to the SC via a petition for review
arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement
and that no preliminary investigation was held before the
criminal case.

-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised Judge

Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search
in respect for his personal baggage as accorded to members
of diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement
-He requested that the search warrant be suspended.
-The Solicitor General accordingly joined Verstuyft for the
quashal of the search warrant but respondent judge
nevertheless summarily denied the quashal.
-Verstuyft, thus, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the SC. WHO joined Verstuyft in asserting diplomatic
immunity.
Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted
from search and seizure under the diplomatic immunity.
Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly
recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity,
pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement.
The DFA formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine
Government's official position. The Solicitor General, as
principal law officer of the gorvernment, likewise expressly
affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and
asked for the quashal of the search warrant.
It is a recognized principle of international law and under
our system of separation of powers that diplomatic
immunity is essentially a political question and courts
should refuse to look beyond a determination by the
executive branch of the government, and where the plea of
diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the
executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it
is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity
upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of
the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other
officer acting under his discretion. Courts may not so exercise
their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to
embarass the executive arm of the government in conducting
foreign relations.
The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted
without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not
ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him in
disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft.

(1) Whether or not the petitioners case is covered with

immunity from legal process with regard to Section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Govt.
(2) Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation
was imperative.
(1) NO. The petitioners case is not covered by the immunity.
Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication from the
DFA that the petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has no
binding effect in courts. The court needs to protect the right
to due process not only of the accused but also of the
prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of the
Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception that
the acts must be done in official capacity. Hence,
slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the
immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of
official duty.
(2) NO. Preliminary Investigation is not a matter of right in
cases cognizable by the MeTC such as this case. Being purely
a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked
only when specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal
procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is
required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.
Hence, SC denied the petition.