World Health Organization v.

Aquino 48 SCRA 243

Facts:
Herein petitioner, in behalf of Dr. Verstuyft, was allegedly suspected by the Constabulary Offshore
Action Center (COSAC) officers of carrying dutiable goods under the Customs and Tariff Code of the
Philippines. Respondent Judge then issued a search warrant at the instance of the COSAC officers for the
search and seizure of the personla effects of Dr. Verstuyft notwithstanding his being entitled to
diplomatic immunity, as duly recognized by the Executive branch of the government.

The Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised the respondent judge 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 and further requested for the suspension of the
search warrant. The Solicitor General accordingly joined the petitioner for the quashal of the search
warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the quashal.

Issue:
Whether or not personal effect of WHO Officer Dr. Verstuyft can be exempted from search and seizure
under the diplomatic immunity.

Ruling:
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 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 government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized 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.