Who v. Aquino Digest
Who v. Aquino Digest
Who v. Aquino Digest
AQUINO
November 29, 1972Teehankee, J.Rañeses, Roberto Miguel O.(Apologies for the length. The Court had
made an efficient disposition of the case.)
SUMMARY:
Dr. Verstuyft was assigned to Manila by theWHO. He enjoyed diplomatic immunity, which carried withit
exemption from taxation and local duties. When hispersonal effects contained in crates arrived in
thePhilippines, they were allowed free access. COSACsubsequently applied for a search warrant on Dr.
Verstuft’spersonal effects for alleged violation of R.A. 4712, which Judge Aquino granted. Foreign Affairs
Sec. Romuloinformed Judge Aquino of Dr. Verstufyt’s diplomaticimmunity. Nevertheless, Judge Aquino
refused to quash thesearch warrant. The SC nullified the search warrant, statingthat Dr. Verstufyt did
enjoy diplomatic immunity, and wasthus free from all customs duties and taxes.
DOCTRINE:
1.It is a recognized principle of international law andunder our system of separation of powers that
diplomatic immunity is essentially a politicalquestion and courts should refuse to look beyond
adetermination by the executive branch of thegovernment
, [theSolicitor General in this case], or other officer actingunder his direction. Hence, in adherence to
thesettled principle that courts may not so exercisetheir jurisdiction by seizure and detention of
property, as to embarrass the executive arm of thegovernment in conducting foreign relations, it
isaccepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicialdepartment of (this) government follows the actionof
the political branch and will not embarrass thelatter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.2.The
Philippine Government is bound by theprocedure laid down in
Article VII of theConvention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the Specialized Agencies of the United
Nations
for consultations between the Host Stateand the United Nations agency concerned todetermine, in the
first instance the fact of occurrence of the abuse alleged, and if so, toensure that no repetition occurs
and for otherrecourses. This is a treaty commitment voluntarilyassumed by the Philippine Government
and assuch, has the force and effect of law.
FACTS:
Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, assigned on Dec. 6, 1971 bythe WHO from his last station in Taipei to the Regional
Officein Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health Services. Heis entitled to diplomatic immunity,
pursuant to the
Host Agreement
executed on July 22, 1951 between the Phil.Government and the World Health Organization.Diplomatic
immunity carries with it, among other diplomaticprivileges and immunities, personal inviolability,
inviolabilityof the official's properties, exemption from local jurisdiction,and exemption from taxation
and customs duties.Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects entered the Philippines on Jan. 10, 1972. They were
allowed free entry from duties andtaxes. Judge Aquino issued on March 3, 1972 upon application of
COSAC [
] officers of asearch warrant for alleged violation of Republic Act 4712amending section 3601 of the
Tariff and Customs Codedirecting the
Upon the protest of Dr. Francisco Dy, WHO Regional Directorfor the Western Pacific with station in
Manila, Sec. of ForeignAffairs Carlos P. Romulo personally wired the judge,informing him that Dr. Vertuyft
is entitled to immunity fromsearch on the basis of the Host Agreement. Judge Aquino set the Foreign
Affairs Secretary’s request forhearing and heard the same, but still issued an ordermaintaining the
effectivity of the search warrant despite anofficial plea for diplomatic immunity and the a list of
thearticles brought in by Dr. Verstuyft. Dr. Versuyft specialappearance for the purpose of pleading his
diplomaticimmunity and a motion to quash did not move Judge Aquino.At the hearing thereof held on
May 8, 1972, the OSGappeared and filed an extended comment stating the officialposition of the
executive branch of the PhilippineGovernment that (a) Verstuyft is entitled to diplomaticimmunity, (b) he
did not abuse his diplomatic immunity, and(c) that court proceedings in the receiving or host State
arenot the proper remedy in the case of abuse of diplomaticimmunity. The Solicitor General accordingly
joined petitionerVerstuyft's prayer for the quashal of the search warrant. The judge still denied the
quashal of the search warrant. .An original action forcertiorari and prohibition to set aside Judge
Aquino’s refusal to quash the search warrant wasthereafter filed before the SC. The SC then issued
arestraining order.
ISSUES:
WON Dr. Verstuyft the search warrant should bequashed in view of his diplomatic immunity.
RULING:
YES, the search warrant should be quashedbecause Dr. Verstuft’s diplomatic immunity
RATIO:
1.The executive branch of the Philippine Governmenthas expressly recognized that Dr. Verstuyft
isentitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to theprovisions of the
Host Agreement.
The DFA formallyadvised respondent judge of the PhilippineGovernment's official position that
accordingly "
Dr.Verstuyft cannot be the subject of a Philippine court summons without violating an obligation
ininternational law of the Philippine Government
" andasked for the quashal of the search warrant, since hispersonal effects and baggages after having
beenallowed free entry from all customs duties and taxes,may not be baselessly claimed to have
been"unlawfully imported" in violation of the tariff andcustoms code as claimed by respondents
COSACofficers. The Solicitor-General, as principal law officerof the Government, likewise expressly
affirmed saidpetitioner's right to diplomatic immunity.(See Doctrine no. 1)2.Judge Aquino should not
have relied on thesuspicions of the COSAC officers regarding theunopened crates which contained Dr.
Verstuyft’spersona effects rather than on the assurance of theOSG that Dr. Verstufyt did not abuse his
diplomaticimmunity, which is based on the official positions of the highest exec. Officials with the
competence andauthority on the matter, namely the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Finance.(See
Doctrine no. 2)Hence, even assuming arguendo, That Judge Aquinohad some ground on which he can
base his decision,he should have acceded to the quashal of the searchwarrant and forwarded his
findings to the DFA.3.There was a clear lack of coordination between thevarious departments involved in
the subject matter.
Such lack of coordination allowed the COSAC to goagainst the determination of the Secretaries of
Foreign Affairs and Finance. This fact is highlighted by
to safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials in thePhilippines are taken into account.
Said Act declaresas null and void writs or processes sued out orprosecuted whereby inter alia the person
of anambassador or public minister is arrested orimprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized
orattached and makes it a penal offense for "everyperson by whom the same is obtained or
prosecuted,whether as party or as attorney, and every officerconcerned in executing it" to obtain or
enforce suchwrit or process. Judge Aquino, therefore, acted without jurisdictionand with grave abuse of
discretion when he did notquash the search warrant.
DISPOSITIVE:
ACCORDINGLY, the writs of certiorari andprohibition prayed for are hereby granted, and thetemporary
restraining order heretofore issued againstexecution or enforcement of the questioned search
warrant,which is hereby declared null and void, is hereby madepermanent. The respondent court is
hereby commanded todesist from further proceedings in the matter. No costs,none having been prayed
for. The clerk of court is hereby directed to furnish a copy of thisdecision to the Secretary of Justice for
such action as hemay find appropriate with regard to the matters mentionedin paragraph 3 hereof. So
ordered.