The case involved whether personal effects of a WHO official were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The court ruled the effects were exempt as the Philippine government recognized the official's diplomatic immunity under an agreement. Courts should accept claims of immunity affirmed by the executive branch.
The case involved whether personal effects of a WHO official were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The court ruled the effects were exempt as the Philippine government recognized the official's diplomatic immunity under an agreement. Courts should accept claims of immunity affirmed by the executive branch.
The case involved whether personal effects of a WHO official were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The court ruled the effects were exempt as the Philippine government recognized the official's diplomatic immunity under an agreement. Courts should accept claims of immunity affirmed by the executive branch.
The case involved whether personal effects of a WHO official were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The court ruled the effects were exempt as the Philippine government recognized the official's diplomatic immunity under an agreement. Courts should accept claims of immunity affirmed by the executive branch.
FACTS: o The petitioner Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, who was assigned on December 6, 1971 by the WHO to the Regional Office in Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health Services, is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the Host Agreement executed on July 22, 1951 between the Philippine Government and the World Health Organization. o Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other diplomatic privileges and immunities, personal inviolability, inviolability of the official's properties, exemption from local jurisdiction, and exemption from taxation and customs duties. o The petitioner Verstuyft's personal effects arrived and it contained in twelve (12) crates entered the Philippines as unaccompanied baggage on January 10, 1972, and were accordingly allowed free entry from duties and taxes. o Respondent judge Aquino issued on March 3, 1972 upon application on the same date of respondents COSAC officers search warrant No. 72-138 for alleged violation of Republic Act 4712 amending section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code directing the search and seizure of the dutiable items in said crates o Upon protest of March 6, 1972 of Dr. Francisco Dy, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific with station in Manila, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo, personally wired on the same date respondent Judge advising that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect of his personal baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and requesting suspension of the search warrant order pending clarification of the matter from the ASAC. o Solicitor General appeared and filed an extended comment stating the official position of the executive branch of the Philippine Government that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, he did not abuse his diplomatic immunity,and that court proceedings in the receiving or host State are not the proper remedy in the case of abuse of diplomatic immunity. He then joined petitioner Verstuyft's prayer for the quashal of the search warrant. ISSUES: • Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted from search and seizure under the diplomatic immunity. RULING: • Yes . The executive branch of the Philippine Government has expressly recognized that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. • 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, 8 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 direction. • Hence, even assuming arguendo as against the categorical assurance of the executive branch of government that respondent judge had some ground to prefer respondents COSAC officers' suspicion that there had been an abuse of diplomatic immunity, the continuation of the search warrant proceedings before him was not the proper remedy. He should, nevertheless, in deference to the exclusive competence and jurisdiction of the executive branch of government to act on the matter, have acceded to the quashal of the search warrant, and forwarded his findings or grounds to believe that there had been such abuse of diplomatic immunity to the Department of Foreign Affairs for it to deal with, in accordance with the aforementioned Convention, if so warranted.
