G.R. No. L-35131, November 29, 1972 warrant.

"[1]

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND DR. LEONCE VERSTUYFT, The Court thereafter called for the parties' memoranda in lieu of oral
PETITIONERS, VS. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, AS PRESIDING JUDGE
argument, which were filed on August 3, 1972 by respondents and on August
OF BRANCH VIII, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, MAJOR
WILFREDO CRUZ, MAJOR ANTONIO G. RELLEVE, AND CAPTAIN 21, 1972 by petitioners, and the case was thereafter deemed submitted for
PEDRO S. NAVARRO OF THE CONSTABULARY OFFSHORE ACTION decision.
CENTER (COSAC), RESPONDENTS.
It is undisputed in the record that petitioner Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, who was
assigned on December 6, 1971 by the WHO from his last station in Taipei to
DECISION the Regional Office in Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health Services,
is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the Host Agreement executed
TEEHANKEE, J.:
on July 22, 1951 between the Philippine Government and the World Health
Organization.

An original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent judge's Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other diplomatic privileges
refusal to quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of and immunities, personal inviolability, inviolability of the official's properties,
respondents COSAC (Constabulary Offshore Action Center) officers for the exemption from local jurisdiction, and exemption from taxation and customs
search and seizure of the personal effects of petitioner official of the WHO duties.
(World Health Organization) notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic
When petitioner Verstuyft's personal effects contained in twelve (12) crates
immunity, as duly recognized by the executive branch of the Philippine
entered the Philippines as unaccompanied baggage on January 10, 1972,
Government and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the
they were accordingly allowed free entry from duties and taxes.  The crates
matter.
were directly stored at the Eternit Corporation's warehouse at Mandaluyong,
Rizal, "pending his relocation into permanent quarters upon the offer of Mr.
Berg Vice President of Eternit who was once a patient of Dr. Verstuyft in the
Upon filing of the petition, the Court issued on June 6, 1972 a restraining Congo."[2]
order enjoining respondents from executing the search warrant in question.
Nevertheless, as above stated, respondent judge issued, on March 3, 1972
Respondents COSAC officers filed their answer joining issue against upon application on the same date of respondents COSAC officers search
petitioners and seeking to justify their act of applying for and securing from warrant No. 72-138 for alleged violation of Republic Act 4712 amending
respondent judge the warrant for the search and seizure of ten crates section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code [3] directing the search and
consigned to petitioner Verstuyft and stored at the Eternit Corporation seizure of the dutiable items in said crates.
warehouse on the ground that they "contain large quantities of highly dutiable
goods" beyond the official needs of said petitioner "and the only lawful way to Upon protest of March 6, 1972 of Dr. Francisco Dy, WHO Regional Director
reach these articles and effects for purposes of taxation is through a search for the Western Pacific with station in Manila, Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Carlos P. Romulo personally wired on the same date respondent judge under section 24 of the Host Agreement.
advising that "Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect of
his personal baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic missions" The writs of certiorari and prohibition should issue as prayed for.
pursuant to the Host Agreement and requesting suspension of the search
1.       The executive branch of the Philippine Government has expressly 
warrant order "pending clarification of the matter from the ASAC."
recognized that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity

Respondent judge set the Foreign Secretary's request for hearing and heard pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement.  The Department of

the same on March 16, 1972, but notwithstanding the official plea of Foreign Affairs formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine

diplomatic immunity interposed by a duly authorized representative of the Government's official position that accordingly "Dr. Verstuyft cannot be the

Department of Foreign Affairs who furnished the respondent judge with a list subject of a Philippine court summons without violating an obligation in

of the articles brought in by petitioner Verstuyft, respondent judge issued his international law of the Philippine Government" and asked for the quashal of

order of the same date maintaining the effectivity of the search warrant the search warrant, since his personal effects and baggages after having

issued by him, unless restrained by a higher court.[4] been allowed free entry from all customs duties and taxes, may not be
baselessly claimed to have been "unlawfully imported" in violation of the tariff
Petitioner Verstuyft's special appearance on March 24, 1972 for the limited and customs code us claimed by respondents COSAC officers.  The Solicitor
purpose of pleading his diplomatic immunity and motion to quash search General, as principal law officer of the Government, [7] likewise expressly
warrant of April 12, 1972 failed to move respondent judge. affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the
quashal of the search warrant.
At the hearing thereof held on May 8, 1972, the Office of the Solicitor
General appeared and filed an extended comment stating the official position It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of
of the executive branch of the Philippine Government that petitioner Verstuyft separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
[5]
is entitled to diplomatic immunity, he did not abuse his diplomatic immunity,   question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the
and that court proceedings in the receiving or host State are not the proper executive branch of the government, [8]  and where the plea of diplomatic
remedy in the case of abuse of diplomatic immunity.[6] 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 Solicitor General accordingly joined petitioner Verstuyft's prayer for the the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer
quashal of the search warrant.  Respondent judge nevertheless summarily of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting
denied quashal of the search warrant per his order of May 9, 1972 "for the under his direction.[9] Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts
same reasons already stated in (his) aforesaid order of March 16, 1972" may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as
disregarding Foreign Secretary Romulo's plea of diplomatic immunity on to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign
behalf of Dr. Verstuyft. relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of
(this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not
Hence, the petition at bar.  Petitioner Verstuyft has in this Court been joined
embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."[10]
by the World Health Organization (WHO) itself in full assertion of petitioner
Verstuyft's being entitled "to all privileges and immunities, exemptions and 2.       The unfortunate fact that respondent judge chose to rely on the
facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys in accordance with international law"
suspicion of respondents COSAC officers "that the other remaining crates the authoritative determination and pronouncements of both the Secretaries
[11]
unopened contain contraband items"   rather than on the categorical of Foreign Affairs and of Finance that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to
assurance of the Solicitor-General that petitioner Verstuyft did not abuse his diplomatic immunity, as confirmed by the Solicitor-General as the principal
[12]
diplomatic immunity,   which was based in turn on the official positions law officer of the Government.  Such executive determination properly
taken by the highest executive officials with competence and authority to act implemented should have normally constrained respondents officers
on the matter, namely, the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and of Finance, themselves to obtain the quashal of the search warrant secured by them
could not justify respondent judge's denial of the quashal of the search rather than oppose such quashal up to this Court, to the embarrassment of
warrant. said department heads, if not of the Philippine Government itself vis-a-vis the
petitioners.[15]
[13]
As already stated above, and brought to respondent court's attention, the
Philippine Government is bound by the procedure laid down in Article VII of The seriousness of the matter is underscored when the provisions of
the convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies Republic Act 75 enacted since October 21, 1946 to safeguard the
[14]
of the United Nations   for consultations between the Host State and the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials in the Philippines are taken into
United Nations agency concerned to determine in the first instance the fact of account.  Said Act declares as null and void writs or processes sued out or
occurrence of the abuse alleged, and if so, to ensure that no repetition prosecuted whereby inter alia the person of an ambassador or public minister
occurs and for other recourses.  This is a treaty commitment voluntarily is arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized or attached and
assumed by the Philippine Government and as such, has the force and effect makes it a penal offense for "every person by whom the same is obtained or
of law. prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in
executing it" to obtain or enforce such writ or process. [16]
Hence, even assuming arguendo as against the categorical assurance of the
executive branch of government that respondent judge had some ground to The Court, therefore, holds that respondent judge acted without jurisdiction
prefer respondents COSAC officers' suspicion that there had been an abuse and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search
of diplomatic immunity, the continuation of the search warrant proceedings warrant issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner
before him was not the proper remedy.  He should, nevertheless, in Verstuyft.
deference to the exclusive competence and jurisdiction of the executive
branch of government to act on the matter, have acceded to the quashal of ACCORDINGLY , the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for are hereby
the search warrant, and forwarded his findings or grounds to believe that granted, and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued against
there had been such abuse of diplomatic immunity to the Department of execution or enforcement of the questioned search warrant, which is hereby
Foreign Affairs for it to deal with in accordance with the aforementioned declared null and void, is hereby made permanent.  The respondent court is
Convention, if so warranted. hereby commanded to desist from further proceedings in the matter.  No
costs, none having been prayed for.
3.       Finally, the Court has noted with concern the apparent lack of
coordination between the various departments involved in the subject-matter The clerk of court is hereby directed to furnish a copy of this decision to the

of the case at bar, which made it possible for a small unit, the COSAC, to Secretary of Justice for such action as he may find appropriate with regard to

which respondents officers belong, seemingly to disregard and go against the matters mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof.
SO ORDERED.