Case Summary (G.R. No. L-35131)
Petitioner
Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, entitled to diplomatic privileges under the 1951 Host Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and WHO, joined by WHO.
Respondents
Judge Aquino, who maintained and refused to quash search warrant No. 72-138; COSAC officers who sought enforcement of that warrant to seize purportedly dutiable goods.
Key Dates
• December 6, 1971 – Verstuyft’s assignment to Manila.
• January 10, 1972 – Twelve crates of unaccompanied baggage allowed duty-free entry.
• March 3, 1972 – Search warrant issued for ten crates.
• March 6 & 16, 1972 – Department of Foreign Affairs’ plea for immunity and judge’s refusal.
• May 8–9, 1972 – Solicitor General’s support for immunity and lower court’s denial of quashal.
• June 6, 1972 – Supreme Court issues temporary restraining order.
• August 1972 – Submission of memoranda; case deemed submitted.
Applicable Law
• 1951 Host Agreement (Section 24): grants WHO officials diplomatic immunity, inviolability of property, exemption from jurisdiction and customs duties.
• Republic Act No. 4712 (amending Tariff and Customs Code, § 3601): penalizes unlawful importation and possession of dutiable goods.
• Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies (1947): prescribes procedures for alleged abuse of privileges.
• Republic Act No. 75 (1946): nullifies processes seizing diplomatic property; penalizes execution of such writs.
• 1935 Philippine Constitution: separation of powers and respect for executive determinations in foreign relations.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed an original action for certiorari and prohibition to annul Judge Aquino’s warrant and to enjoin further proceedings. The Supreme Court issued a restraining order, respondents answered, and both parties submitted memoranda.
Issue
Whether a Philippine court may enforce a search warrant against the personal effects of a WHO official enjoying diplomatic immunity recognized by the Executive branch.
Rationale for Diplomatic Immunity
- The Executive branch, through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General, formally recognized that Verstuyft is immune from search and seizure under the Host Agreement.
- Under the principle of separation of powers and established international-law doctrine, courts must accept the Executive’s determination of immunity and refrain from actions that would embarrass foreign relations.
Treaty Obligations and Proper Recourse
Article VII of the 1947 Convention requires consultations between the host State and the UN agency to resolve alleged abuses. Judicial proceedings in the host State are not the appropriate initial remedy; findings of abuse, if any, must be referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and, ultimately, to the International Court of Justice.
Judicial Error and Abuse of Discretion
Judge Aquino relied on the COSAC officers’ suspicions of contraband rather than the binding assurances of the Executive. In failing to quash the warrant, he acted without jurisdiction and in grave abuse of discr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-35131)
Facts of the Case
- Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, Acting Assistant Director of Health Services of WHO, arrived in Manila on December 6, 1971; entitled to diplomatic immunity under the 1951 Host Agreement.
- Twelve crates of his personal effects landed January 10, 1972 as unaccompanied baggage; granted duty-free entry and stored at Eternit Corporation’s warehouse pending his relocation to permanent quarters.
- COSAC officers applied on March 3, 1972 for search warrant No. 72-138 under R.A. 4712 (Tariff & Customs Code amendment), alleging the crates contained highly dutiable goods beyond official needs.
- Judge Aquino issued the warrant the same day, directing seizure of ten crates.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed an original action for certiorari and prohibition to quash the warrant and halt proceedings; Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 6, 1972.
- Respondents filed an answer defending the warrant application; memoranda were submitted on August 3 (respondents) and August 21 (petitioners).
- Lower court denied quashal motions on March 16 and May 9, 1972 despite protests and special appearances by WHO, Dr. Verstuyft, and the Office of the Solicitor General.
- Case deemed submitted for decision thereafter.
Contentions of Petitioners
- Dr. Verstuyft’s personal effects enjoy diplomatic immunity: personal inviolability, exemption from local jurisdiction, taxation, customs duties.
- Executive branch (Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Solicitor General) officially recognized and affirmed his immunity; lower court must abide.
- Judge lacked jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of discretion by enforcing a search warrant against a recognized diplomat.
Contentions of Respondents COSAC
- Officers insisted crates likely contain contraband or dutiable art