Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Who v. Aquino Digest

    Uploaded by

    Madz Rj Mangorobong
    254 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Verstuyft, an official of the World Health Organization assigned to the Philippines, enjoyed diplomatic immunity and was thus exempt from taxation, customs duties, and local jurisdiction. When Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects arrived in the Philippines, they were allowed entry without duties or taxes. However, a judge later issued a search warrant to inspect the effects on allegations of customs violations. Both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General informed the judge that Dr. Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity, but the judge refused to withdraw the warrant. The Supreme Court nullified the search warrant, stating that diplomatic

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Verstuyft, an official of the World Health Organization assigned to the Philippines, enjoyed diplomatic immunity and was thus exempt from taxation, customs duties, and local jurisdiction. When Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects arrived in the Philippines, they were allowed entry without duties or taxes. However, a judge later issued a search warrant to inspect the effects on allegations of customs violations. Both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General informed the judge that Dr. Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity, but the judge refused to withdraw the warrant. The Supreme Court nullified the search warrant, stating that diplomatic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    254 views4 pages

    Who v. Aquino Digest

    Uploaded by

    Madz Rj Mangorobong
    The Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Verstuyft, an official of the World Health Organization assigned to the Philippines, enjoyed diplomatic immunity and was thus exempt from taxation, customs duties, and local jurisdiction. When Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects arrived in the Philippines, they were allowed entry without duties or taxes. However, a judge later issued a search warrant to inspect the effects on allegations of customs violations. Both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General informed the judge that Dr. Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity, but the judge refused to withdraw the warrant. The Supreme Court nullified the search warrant, stating that diplomatic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    WHO v.

    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

    , and where the

    plea of diplomaticimmunity is recognized and affirmed by theexecutive branch of the government as in


    the caseat bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept theclaim of immunity upon appropriate
    suggestion by the principal law officer of the government

    , [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 [

    Constabulary Offshore Action Center

    ] officers of asearch warrant for alleged violation of Republic Act 4712amending section 3601 of the
    Tariff and Customs Codedirecting the

    search and seizure of the dutiable items in said

    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

    Republic Act 75 enactedsince October 21, 1946

    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.

    You might also like