WHO and Verstuyft v Aquino

• Jurisdiction: Filipinas
• Date: 29 November 1972
• Court: Supreme Court (Philippines)

Philippines, Supreme Court.

(Concepcion C. J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esquerra JJ.)

World Health Organization and Verstuyft

and

Aquino and Others

International law in general Relation to municipal law Immunities of international officials Determination by Executive certificate The law of the Philippines

Specialized Agencies of the United Nations World Health Organization Officials Immunity Exemption from search of official's property The law of the Philippines

International officials Privileges and immunities Extent Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies Application of Respective roles of Executive and Judiciary The law of the Philippines Conclusiveness of executive certificate The law of the Philippines

Diplomatic privileges Right of other persons to privileges and immunities Officials of international organizations Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations Immunity from search of official's property Conclusiveness of executive certificate of entitlement to immunity The law of the Philippines

Summary: The facts:Under an agreement between the Philippines Government and the WHO of 22 July 1951, the Philippines Government agreed to grant diplomatic immunity to officials of the WHO working for the WHO in the Philippines. Dr Verstuyft, an official of the WHO, brought with him to the Philippines twelve crates containing his personal belongings, among which were 120 bottles of wine and some other highly dutiable goods. In accordance with the agreement, no customs inspection was made. However, officers of the Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC), maintaining that the crates contained dutiable goods in excess of Dr Verstuyft's personal requirements, obtained from the first respondent, a judge of first instance, a warrant to search the crates. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Finance certified that Dr Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity. The Solicitor-General moved to have the search warrant quashed. The motion was refused by the first respondent on the grounds that there was reason to suspect that Dr Verstuyft was abusing his diplomatic immunity. Dr Verstuyft and the WHO then applied to the Supreme Court to quash the warrant.

Held:The warrant must be quashed. Under international law, the question of diplomatic immunity was to be decided by the Executive. The courts should not look beyond the Executive decision. If there was an abuse of diplomatic immunity, the remedy lay not in the municipal courts but in negotiations and proceedings between the host State and the WHO as provided for in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Teehankee, J. The following is the text of the judgment:

An original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent judge's refusal to quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of respondents COSAC (Constabulary Offshore Action Center) officers for the search and seizure of the personal effects of petitioner official of the WHO (World Health Organization) notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic immunity, as duly recognized by the executive branch of the Philippine Government, and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the matter.

Upon filing of the petition, the Court issued on 6 June 1972 a restraining order enjoining respondents from executing the search warrant in question.

Respondents COSAC officers filed their answer joining issue against petitioners and seeking to justify their act of applying for and securing from respondent judge the warrant for the search and seizure of ten crates consigned to petitioner Verstuyft and stored at the Eternit Corporation 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 reach these articles and effects for purpose of taxation is through a search warrant.1

The Court thereafter called for the parties' memoranda in lieu of oral argument, which were filed on 3 August 1972 by respondents and on 21 August 1972 by petitioners, and the case was thereafter deemed submitted for decision.

It is undisputed in the record that petitioner Dr. Leonce

Verstuyft, who was assigned on 6 December 1971 by the WHO from his last station in Taipei 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 22 July 1951 between the Philippine Government and the World Health Organization.

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...