G.R. No. L-35131 November 29, 1972
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and DR. LEONCE VERSTUYFT, petitioners, vs. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, MAJOR WILFREDO CRUZ, MAJOR ANTONIO G. RELLEVE, and CAPTAIN PEDRO S. NAVARRO of the Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, an official of the World Health Organization (WHO) assigned to Manila, is entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Host Agreement between the Philippines and the WHO. His personal effects in twelve crates were allowed free entry from customs duties and taxes upon arrival. Respondents, officers of the Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC), applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 72-138 from respondent Judge Benjamin Aquino, alleging the crates contained highly dutiable goods beyond official needs and that a search was the lawful way to reach them for taxation. The crates were stored at a private warehouse pending Verstuyft’s relocation.
The Department of Foreign Affairs, through Secretary Carlos P. Romulo, formally advised respondent judge that Verstuyft was entitled to immunity from search regarding his personal baggage, requesting suspension of the warrant. At a hearing, a Foreign Affairs representative furnished a list of the articles and reiterated the plea for immunity. The Solicitor General also appeared, affirming the official executive position that Verstuyft enjoyed diplomatic immunity and joining the motion to quash. Despite these executive branch interventions, respondent judge issued an order maintaining the warrant’s effectivity and later denied the motion to quash, prompting this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the search warrant against petitioner Verstuyft, who is entitled to diplomatic immunity as recognized by the executive branch.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the respondent judge’s orders and making the restraining order permanent. The Court emphasized that the executive branch, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Solicitor General, had officially recognized and pleaded petitioner Verstuyft’s diplomatic immunity pursuant to the Host Agreement. This immunity includes personal inviolability and inviolability of properties, exempting him from local jurisdiction, search, and customs duties. Under the doctrine of separation of powers and recognized principles of international law, the determination and recognition of diplomatic immunity are political questions primarily vested in the executive department. When the executive branch formally asserts such immunity on behalf of a foreign official or international organization agent, it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim and to decline jurisdiction. The respondent judge’s insistence on proceeding with the search warrant, in defiance of the executive’s clear and official position, constituted a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess of jurisdiction. The proper recourse for any perceived abuse of diplomatic privileges lies through diplomatic channels, not through local judicial processes.