Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 681 views

    WHO Vs Aquino Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cherrylen Castor Quijada
    This case discusses whether the personal effects of Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, who was assigned by the World Health Organization to its regional office in Manila, were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The Philippine government recognized that Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity according to the Host Agreement. However, a judge issued a search warrant for Verstuyft's personal effects. The Supreme Court ruled that diplomatic immunity is a political question, and courts should accept the determination of the executive branch that Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity. Therefore, the judge acted without jurisdiction in not quashing the search warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    WHO Vs Aquino Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cherrylen Castor Quijada
    681 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether the personal effects of Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, who was assigned by the World Health Organization to its regional office in Manila, were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The Philippine government recognized that Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity according to the Host Agreement. However, a judge issued a search warrant for Verstuyft's personal effects. The Supreme Court ruled that diplomatic immunity is a political question, and courts should accept the determination of the executive branch that Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity. Therefore, the judge acted without jurisdiction in not quashing the search warrant.

    Original Description:

    WHO vs Aquino Case Digest

    Original Title

    WHO vs Aquino 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?

    This case discusses whether the personal effects of Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, who was assigned by the World Health Organization to its regional office in Manila, were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The Philippine government recognized that Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity according to the Host Agreement. However, a judge issued a search warrant for Verstuyft's personal effects. The Supreme Court ruled that diplomatic immunity is a political question, and courts should accept the determination of the executive branch that Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity. Therefore, the judge acted without jurisdiction in not quashing the search warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    681 views2 pages

    WHO Vs Aquino Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cherrylen Castor Quijada
    This case discusses whether the personal effects of Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, who was assigned by the World Health Organization to its regional office in Manila, were exempt from search and seizure under diplomatic immunity. The Philippine government recognized that Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity according to the Host Agreement. However, a judge issued a search warrant for Verstuyft's personal effects. The Supreme Court ruled that diplomatic immunity is a political question, and courts should accept the determination of the executive branch that Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity. Therefore, the judge acted without jurisdiction in not quashing the search warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    WHO vs Aquino Case Digest

    Diplomatic Immunity, Political Question, Suits against International Agencies

    Facts:
    Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its regional office in Manila as
    Acting Assistant Director of Health Services. His personal effects, contained
    in
    twelve
    (12) crates, were
    allowed
    free
    entry
    from
    duties
    and taxes. Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) suspected that the
    crates contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods beyond the official
    needs of Verstuyft. Upon application of the COSAC officers, Judge Aquino
    issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects
    of Verstuyft.
    Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised Judge Aquino that Dr.
    Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect for his personal
    baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the
    Host Agreement and requested that the search warrant be suspended. The
    Solicitor General accordingly joined Verstuyft for the quashal of the search
    warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the
    quashal. Verstuyft, thus, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the
    SC. WHO joined Verstuyft in asserting diplomatic immunity.
    Issue:
    Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted from search
    and seizure under the diplomatic immunity.
    Held:
    Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that
    Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the
    Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised respondent judge of the
    Philippine Government's official position. The Solicitor General, as principal
    law officer of the gorvernment, likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's
    right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of the search
    warrant.
    It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of
    separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political
    question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the
    executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic

    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 claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law
    officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer
    acting under his discretion. Courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by
    seizure and detention of property, as to embarass the executive arm of the
    government
    in
    conducting
    foreign
    relations.
    The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction
    and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search
    warrant issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner
    Verstuyft. (World Health Organization vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131,
    November 29, 1972, 48 SCRA 243)

    You might also like