You are on page 1of 11

Pimentel vs.

Romulo (2005) Issue #2 W/N the executive has the ministerial duty to
Facts transmit a copy of the signed statute to the Senate? NO
Petition for Mandamus: compel the Exec Sec. and the President is regarded as the sole organ and authority
DFA to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute in external relations, a s the sole representative with
of the International Criminal Court to the Senate foreign nations.
o Why? Petitioners say they will have to o Hence Pres. is vested w/authority to deal
concur with it as per 6-21 of the Consti. with foreign states, extend recognition,
Rome Statute maintain diplomatic relations, enter into
The RS establishes the International Criminal Court treaties, etc.
w/c has the power to exercise JD over persons for the Despite the press sole authority to negotiate and
most serious crimes of international concern enter into treaties, the consti provides a necessary
(complementary to national JD) requisite concurrence of 2/3 of the members of the
o Genocide, Crimes vs Humanity, war crimes, Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by
aggression as defined y the statute. him.
PH signed December 31, 2000 at the UNHQ. o Ever since the 1935 constitution, na-
Arguments of petitioners recognize na yung participation ng legislative
Ratification of a treaty is a function of the Senate. branch by providing a check on the executive
Hence the executive dept MUST transmit a copy of field of foreign relations.
the signed statute to allow the Senate to exercise o Healthy system of checks and balances.
their discretion
Petitioners also say they have a ministerial duty under Pets interpret 6-21 to mean that the power to ratify belongs
treaty and customary law. They say na the Vienna to the senate. We disagree
Convention enjoins the PH from refraining from acts Justice Cruz, in his PIL book, usual steps in treaty-
which would defeat the object and purpose of a making: Negotiation, signature, ratification, exchange
treaty when they have signed prior to ratif unless of the instruments of ratification.
may clear intention not to be come part. o Nego: may be by head of state or by his
Solicitor General representative. They submit drafts of the
Questioned standing of the senators. proposed treaty which, together with
Violated the rule on hierarchy of courts. counter-proposals, become the basis for the
Executive has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute. negotiations.
o Signatures: after nego, sasign na. Step is a
Issue #1 W/N petitioners have sufficient standing? means of authenticating the instrument and
Court will only exercise power of judicial review only to show good faith of the parties
if the case is brought before it by a party who has the DOES NOT INDICATE FINAL
legal standing (personal and substantial interest in CONSENT OF THE STATE WHERE
the case such as the party has sustained or will sustain RATIFICATION OF A TREATY IS
direct injury as a result of the government act that is REQUIRED.
being alleged) o Ratification: formal act by which a state
Pets in this case: Senators and Congressmen and confirms and accepts the treaty.
women as members of the Senate and of the HOR. Purpose: enable the contracting
Members of the Philippine Coalition of the states to examine the treaty more
Establishment of the ICC. Families of Victims of closely and give an opportunity to
Involuntary Disappearances. Bianca and Harrison refuse to be bound.
Roque (2) and (1) suing under the doctrine of inter- ^ kaya usually ang nagraratify ay
generational rights. another dept of govt.
SC: SI PIMENTEL LANG MAY STANDING. Others are o Exchange of Instruments of Ratif: last step.
advocates and defenders however di nila napakita na Signifies effectivity.
may direct injury from non-transmittal. WE DISAGREE: petitioners equate signing ith
o Contention na mawawala rights nila does ratification. It should be underscored that they are
not persuade. Rome statute is intended to different. Signature is intended as a means of
complement national laws and courts. authentication and signifying good faith. Ratification
Sufficient remedies exist in the national is the formal act of acceptance to be bound by it. It is
sphere naman. generally held to be an executive act.
o Pimentel as a legislator has the right to
maintain his prerogatives, powers, and That it is an executive act is supported by Executive Order 459.
privileges vested by the Consti in their Issued by Fidel Ramos, provides guidelines in nego of
office. international agreements and its ratification. Mandates that
after signing, the same is transmitted to the DFA. The DFA
prepares the ratification papers and forwards a signed copy to no legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but it goes without saying
the president for ratification. After ratif by the president, the that the refusal must be based on substantial grounds and not
DFA submits it to the President for concurrence. on superficial or whimsical reasons

the Domestic Requirement for the Entry into Force of a Treaty


or an Executive Agreement: The domestic requirements for It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the
the entry into force of a treaty or an executive agreement, or power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the
any amendment thereto, shall be as follows: concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is
limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or
A. Executive Agreements. concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the
authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
i. All executive agreements shall be transmitted to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse
Department of Foreign Affairs after their signing for the to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty
preparation of the ratification papers. The transmittal shall which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should
include the highlights of the agreements and the benefits not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of
which will accrue to the Philippines arising from them. the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court
via a writ of mandamus. This Court has no jurisdiction over
ii. The Department of Foreign Affairs, pursuant to the actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of
endorsement by the concerned agency, shall transmit the his official duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ
agreements to the President of the Philippines for his of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its
ratification. The original signed instrument of ratification shall jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the government
then be returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs for to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.
appropriate action.

B. Treaties.

i. All treaties, regardless of their designation, shall comply with


the requirements provided in sub-paragraph[s] 1 and 2, item A
(Executive Agreements) of this Section. In addition, the
Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit the treaties to the
Senate of the Philippines for concurrence in the ratification by
the President. A certified true copy of the treaties, in such
numbers as may be required by the Senate, together with a
certified true copy of the ratification instrument, shall
accompany the submission of the treaties to the Senate.

ii. Upon receipt of the concurrence by the Senate, the


Department of Foreign Affairs shall comply with the provision
of the treaties in effecting their entry into force.

Issue #3 W/N may ministerial duty sina Senators to ratify it


kasi na-sign na nung executive? NO.
Signature does not signify the final consent of the
state to the treaty.
It is the ratif that binds the state. In fact the Rome
Statute requires the signature of the representatives
of the states be subject to ratification, acceptance,
or approval.

Thus, the President has the discretion even after the signing of
the treaty by the Philippine representative whether or not to
ratify the same. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
does not contemplate to defeat or even restrain this power of
the head of states. If that were so, the requirement of
ratification of treaties would be pointless and futile. It has been
held that a state has no legal or even moral duty to ratify a
treaty which has been signed by its plenipotentiaries. There is
World Health Organization & Verstuyft vs. Aquino (CFI Judge) determination by the executive. here the plea of diplomatic
Facts immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch
Verstuyft was assigned to the WHO Regional Office in of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of
Manila, as Acting Assistant Director of Health the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate
Services. He is entitled to diplomatic immunity suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the
pursuant to the HOST AGREEMENT executed Solicitor General in this case,
between the PH and the WHO. Courts may not so exercise their JD by seizure or
o Immunity carries with it, among others detention of property as to embarrass the executive
Personal inviolability, inviolability of the arm of the govt in conducting foreign relations.
officials properties, exemption from local
JD, exempton from taxation and customs 2. Denial of quashal cannot be justified on mere allegation that
duties the crates contained contraband, especially in light of the
When Verstuyfts baggage (12 crates) entered the assurances made by other government agencies na immunity
Philippines, they weer accordingly allowed entry free nga.
from duties and taxes. The crates were stored at PH is bound by the procedure laid down in Article 7
Eternit Corporations warehouse in Manda, Rizal of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
pending his relocation into permanent quarters of the Specialized Agencies of the UN
upon the offer of the VP of Eternit who Verstuyft o Consultations muna re: abuse alleged
knew o Treaty force and effect of law.
Aquino issued a search warrant at the instance of Even if may basis yung suspicion, the warrant is not
Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) officers the proper remedy. He should, nevertheless, in
for the search and seizure of the personal effects of deference to the exclusive competence and JD of the
Dr. Verstufyt from the WHO. executive branch, have acceded to the quashal
o 10 crates consigned to Eternit Corporation o Forward dapat findings to the DFA for them
containing highly dubitable goods beyond to deal with it in accordance with the treaty.
the needs of Verstuyft. 3. Bakit walang coordination sa executive. Normally, dapat the
Dr. Dy (WHO Regional Director) protested. Secretary position of the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and of Finance na
of Foreign Affairs Romulo wired Judge Aquino many immunity should be enough na to enjoin the COSAC
advising him of Verstuyfts immunity. officers from securing a warrant in the first place.
o Aquino set the DFA Secs request for hearing
and heard the same. The seriousness of the matter is underscored when the
o But Aquino eventually issued an order provisions of Republic Act 75 enacted since October 21, 1946
maintaining the validity of warrant. to safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials
Judge Aquino refused to quash the search warrant on in the Philippines are taken into account. Said Act declares as
the ground of diplomatic immunity duly recognized null and void writs or processes sued out or prosecuted
by the executive branch of the PH govt. whereby inter alia the person of an ambassador or public
Sol Gen joined the prayer for quashal Verstuyft is minister is arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are
entitled to immunity, he did not abuse his immunity, seized or attached and makes it a penal offense for "every
and court proceedings in the host state are not the person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether
proper remedy in case of abuse. as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in
o Both SOLGEN and WHO joined Verstuyft in executing it" to obtain or enforce such writ or process.
his petition.
Original action for certiorari and prohibition
o Restraining order issued.
o Answer: seizure was the only way to reach
the articles and effects for purposes of
taxation (yung highly dubious shit)

1. The writs of certiorari and prohibition should issue

The executive has expressly recognized that Vers is entitled to


diplomatic immunity pursuant to the provisions of the host
agreement. The DFA even advised Aquino of this fact, as well
as the SOLGEN.

Principle in international law and in Philippine law that due to


the separation of powers, diplomatic immunity is essentially
a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
International Catholic Immigration Commission vs. Calleja
BLR & Solgen state policy and labor laws, citing 2-
FIRST CASE 18, 3-8 of the Constitution, and 243 and 246 of the
V i e t n a m war. Vietnamese refugees fleed south labor code.
away from communist rule. An agreement was forged SECOND CASE
between the Philippine Govt and the UN High Phil Govt and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundation
Commissioner for Refugees signed a MOU establishing the International Rice
o Operating Center for processing indo- Research Institute at Los Banos, Laguna. While it was
chinese refugees for resettlement to other originally a corporation registered with SEC, it was
countries. To be set up in Bataan. granted the status of an international organization by
ICMC was one of those authorized by the PH Govt to PD 1620.
operate the refugee processing center in Bataan. It o OLALIA is a legitimate labor org with an
was incorporated in NYC, at the request of the Holy existing labor union the Kapisanan ng
See, to do humanitarian work. It is duly registered Manggagawa sa IRRI.
with the UN Economic and Social council (ECOSOC) Kapisanan filed a petition for Direct Certification
and enjoys consultative status, Cat. II Election with DOLE. IRRI opposed it invoking PD 1620
TUPAS (trade union of the PH and allied services) filed making it an international roganiation.
a Petition for Certification Election among the rank o Med-arbiter upheld the opposition by IRRI.
and file employees of the ICMC. o BLR Director (Calleja parin) reversed the
o ICMC opposed on the ground that it is an med-arbiter and ordered a certification
international organization registered with election among the rank and file employees
the UN, enjoying diplomatic immunity of IRRI.
MOLE Med-arbiter sustained ICMC. They dismissed On appeal to the Secretary of Labor, the secretary set-
the petition for lack of jurisdiction. aside the decision of Calleja and dismissed the
TUPAS appealed. petition for certificate election.
o Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations Kapisanan now argues that PD 1620 granting IRRI the
reversed the decision and ordered an status of an international organization, and hence the
immediate conduct of a certificate election. immunity, is unconstitutional as it deprives Filipino
o Note that at that time, ICMCs request for workers of their fundamental and constitutional right
recognition as a specialized agency was still to form trade unions for the purpose of collective
pending with the DFA bargaining as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution
Subsequently, the DFA granted their petition
recognized na sila as a specialized agency with ////
corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities.
o Evidenced: MOA bet. govt and ICMC. There can be no question na may diplomatic immunity yung
ICMC then sought a reconsideration of Callejas ICMC and IRRI.
decision they invoked immunity granted to them. ICMC: MOA shall have a status similar to that of a
o Calleja denied the motion. Calleja again specialized agency Hence the Convention on
ordered the immediate conduct of a pre- privileges and immunities of Specialized agencies
election conference. apply (quoted sa notes)
o MORs denied despite an opinion by the DFA IRRI: PD 1620, article 3: The Institute shall enjoy
that said na mava-violate yung diplomatic immunity from any penal, civil and administrative
immunity ni ICMC. proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has
The DFA, through its legal adviser retired CA Justice been expressly waived by the Director-General of the
Coquia filed a Motion for Intervention alleging that it Institute or his authorized representatives.
is the highest executive department with the
competence and authority to act on matters involving The DFA, through its legal adviser former Justice Coqui, in
diplomatic immunity and privileges. sustaining ICMCs invocation of immunity, expressed the view
DFA was allowed to intervene. that the order of the BLR violated diplomatic immunity.
Similarly, the DFA, through acting secretary of Foreign Affairs
Issue #1 W/N the grant of diplomatic privileges and Ingles maintained that IRRI enjoys immunity from the
immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from local labor jurisdiction of DOLE in this particular instance.
laws? Their opinions constitute Categorical Recognition by
ICMC & DFA Argument (1) Specialized agency, (2) the Executive Branch that both enjoy immunity
Convention on the privileges and immunities of Such immunity has been held to be a political
specialized agencies adopted by the UN, (3) 2-2 of the question conclusive upon the court in order not to
1987 constitution (incorporation clause) embarrass a political department of the
government.
Re: International Organizations and Specialized Agency ICMC Section 31 of the Convention provides that
A brief look into the nature of international organizations and each specialized agency shall make provision for
specialized agencies is in order. The term "international appropriate modes of settlement of disputes arising
organization" is generally used to describe an organization set out of contracts or disputes of private character.
up by agreement between two or more states. 4 Under o Also, Article IV of the MOA states that the
contemporary international law, such organizations are government is free to withdraw the
endowed with some degree of international legal personality privileges and immunities in case of abuse of
5 such that they are capable of exercising specific rights, duties privileges.
and powers. 6 They are organized mainly as a means for IRRI may forum na for better management-
conducting general international business in which the employee relations, certified by the Council of IRRI
member states have an interest. 7 The United Nations, for employees and management, showing participation
instance, is an international organization dedicated to the from both sides.
propagation of world peace.
Sidenote: mali yung argument na hindi nagaapply yung
"Specialized agencies" are international organizations having immunity kasi a certification case isnt against the ICMC/IRRI
functions in particular fields. The term appears in Articles 57 8 naman. certification election cannot be viewed as an
and 63 9 of the Charter of the United Nations: xxx e.g. in posts, independent or isolated process. It could tugger off a series of
telecommunications, railways, canals, rivers, sea transport, events in the collective bargaining process together with
civil aviation, meteorology, atomic energy, finance, trade, related incidents and/or concerted activities, which could
education and culture, health and refugees. Some are virtually inevitably involve ICMC in the "legal process," which includes
world-wide in their membership, some are regional or "any penal, civil and administrative proceedings."
otherwise limited in their membership. The Charter provides
that those agencies which have "wide international
responsibilities"
Notes

\\\\\\ Art. III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and
assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy
The rapid growth of international organizations has paved the immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in
way for the development of the concept of international any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity.
immunity It is now usual for the constitutions of international It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall
organizations to contain provisions conferring certain extend to any measure of execution.
immunities
Sec. 5. The premises of the specialized agencies shall be
Three reasons why: inviolable. The property and assets of the specialized agencies,
Intl Institutions should have a status which protects wherever located and by whomsoever held shall be immune
them against control or interference by governments from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any
No country should derive national financial advantage other form of interference, whether by executive,
by levying charges upon them, as they use administrative, judicial or legislative action. (Emphasis
international funds supplied).
They should be accorded the facilities for the conduct
of their official business.

The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of


unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies
concerned.

The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and


interference by the host country in their internal workings. The
exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these
instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is
to shield from political pressure or control, and to ensure the
unhampered performance of their functions.

\\\\\\

The laborers are not without recourse.



JUSMAG Philippines v. NLRC In this jurisdiction, we recognize and adopt the generally
GR No. 108813, 15 December 1994 accepted principles ofinternational law as part of the law of the
land. Immunity of State from suit is one of theseuniversally
DOCTRINES: recognized principles. In international law, immunity is
A suit against JUSMAG is one against the United States commonlyunderstood as the exemption of the state and its
Government, and in theabsence of any waiver or consent of organs from the judicial jurisdiction ofanother state. This is
the latter to the suit, the complaint against JUSMAGcannot anchored on the principle of the sovereign equality of states
prosper underwhich one state cannot assert jurisdiction over another
in violation of the maxim par inparem non habet imperium (an
Immunity of State from suit is one of the universally recognized equal has no power over an equal)
principles of internationallaw that the Philippines recognizes
and adopts as part of the law of the land The doctrine of state immunity from suit has undergone
further metamorphosis. Theview evolved that the existence of
FACTS: a contract does not, per se, mean that sovereignstates may, at
Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) assails all times, be sued in local courts. The complexity of
the January 29, 1993Resolution of the NATIONAL LABOR relationships betweensovereign states, brought about by their
RELATIONS COMMISSION (public respondent), inNLRC NCR increasing commercial activities, mothered amore restrictive
CASE NO. 00-03-02092-92, reversing the July 30, 1991 Order of application of the doctrine. Thus, in United States of America
the LaborArbiter, and ordering the latter to assume jurisdiction vs. Ruiz,we claried that our pronouncement in Harry Lyons,
over the complaint for illegaldismissal led by FLORENCIO supra, with respect to the waiver ofState immunity, was obiter
SACRAMENTO (private respondent) against petitioner. and has no value as an imperative authority. As it standsnow,
the application of the doctrine of immunity from suit has been
Private respondent was one of the seventy-four (74) security restricted tosovereign or governmental activities (jure
assistance supportpersonnel (SASP) working at JUSMAG- imperii). The mantle of state immunity cannotbe extended to
Philippines. He had been with JUSMAG fromDecember 18, commercial, private and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).
1969, until his dismissal on April 27, 1992. When dismissed, he
held theposition of Illustrator 2 and was the incumbent
President of JUSMAG PHILIPPINES-FILIPINO CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (JPFCEA), a labor organization
dulyregistered with the Department of Labor and
Employment. His services were terminatedallegedly due to the
abolition of his position. He was also advised that he was
underadministrative leave until April 27, 1992, although the
same was not charged against hisleave.

On March 31, 1992, private respondent led a complaint with


the Department of Laborand Employment on the ground that
he was illegally suspended and dismissed fromservice by
JUSMAG. He asked for his reinstatement. JUSMAG then led a
Motion toDismiss invoking its immunity from suit as an agency
of the United States. It furtheralleged lack of employer-
employee relationship and that it has no juridical personality
tosue and be sued

Issue #1 - Whether JUSMAG was immune from suit as an


agency of the United States?

Held
YES,from the foregoing, it is apparent that when JUSMAG took
the services of privaterespondent, it was performing a
governmental function on behalf of the United Statespursuant
to the Military Assistance Agreement dated March 21, 1947.
Hence, we agreewith petitioner that the suit is, in eect, one
against the United States Government, albeitit was not
impleaded in the complaint. Considering that the United States
has not waivedor consented to the suit, the complaint against
JUSMAG cannot prosper.
Liang vs. People
the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian to the exception that the act was done in "official capacity." It
Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly is therefore necessary to determine if petitioners case falls
uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce within the ambit of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should
Cabal, he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court have been given the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it
(MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral must be accorded the opportunity to present its controverting
defamation docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 53170 and 53171. evidence, should it so desire.
Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the
MeTC. After fixing petitioners bail at P2,400.00 per criminal Third, slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the
charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the
Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of
"office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign Affairs official duty. The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot
(DFA) stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal be part of official functions. It is well-settled principle of law
process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB that a public official may be liable in his personal private
and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act
the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his
said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from authority or jurisdiction. It appears that even the governments
suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution chief legal counsel, the Solicitor General, does not support the
dismissed the two criminal cases. The latter filed a motion for stand taken by petitioner and that of the DFA.
reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its
motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys
Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state
latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. except in the case of an action relating to any professional or
After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the
elevated the case to this Court via a petition for review arguing receiving state outside his official functions. As already
that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of
no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases official duty.
were filed in court.
Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary
The petition is not impressed with merit. investigation conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary
investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the
First, courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the MeTC such as the one at bar Being purely a statutory right,
communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any preliminary investigation may be invoked only when
immunity. The DFAs determination that a certain person is specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal procedure is
covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases
effect in courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFAs advice and in falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Besides, the
motu proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts
to the prosecution, the latters right to due process was jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or
violated. It should be noted that due process is a right of the otherwise render it defective.
accused as much as it is of the prosecution. The needed inquiry
in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the
alleged utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis
that has yet to be presented at the proper time. At any rate, it
has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity
clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges.

Second, under Section 45 of the Agreement which provides:

"Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this
Article experts and consultants performing missions for the
Bank shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:

a.).......immunity from legal process with respect to acts


performed by them in their official capacity except when the
Bank waives the immunity."
Minucher vs. CA & Scalzo ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who
would then be expected to make the arrest.
Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was filed
against Minucher following a buy-bust operation conducted In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting
by Philippine police narcotic agents accompanied by Scalzo in as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then
the house of Minucher, an Iranian national, where heroin was becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against
said to have been seized. Minucher was later acquitted by the Minucher,
court.
Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his
Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up official function or duties.
charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo.

Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge Side Facts
of his official duties as being merely an agent of the Drug Minucher is an Iranian national. He studied in UP. He
Enforcement Administration of the United States Department was appointed Labor Attache for the Iranian
of Justice. Embassies in Japan and Manila. When the Shah of Iran
was deposed, Minucher became a refugee of the UN
Scalzo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on and contined to stay in the PH.
the ground that, being a special agent of the United States o He became the leader of the Iranian National
Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to Resistance Movement in the PH.
diplomatic immunity. He attached to his motion Diplomatic Minucher came to know Scalzo in 1986 when Scalzo
Note of the United States Embassy addressed to DOJ of the was brought to Ms house and introduced him by Igo,
Philippines and a Certification of Vice Consul Donna an informer of the Intelligence unit of the military.
Woodward, certifying that the note is a true and faithful copy o Scalzo expressed interest in buying Caviar.
of its original. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. He bought 2 kilos of caviar from minulcher.
o Minucher also sold carpets, pistachio, and
ISSUE other Iranian products.
Scalzo gave Minucher a calling card showing na he
Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic was working at the US embassys DEA.
immunity. Minucher expressed his desire to obtain a US visa for
his wife and his friend and his friends wife. Scalzo told
RULLING him he can help for a certain fee.

YES. defendant came back again to plaintiff's house and directly


proceeded to the latter's bedroom, where the latter and his
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked countryman, Abbas Torabian, were playing chess. Plaintiff
with immunity from suit as long as it can be established that opened his safe in the bedroom and obtained $2,000.00 from
he is acting within the directives of the sending state. it, gave it to the defendant for the latter's fee in obtaining a
visa for plaintiff's wife. The defendant told him that he would
The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the be leaving the Philippines very soon and requested him to
activities of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, come out of the house for a while so that he can introduce him
however, can be gleaned from the undisputed facts in the case. to his cousin waiting in a cab. Without much ado, and without
putting on his shirt as he was only in his pajama pants, he
The official exchanges of communication between agencies of followed the defendant where he saw a parked cab opposite
the government of the two countries the street. To his complete surprise, an American jumped out
Certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of the cab with a drawn high-powered gun. He was in the
of Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy company of about 30 to 40 Filipino soldiers with 6 Americans,
Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics all armed. He was handcuffed and after about 20 minutes in
Command in the buy-bust operation conducted at the the street, he was brought inside the house by the defendant.
residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo He was made to sit down while in handcuffs while the
These may be inadequate to support the diplomatic status defendant was inside his bedroom. The defendant came out of
of the latter but they give enough indication that the Philippine the bedroom and out from defendant's attach case, he took
government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the something and placed it on the table in front of the plaintiff.
activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the They also took plaintiff's wife who was at that time at the
United States Drug Enforcement Agency. boutique near his house and likewise arrested Torabian, who
was playing chess with him in the bedroom and both were
The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct handcuffed together
surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and, after having
South-east Asian Fisheries vs. Acosta (Labor Arbiter) expressly waived the application of PH laws
Facts on the disbursement of funds of petitioner.
Original petition for certiorari and prohibition praying o Likewise, the Minister of Justice opined the
for a restraining order to set aside Acostas order PH courts have no JD over SAF.
denying SAFs motion to dismiss the cases. One of the basic immunities of an
2 labor cases were filed by the private respondents international organization is
against SAF @ NLRC. PRs claimed that they were immunity from local jurisdiction,
wrongfully terminated i.e., that it is immune from the legal
Motion to dismiss writs and processes issued by the
o The M2D challenged the JD of the Labor tribunals of the country where it is
Arbiter, contending to be an international found. (See Jenks, Id., pp. 37-44).
inter-government organization composed The obvious reason for this is that
of various SEA countries. the subjection of such an
Acosta issued the assailed order denying the M2D. a organization to the authority of the
MoRE was interposed but was denied. local courts would afford a
Appeal to the SC convenient medium thru which the
o TRO issued host government may interfere in
SC dismissed the case for failure to show GAOD. their operations or even influence
SAF filed a MoRe. or control its policies and decisions
of the organization; besides, such
Arguments objection to local jurisdiction would
The respondents allege that SAF is not immune from impair the capacity of such body to
suit and if it were, it waived its immunity by belatedly discharge its responsibilities
raising the issue of JD. impartially on behalf of its member-
SOLGEN disagrees with the Labor Arbiter. states.
Associate Justice Isagani Cruz - Certain administrative
Supreme Court: We Rule for Petitioner bodies created by agreement among states may be
Beyond question that SAF is an international agency vested with international personality when two
enjoying diplomatic immunity. We already held this conditions concur, to wit:, that their purposes are
sa SAF vs. NLRC where we said: mainly non-political and that they are autonomous,
o SAF is an international agency beyond the JD i.e., not subject to the control of any state.
of public respondent NLRC. It was o In this case purpose is seen sa whereas
established by SEA nations (Burma, clause ng PD 292 re: the creation of the
Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Aquaculture Department of the SAF in Iloilo
PH, Singa, Thai, Viet. funds shall be received and
o PH became a signatory sa establishment ng disbursed in accordance with the
SAF in 1968. Purpose is to contribute to the agreement establishing the SAF and
promotion of fisheries development in SEA pertinent resolutions duly
by mutual cooperation among the members. approved
o Being an intergovernmental organization, re: Waiver
SAF, including its departments enjoy o Anent the issue of waiver of immunity,
functional interdependence and freedom suffice it to say at the moment that the
from control of the state in whose territory petitioner has timely raised the issue of
the office is located. jurisdiction. While the petitioner did not
o Citing Salonga and Yaps PIL Book - n so far as question the public respondent's lack of
they are autonomous and beyond the jurisdiction at the early stages of the
control of any one State, they have a distinct proceedings, it, nevertheless, did so before it
juridical personality independent of the rested its case and certainly well before the
municipal law of the State where they are proceedings thereat had terminated.
situated. As such, according to one leading
authority they must be deemed to possess a
species of international personality of their
own.
o Pursuant to its being a signatory to the
agreement, the RP agreed to be represented
by a director in the SAF council, and that its
national laws shall apply only insofar as its
contributions to SAF are concerned. It
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture
Department (SAF-AQD) vs. NLRC
Facts
SAF-AQD is a department of SAF organized through an
agreement in Bangkok by Malaysia, Singa, Thai, Viet,
Indo, and PH with Japan as the sponsoring country.
o Lazaga was a research associate on a
probationary basis in SAF-AQD and became
a Senior External Affairs Officer and then a
Professional III (Head of External Affairs)
Petitioner Lacanilao (Chief of the AQD) sent a notice
of termination to Lazaga telling him na it was due to
financial constraints.
AQD failed to pay the promised separation pay.
Lazaga filed a complaint against AQD for non-
payment of separation benefits plus moral damages
and attorneys fees.
o SAF-AQD filed an answer with counterclaim
alleging that the NLRC has no JD over the
case since AQD is an international
organization and Lazaga must first secure
clearances from the proper departments
for property or money accountability
before any claim will be paid.
Hearing was conducted. Lazaga said that the
clearances were not issued due to internal politics
and bad faith. AQD allege that PR has proper
accountability and an outstanding obligation to AQD.
Labor Arbiter
o Ruled in favor of complainant Lazaga
NLRC
o NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision
except to the award of damages
AQD filed a motion for reconsideration which the
NLRC denied.

Issue #1 Does the NLRC have jd to hear and decide Lazagas


complaint since AQD is immune from suit owing to its
international character? NO JD
SAF-AQD is an international agency beyond the JD of
NLRC.
LITERALLY the holding sa previous case kasi cinite ito
dun verbatim.

Re: estoppel sa issue of JD unavailing estoppel does not


confer JD to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. JD
is only conferred by law. When there is none, no agreement
can provide one.
Calimlim vs. Ramirez
o Lack of JD may be raised at any stage, even
on appeal.
Holy See vs. Del Rosario
Furthermore, it shall be understood that in the case at bar, the
Facts petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of
Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot 5- real estate business, surely, the said transaction can be
A, registered under the name Holy See, was contiguous to Lot categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has
5-B and 5-D under the name of Philippine Realty Corporation denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lot
(PRC). The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property
the Papal Nuncio, which represents the Holy See, who for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the
exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome, Italy, for his Philippines.
residence.
The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the
Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who lot of concern is non-propriety in nature. The lot was acquired
assigned his rights to respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises, through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila, not for a
Inc. commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct
the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio thereof. The
When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arose transfer of the property and its subsequent disposal are
between the two parties because both were unsure whose likewise clothed with a governmental (non-proprietal)
responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said lots. character as petitioner sold the lot not for profit or gain rather
Respondent Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc. insists that Holy because it merely cannot evict the squatters living in said
See should clear the property while Holy See says that property.
respondent corporation should do it or the earnest money will
be returned. With this, Msgr. Cirilios, the agent, subsequently In view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED and
returned the P100,000 earnest money. the complaints were dismissed accordingly.

The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and


Development Corporation.

Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. filed a suit for annulment of


the sale, specific performance and damages against Msgr.
Cirilios, PRC as well as Tropicana Properties and Development
Corporation. The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss
the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign
immunity from suit. RTC denied the motion on ground that
petitioner already "shed off" its sovereign immunity by
entering into a business contract. The subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil action
for certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Holy See can invoke sovereign


immunity.

HELD: The Court held that Holy See may properly invoke
sovereign immunity for its non-suability. As expressed in Sec.
2 Art II of the 1987 Constitution, generally accepted principles
of International Law are adopted by our Courts and thus shall
form part of the laws of the land as a condition and
consequence of our admission in the society of nations.

It was noted in Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on


Diplomatic Relations that diplomatic envoy shall be granted
immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the
receiving state over any real action relating to private
immovable property. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited
diplomatic missionary to the Republic of the Philippines and is
thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled to the
immunity rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this
Court.