Case Brief

World Health Organization v. Aquino

Ponente: Claudio Teehankee – 16th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from
1987 to 1988

Facts:
COSAC officers asked Judge Benjamin Aquino for a search warrant against Dr. Verstuyft of WHO,
alleging that the doctor had possession of highly dutiable goods. However, the Foreign Affairs
Secretary Carlos P. Romulo, the Solicitor General, and the Finance Secretary all came to his defense
by reiterating that he has diplomatic immunity. Despite this, the judge maintained the issuance of
the search warrant.

The petitioner asked the SC for a restraining order, barring the judge from issuing the search warrant
and the COSAC from searching and seizing his personal effects.

The WHO joins Dr. Verstuyft in the petition at bar, asserting his diplomatic immunity as an envoy of
the WHO under international law and asking for the SC to quash the search warrant proceedings.

Issue:
Whether the respondent judge and COSAC officers violated the entitlement to the diplomatic
immunity of Dr. Verstuyft as a WHO envoy when they attempted to search and seize his personal
effects

Rule:
Host Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the WHO
Article VII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the UN
Republic Act 75

Application:
The Host Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the WHO and the Article VII of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the UN both state that
Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity under international law as a director of health
services of the WHO assigned in the Philippines.

It follows, therefore, that a search warrant coming from the judiciary is not the proper remedy, and
the judge should have deferred to the executive department who vouched for Dr. Verstuyft’s
diplomatic immunity. It was a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

Further, Republic Act 75 provides for the safeguarding of the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic
officials in the Philippines.

Conclusion:
The respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of discretion in not
quashing the search warrant. He and the COSAC disregarded the diplomatic immunity of the
petitioner.

Writs of Certiorari and prohibition granted to Dr. Verstuyft and restraining order against the search
warrant is made permanent. The respondent court is commanded to desist. No costs because none
was asked.