Consti2Digest – Liang (Huefeng) Vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No.

125865

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 125865

Facts:
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for
allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation.
Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioner’s bail, the MeTC
released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an
"office of protocol" from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under
Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the
Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the said protocol
communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution
dismissed the two criminal cases.

Issue:
Whether or not, petitioner Liang is immune from suit.

Held:
No. Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do
not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty. It is well-settled
principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage
he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction.

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE PUNO:

 The Charter of the ADB provides under Article 55(i) that officers and employees of the bank shall be
immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when
the Bank waives immunity. Section 45 (a) of the ADB Headquarters Agreement accords the same
immunity to the officers and staff of the bank. There can be no dispute that international officials are
entitled to immunity only with respect to acts performed in their official capacity, unlike international
organizations which enjoy absolute immunity

 Clearly, the most important immunity to an international official, in the discharge of his international
functions, is immunity from local jurisdiction. There is no argument in doctrine or practice with the
principle that an international official is independent of the jurisdiction of the local authorities for his
official acts. Those acts are not his, but are imputed to the organization, and without waiver the local
courts cannot hold him liable for them. In strict law, it would seem that even the organization itself
could have no right to waive an official’s immunity for his official acts. This permits local authorities
to assume jurisdiction over and individual for an act which is not, in the wider sense of the term, his
 act at all. It is the organization itself, as a juristic person, which should waive its own immunity and
appear in court, not the individual, except insofar as he appears in the name of the organization.

 Historically, international officials were granted diplomatic privileges and immunities and were thus
considered immune for both private and official acts. In practice, this wide grant of diplomatic
prerogatives was curtailed because of practical necessity and because the proper functioning of the
organization did not require such extensive immunity for its officials. Thus, the current status of the
law does not maintain that states grant jurisdictional immunity to international officials for acts of
their private lives.

 Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is immune from criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving State for all acts, whether private or official, and hence he cannot be
arrested, prosecuted and punished for any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic immunity is
waived.[ On the other hand, officials of international organizations enjoy “functional” immunities,
that is, only those necessary for the exercise of the functions of the organization and the fulfillment
of its purposes. This is the reason why the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement explicitly grant
immunity from legal process to bank officers and employees only with respect to acts performed by
them in their official capacity, except when the Bank waives immunity. In other words, officials and
employees of the ADB are subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts for their private acts,
notwithstanding the absence of a waiver of immunity.

 Considering that bank officials and employees are covered by immunity only for their official acts, the
necessary inference is that the authority of the Department of Affairs, or even of the ADB for that
matter, to certify that they are entitled to immunity is limited only to acts done in their official
capacity. Stated otherwise, it is not within the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of the
executive department’s foreign relations, nor the ADB, as the international organization vested with the
right to waive immunity, to invoke immunity for private acts of bank official and employees, since no
such prerogative exists in the first place. If the immunity does not exist, there is nothing to certify.