Today is Sunday, February 14, 2021

  Const it ut ion St a t ut es Exec ut ive Issua nc es Judic ia l Issua nc es Ot her Issua nc es Jurisprudenc e Int erna t iona l Lega l Resourc es
AUSL Exc lusive

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 125865            March 26, 2001

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), pet it ioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent .

RESOLUT ION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

T his resolves pet it ioner's Mot ion for Reconsiderat ion of our Decision dat ed January 28, 2000, denying t he
pet it ion for review.

T he Mot ion is anchored on t he following argument s:

1) T HE DFA'S DET ERMINAT ION OF IMMUNIT Y IS A POLIT ICAL QUEST ION T O BE MADE BY T HE EXECUT IVE
BRANCH OF T HE GOVERNMENT AND IS CONCLUSIVE UPON T HE COURT S.

2) T HE IMMUNIT Y OF INT ERNAT IONAL ORGANIZAT IONS IS ABSOLUT E.

3) T HE IMMUNIT Y EXT ENDS T O ALL STAFF OF T HE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB).

4) DUE PROCESS WAS FULLY AFFORDED T HE COMPLAINANT T O REBUT T HE DFA PROT OCOL.

5) T HE DECISION OF JANUARY 28, 2000 ERRONEOUSLY MADE A FINDING OF FACT ON T HE MERIT S, NAMELY,
T HE SLANDERING OF A PERSON WHICH PREJUDGED PET IT IONER'S CASE BEFORE T HE MET ROPOLITAN
T RIAL COURT (MT C)-MANDALUYONG.

6) T HE VIENNA CONVENT ION ON DIPLOMAT IC RELAT IONS IS NOT APPLICABLE T O T HIS CASE.

T his case has it s origin in t wo criminal Informat ions 1 for grave oral defamat ion filed against pet it ioner, a
Chinese nat ional who was employed as an Economist by t he Asian Development Bank (ADB), alleging t hat on
separat e occasions on January 28 and January 31, 1994, pet it ioner allegedly ut t ered defamatory words to
Joyce V. Cabal, a member of t he clerical st aff of ADB. On April 13, 1994, t he Met ropolit an Trial Court of
Mandaluyong Cit y, act ing pursuant to an advice from t he Depart ment of Foreign Affairs t hat pet it ioner enjoyed
immunit y from legal processes, dismissed t he criminal Informat ions against him. On a pet it ion for cert iorari and
mandamus filed by t he People, t he Regional Trial Court of Pasig Cit y, Branch 160, annulled and set aside t he
order of t he Met ropolit an Trial Court dismissing t he criminal cases.2

Pet it ioner, t hus, brought a pet it ion for review wit h t his Court . On January 28, 2000, we rendered t he assailed
Decision denying t he pet it ion for review. We ruled, in essence, t hat t he immunit y grant ed to officers and st aff of
t he ADB is not absolut e; it is limit ed to act s performed in an official capacit y. Furt hermore, we held t hat t he
immunit y cannot cover t he commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamat ion in t he name of official
dut y.
On October 18, 2000, t he oral argument s of t he part ies were heard. T his Court also grant ed t he Mot ion for
Int ervent ion of t he Depart ment of Foreign Affairs. T hereaft er, t he part ies were direct ed to submit t heir
respect ive memorandum.

For t he most part , pet it ioner's Mot ion for Reconsiderat ion deals wit h t he diplomat ic immunit y of t he ADB, it s
officials and st aff, from legal and judicial processes in t he Philippines, as well as t he const it ut ional and polit ical
bases t hereof. It should be made clear t hat nowhere in t he assailed Decision is diplomat ic immunit y denied,
even remot ely. T he issue in t his case, rat her, boils down to whet her or not t he st at ement s allegedly made by
pet it ioner were ut t ered while in t he performance of his official funct ions, in order for t his case to fall squarely
under t he provisions of Sect ion 45 (a) of t he "Agreement Bet ween t he Asian Development Bank and t he
Government of t he Republic of t he Philippines Regarding t he Headquart ers of t he Asian Development Bank," to
wit :

Officers and st aff of t he Bank, including for t he purpose of t his Art icle expert s and consult ant s
performing missions for t he Bank, shall enjoy t he following privileges and immunit ies:

(a) Immunit y from legal process wit h respect to act s performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y
except when t he Bank waives t he immunit y.

Aft er a careful deliberat ion of t he argument s raised in pet it ioner's and int ervenor's Mot ions for Reconsiderat ion,
we find no cogent reason to dist urb our Decision of January 28, 2000. As we have st at ed t herein, t he slander of
a person, by any st ret ch, cannot be considered as falling wit hin t he purview of t he immunit y grant ed to ADB
officers and personnel. Pet it ioner argues t hat t he Decision had t he effect of prejudging t he criminal case for
oral defamat ion against him. We wish to st ress t hat it did not . What we merely st at ed t herein is t hat slander, in
general, cannot be considered as an act performed in an official capacit y. T he issue of whet her or not
pet it ioner's ut t erances const it ut ed oral defamat ion is st ill for t he t rial court to det ermine.

WHEREFORE, in view of t he foregoing, t he Mot ions for Reconsiderat ion filed by pet it ioner and int ervenor
Depart ment of Foreign Affairs are DENIED wit h FINALIT Y.

SO ORDERED.

Kapunan and Pardo, JJ ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., I also join concurring opinion of Mr. Just ice Puno.
Puno, J., Please see concurring opinion.

Concurring Opinions

PUNO, J., concurring:

For resolut ion is t he Mot ion for Reconsiderat ion filed by pet it ioner Jeffrey Liang of t his Court 's decision dat ed
January 28, 2000 which denied t he pet it ion for review. We t here held t hat : t he protocol communicat ion of t he
Depart ment of Foreign Affairs to t he effect t hat pet it ioner Liang is covered by immunit y is only preliminary and
has no binding effect in court s; t he immunit y provided for under Sect ion 45(a) of t he Headquart ers Agreement
is subject to t he condit ion t hat t he act be done in an "official capacit y"; t hat slandering a person cannot be said
to have been done in an "official capacit y" and, hence, it is not covered by t he immunit y agreement ; under t he
Vienna Convent ion on Diplomat ic Relat ions, a diplomat ic agent , assuming pet it ioner is such, enjoys immunit y
from criminal jurisdict ion of t he receiving st at e except in t he case of an act ion relat ing to any professional or
commercial act ivit y exercised by t he diplomat ic agent in t he receiving st at e out side his official funct ions; t he
commission of a crime is not part of official dut y; and t hat a preliminary invest igat ion is not a mat t er of right in
cases cognizable by t he Met ropolit an Trial Court .

Pet it ioner's mot ion for reconsiderat ion is anchored on t he following argument s:

1. T he DFA's det erminat ion of immunit y is a polit ical quest ion to be made by t he execut ive branch of t he
government and is conclusive upon t he court s;

2. T he immunit y of int ernat ional organizat ions is absolut e;

3. T he immunit y ext ends to all st aff of t he Asian Development Bank (ADB);

4. Due process was fully accorded t he complainant to rebut t he DFA protocol;

5. T he decision of January 28, 2000 erroneously made a finding of fact on t he merit s, namely, t he
slandering of a person which prejudged pet it ioner's case before t he Met ropolit an Trial Court (MT C)
Mandaluyong; and
 6. T he Vienna Convent ion on diplomat ic relat ions is not applicable to t his case.

Pet it ioner cont ends t hat a det erminat ion of a person's diplomat ic immunit y by t he Depart ment of Foreign
Affairs is a polit ical quest ion. It is solely wit hin t he prerogat ive of t he execut ive depart ment and is conclusive
upon t he court s. In support of his submission, pet it ioner cit es t he following cases: WHO vs. Aquino;1 International
Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja;2 The Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr.;3 Lasco vs. United Nations;4 and DFA vs.
NLRC.5

It is furt her cont ended t hat t he immunity conferred under the ADB Charter and the Headquarters Agreement is
absolute. It is designed to safeguard t he autonomy and independence of int ernat ional organizat ions against
int erference from any aut horit y ext ernal to t he organizat ions. It is necessary to allow such organizat ions to
discharge t heir ent rust ed funct ions effect ively. T he only except ion to t his immunit y is when t here is an implied
or express waiver or when t he immunit y is expressly limit ed by st at ut e. T he except ion allegedly has no
applicat ion to t he case at bar.

Pet it ioner likewise urges t hat t he int ernat ional organizat ion's immunit y from local jurisdict ion empowers t he
ADB alone to determine what constitutes "official acts" and the same cannot be subject to different interpretations by the
member states. It assert s t hat t he Headquart ers Agreement provides for remedies to check abuses against t he
exercise of t he immunit y. T hus, Sect ion 49 st at es t hat t he "Bank shall waive t he immunit y accorded to any
person if, in it s opinion, such immunit y would impede t he course of just ice and t he waiver would not prejudice
t he purposes for which t he immunit ies are accorded." Sect ion 51 allows for consult at ion bet ween t he
government and t he Bank should t he government consider t hat an abuse has occurred. T he same sect ion
provides t he mechanism for a disput e set t lement regarding, among ot hers, issues of int erpret at ion or
applicat ion of t he agreement .

Pet it ioner's argument t hat a det erminat ion by t he Depart ment of Foreign Affairs t hat he is ent it led to
diplomat ic immunit y is a polit ical quest ion binding on t he court s, is anchored on t he ruling enunciat ed in t he
case of WHO, et al. vs. Aquino, et al.,6 viz:

"It is a recognized principle of int ernat ional law and under our syst em of separat ion of powers t hat
diplomat ic immunit y is essent ially a polit ical quest ion and court s should refuse to look beyond a
det erminat ion by t he execut ive branch of t he government , and where t he plea of diplomat ic immunit y is
recognized and affirmed by t he execut ive branch of t he government as in t he case at bar, it is t hen t he
dut y of t he court s to accept t he claim of immunit y upon appropriat e suggest ion by t he principal law
officer of t he government , t he Solicitor General in t his case, or ot her officer act ing under his direct ion.
Hence, in adherence to t he set t led principle t hat court s may not so exercise t heir jurisdict ion by seizure
and det ent ion of propert y, as to embarrass t he execut ive arm of t he government in conduct ing foreign
relat ions, it is accept ed doct rine t hat in such cases t he judicial depart ment of t he government follows
t he act ion of t he polit ical branch and will not embarrass t he lat t er by assuming an ant agonist ic
jurisdict ion."

T his ruling was reit erat ed in t he subsequent cases of International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja;7 The
Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr.;8 Lasco vs. UN;9 and DFA vs. NLRC.10

T he case of WHO vs. Aquino involved t he search and seizure of personal effect s of pet it ioner Leonce Verst uyft ,
an official of t he WHO. Verst uyft was cert ified to be ent it led to diplomat ic immunit y pursuant to t he Host
Agreement execut ed bet ween t he Philippines and t he WHO.

ICMC vs. Calleja concerned a pet it ion for cert ificat ion elect ion filed against ICMC and IRRI. As int ernat ional
organizat ions, ICMC and IRRI were declared to possess diplomat ic immunit y. It was held t hat t hey are not
subject to local jurisdict ions. It was ruled t hat t he exercise of jurisdict ion by t he Depart ment of Labor over t he
case would defeat t he very purpose of immunit y, which is to shield t he affairs of int ernat ional organizat ions
from polit ical pressure or cont rol by t he host count ry and to ensure t he unhampered performance of t heir
funct ions.

Holy See v. Rosario, Jr. involved an act ion for annulment of sale of land against t he Holy See, as represent ed by
t he Papal Nuncio. T he Court upheld t he pet it ioner's defense of sovereign immunit y. It ruled t hat where a
diplomat ic envoy is grant ed immunit y from t he civil and administ rat ive jurisdict ion of t he receiving st at e over
any real act ion relat ing to privat e immovable propert y sit uat ed in t he t erritory of t he receiving st at e, which t he
envoy holds on behalf of t he sending st at e for t he purposes of t he mission, wit h all t he more reason should
immunit y be recognized as regards t he sovereign it self, which in t hat case is t he Holy See.

In Lasco vs. United Nations, t he Unit ed Nat ions Revolving Fund for Nat ural Resources Explorat ion was sued before
t he NLRC for illegal dismissal. T he Court again upheld t he doct rine of diplomat ic immunit y invoked by t he Fund.
Finally, DFA v. NLRC involved an illegal dismissal case filed against t he Asian Development Bank. Pursuant to it s
Chart er and t he Headquart ers Agreement , t he diplomat ic immunit y of t he Asian Development Bank was
recognized by t he Court .

It bears to stress that all of these cases pertain to the diplomatic immunity enjoyed by international organizations.
Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to the same diplomatic immunity and he cannot be prosecuted for acts allegedly done
in the exercise of his official functions.

T he t erm "int ernat ional organizat ions" —

"is generally used to describe an organizat ion set up by agreement bet ween t wo or more st at es. Under
cont emporary int ernat ional law, such organizat ions are endowed wit h some degree of int ernat ional legal
personalit y such t hat t hey are capable of exercising specific right s, dut ies and powers. T hey are
organized mainly as a means for conduct ing general int ernat ional business in which t he member st at es
have an int erest ." 11

Int ernat ional public officials have been defined as:

". . . persons who, on t he basis of an int ernat ional t reat y const it ut ing a part icular int ernat ional communit y,
are appoint ed by t his int ernat ional communit y, or by an organ of it , and are under it s cont rol to exercise, in
a cont inuous way, funct ions in t he int erest of t his part icular int ernat ional communit y, and who are
subject to a part icular personal st at us." 12

"Specialized agencies" are international organizations having functions in particular fi elds, such as posts,
telecommunications, railways, canals, rivers, sea transport, civil aviation, meteorology, atomic energy,
fi nance, trade, education and culture, health and refugees.13

Issues

1. Whet her pet it ioner Liang, as an official of an int ernat ional organizat ion, is ent it led to diplomat ic
immunit y;

2. Whet her an int ernat ional official is immune from criminal jurisdict ion for all act s, whet her privat e or
official;

3. Whet her t he aut horit y to det ermine if an act is official or privat e is lodged in t he court s;

4. Whet her t he cert ificat ion by t he Depart ment of Foreign Affairs t hat pet it ioner is covered by immunit y is
a polit ical quest ion t hat is binding and conclusive on t he court s.

Discussion

A perusal of t he immunit ies provisions in various int ernat ional convent ions and agreement s will show t hat the
nature and degree of immunities vary depending on who the recipient is. T hus:

1. Charter of the United Nations

"Art icle 105 (1): T he Organizat ion shall enjoy in t he t erritory of each of it s Members such privileges and
immunit ies as are necessary for t he fulfillment of it s purposes.

Art icle 105 (2): Represent at ives of t he Members of t he Unit ed Nat ions and officials of t he Organizat ion
shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunit ies as are necessary for t he independent exercise of t heir
funct ions in connect ion wit h t he Organizat ion."

2. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations

"Sect ion 2: T he Unit ed Nat ions, it s propert y and asset s wherever locat ed and by whomsoever held, shall
enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process except insofar as in any part icular case it has expressly
waived it s immunit y. It is, however, understood t hat no waiver of immunit y shall ext end to any measure of
execut ion.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 11 (a): Represent at ives of Members to t he principal and subsidiary organs of t he Unit ed Nat ions .
. shall . . . enjoy . . . immunit y from personal arrest or det ent ion and from seizure of t heir personal baggage,
and, in respect of words spoken or writ t en and all act s done by t hem in t heir capacit y as represent at ives,
immunit y from legal process of every kind.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 14: Privileges and immunit ies are accorded to t he represent at ives of Members not for t he
personal benefit of t he individuals t hemselves, but in order to safeguard t he independent exercise of t heir
funct ions in connect ion wit h t he Unit ed Nat ions. Consequent ly, a Member not only has t he right but is
under a dut y to waive t he immunit y of it s represent at ive in any case where in t he opinion of t he Member
t he immunit y would impede t he course of just ice, and it can be waived wit hout prejudice to t he purpose
for which t he immunit y is accorded.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 18 (a): Officials of t he Unit ed Nat ions shall be immune from legal process in respect of words
spoken or writ t en and all act s performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 19: In addit ion to t he immunit ies and privileges specified in Sect ion 18, t he Secret ary-General and
all Assist ant Secret aries-General shall be accorded in respect of t hemselves, t heir spouses and minor
children, t he privileges and immunit ies, exempt ions and facilit ies accorded to diplomat ic envoys, in
accordance wit h int ernat ional law.

Sect ion 20: Privileges and immunit ies are grant ed to officials in t he int erest of t he Unit ed Nat ions and not
for t he personal benefit of t he individuals t hemselves. T he Secret ary-General shall have t he right and t he
dut y to waive t he immunit y of any official in any case where, in his opinion, t he immunit y would impede t he
course of just ice and can be waived wit hout prejudice to t he int erest s of t he Unit ed Nat ions.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 22: Expert s . . . performing missions for t he Unit ed Nat ions . . . shall be accorded: (a) immunit y
from personal arrest or det ent ion and from seizure of t heir personal baggage; (b) in respect of words
spoken or writ t en and act s done by t hem in t he course of t he performance of t heir mission, immunit y
from legal process of every kind."

3. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

"Art icle 29: T he person of a diplomat ic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest
or det ent ion. T he receiving St at e shall t reat him wit h due respect and shall t ake all appropriat e st eps to
prevent any at t ack on his person, freedom, or dignit y.

xxx xxx xxx

Art icle 31 (1): A diplomat ic agent shall enjoy immunit y from t he criminal jurisdict ion of t he receiving St at e.
He shall also enjoy immunit y from it s civil and administ rat ive jurisdict ion, except in cert ain cases.

xxx xxx xxx

Art icle 38 (1): Except in so far as addit ional privileges and immunit ies may be grant ed by t he receiving
St at e, a diplomat ic agent who is a nat ional of or permanent ly a resident in t hat St at e shall enjoy only
immunit y from jurisdict ion, and inviolabilit y, in respect of official act s performed in t he exercise of his
funct ions."

4. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

"Art icle 41 (1): Consular officials shall not be liable to arrest or det ent ion pending t rial, except in t he case
of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by t he compet ent judicial aut horit y.

xxx xxx xxx

Art icle 43 (1): Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to t he jurisdict ion of t he
judicial or administ rat ive aut horit ies of t he receiving St at e in respect of act s performed in t he exercise of
consular funct ions.

Art icle 43 (2): T he provisions of paragraph 1 of t his Art icle shall not , however, apply in respect of a civil
act ion eit her: (a) arising out of a cont ract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which
he did not cont ract expressly or impliedly as an agent of t he sending St at e; or (b) by a t hird part y for
damage arising from an accident in t he receiving St at e caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft ."

5. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies

"Sect ion 4: T he specialized agencies, t heir propert y and asset s, wherever locat ed and by whomsoever
held, shall enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process except in so far as in any part icular case t hey
have expressly waived t heir immunit y. It is, however, understood t hat no waiver of immunit y shall ext end
to any measure of execut ion.

Sect ion 13 (a): Represent at ives of members at meet ings convened by a specialized agency shall, while
exercising t heir funct ions and during t heir journeys to and from t he place of meet ing, enjoy immunit y
from personal arrest or det ent ion and from seizure of t heir personal baggage, and in respect of words
spoken or writ t en and all act s done by t hem in t heir official capacit y, immunit y from legal process of every
kind.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 19 (a): Officials of t he specialized agencies shall be immune from legal process in respect of
words spoken or writ t en and all act s performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 21: In addit ion to t he immunit ies and privileges specified in sect ions 19 and 20, t he execut ive head
of each specialized agency, including a any official act ing on his behalf during his absence from dut y, shall
be accorded in respect of himself, his spouse and minor children, t he privileges and immunit ies,
exempt ions and facilit ies accorded to diplomat ic envoys, in accordance wit h int ernat ional law."

6. Charter of the ADB

"Art icle 50 (1): T he Bank shall enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out
of or in connect ion wit h t he exercise of it s powers to borrow money, to guarant ee obligat ions, or to buy
and sell or underwrit e t he sale of securit ies, in which cases act ions may be brought against t he Bank in a
court of compet ent jurisdict ion in t he t erritory of a count ry in which t he Bank has it s principal or a branch
office, or has appoint ed an agent for t he purpose of accept ing service or not ice of process, or has issued
or guarant eed securit ies.

xxx xxx xxx

Art icle 55 (i): All Governors, Directors, alt ernat es, officers and employees of t he Bank, including expert s
performing missions for t he Bank shall be immune from legal process wit h respect to act s performed by
t hem in t heir official capacit y, except when t he Bank waives t he immunit y."

7. ADB Headquarters Agreement

"Sect ion 5: T he Bank shall enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of
or in connect ion wit h t he exercise of it s powers to borrow money, to guarant ee obligat ions, or to buy and
sell or underwrit e t he sale of securit ies, in which cases act ions may be brought against t he Bank in a
court of compet ent jurisdict ion in t he Republic of t he Philippines.

xxx xxx xxx

Sect ion 44: Governors, ot her represent at ives of Members, Directors, t he President , Vice-President and
execut ive officers as may be agreed upon bet ween t he Government and t he Bank shall enjoy, during t heir
st ay in t he Republic of t he Philippines in connect ion wit h t heir official dut ies wit h t he Bank: (a) immunit y
from personal arrest or det ent ion and from seizure of t heir personal baggage; (b) immunit y from legal
process of every kind in respect of words spoken or writ t en and all act s done by t hem in t heir official
capacit y; and (c) in respect of ot her mat t ers not covered in (a) and (b) above, such ot her immunit ies,
exempt ions, privileges and facilit ies as are enjoyed by members of diplomat ic missions of comparable
rank, subject to corresponding condit ions and obligat ions.

Sect ion 45 (a): Officers and st aff of t he Bank, including for t he purposes of t his Art icle expert s and
consult ant s performing missions for t he Bank, shall enjoy . . . immunit y from legal process wit h respect to
act s performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y, except when t he Bank waives t he immunit y."

II
There are three major differences between diplomatic and international immunities. Firstly, one of t he recognized
limit at ions of diplomat ic immunit y is t hat members of t he diplomat ic st aff of a mission may be appoint ed from
among t he nat ionals of t he receiving St at e only wit h t he express consent of t hat St at e; apart from inviolabilit y
and immunit y from jurisdict ion in respect of official act s performed in t he exercise of t heir funct ions, nat ionals
enjoy only such privileges and immunit ies as may be grant ed by t he receiving St at e. Int ernat ional immunit ies
may be specially import ant in relat ion to t he St at e of which t he official is a nat ional. Secondly, t he immunit y of a
diplomat ic agent from t he jurisdict ion of t he receiving St at e does not exempt him from t he jurisdict ion of t he
sending St at e; in t he case of int ernat ional immunit ies t here is no sending St at e and an equivalent for t he
jurisdict ion of t he Sending St at e t herefore has to be found eit her in waiver of immunit y or in some int ernat ional
disciplinary or judicial procedure. T hirdly, t he effect ive sanct ions which secure respect for diplomat ic immunit y
are t he principle of reciprocit y and t he danger of ret aliat ion by t he aggrieved St at e; int ernat ional immunit ies
enjoy no similar prot ect ion.14

The generally accepted principles which are now regarded as the foundation of international immunities are contained in
the ILO Memorandum, which reduced them in three basic propositions, namely: (1) t hat int ernat ional inst it ut ions
should have a st at us which prot ect s t hem against cont rol or int erference by any one government in t he
performance of funct ions for t he effect ive discharge of which t hey are responsible to democrat ically
const it ut ed int ernat ional bodies in which all t he nat ions concerned are represent ed; (2) t hat no count ry should
derive any financial advant age by levying fiscal charges on common int ernat ional funds; and (3) t hat t he
int ernat ional organizat ion should, as a collect ivit y of St at es Members, be accorded t he facilit ies for t he
conduct of it s official business customarily ext ended to each ot her by it s individual member St at es. The thinking
underlying these propositions is essentially institutional in character. It is not concerned with the status, dignity or
privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional independence necessary to free international institutions
from national control and to enable them to discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members.15

III

Posit ive int ernat ional law has devised t hree met hods of grant ing privileges and immunit ies to the personnel of
international organizations. T he first is by simple convent ional st ipulat ion, as was t he case in t he Hague
Convent ions of 1899 and 1907. T he second is by int ernal legislat ion whereby t he government of a st at e, upon
whose t erritory t he int ernat ional organizat ion is to carry out it s funct ions, recognizes t he int ernat ional
charact er of t he organizat ion and grant s, by unilat eral measures, cert ain privileges and immunit ies to bet t er
assure t he successful funct ioning of t he organizat ion and it s personnel. In t his sit uat ion, t reat y obligat ion for
t he st at e in quest ion to grant concessions is lacking. Such was t he case wit h t he Cent ral Commission of t he
Rhine at St rasbourg and t he Int ernat ional Inst it ut e of Agricult ure at Rome. T he third is a combinat ion of t he first
t wo. In t his t hird met hod, one finds a convent ional obligat ion to recognize a cert ain st at us of an int ernat ional
organizat ion and it s personnel, but t he st at us is described in broad and general t erms. T he specific definit ion
and applicat ion of t hose general t erms are det ermined by an accord bet ween t he organizat ion it self and t he
st at e wherein it is locat ed. T his is t he case wit h t he League of Nat ions, t he Permanent Court of Just ice, and
t he Unit ed Nat ions.16

The Asian Development Bank and its Personnel fall under this third category.

T here is a connect ion bet ween diplomat ic privileges and immunit ies and t hose ext ended to int ernat ional
officials. T he connect ion consist s in t he grant ing, by cont ract ual provisions, of t he relat ively well-est ablished
body of diplomat ic privileges and immunit ies to int ernat ional funct ionaries. T his connect ion is purely historical.
Bot h t ypes of officials find t he basis of t heir special st at us in t he necessit y of ret aining funct ional
independence and freedom from int erference by t he st at e of residence. However, t he legal relat ionship
bet ween an ambassador and t he st at e to which he is accredit ed is ent irely different from t he relat ionship
bet ween t he int ernat ional official and t hose st at es upon whose t erritory he might carry out his funct ions.17

The privileges and immunities of diplomats and those of international officials rest upon different legal foundations.
Whereas t hose immunit ies awarded to diplomat ic agent s are a right of t he sending st at e based on customary
int ernat ional law, t hose grant ed to int ernat ional officials are based on t reat y or convent ional law. Customary
int ernat ional law places no obligat ion on a st at e to recognize a special st at us of an int ernat ional official or to
grant him jurisdict ional immunit ies. Such an obligat ion can only result from specific t reat y provisions.18

T he special st at us of t he diplomat ic envoy is regulat ed by t he principle of reciprocit y by which a st at e is free to

t reat t he envoy of anot her st at e as it s envoys are t reat ed by t hat st at e. T he juridical basis of t he diplomat 's
posit ion is firmly est ablished in customary int ernat ional law. T he diplomat ic envoy is appoint ed by t he sending
St at e but it has to make cert ain t hat t he agreement of t he receiving St at e has been given for t he person it
proposes to accredit as head of t he mission to t hat St at e.19

The staff personnel of an international organization — the international officials — assume a different position as regards
their special status. T hey are appoint ed or elect ed to t heir posit ion by t he organizat ion it self, or by a compet ent
organ of it ; t hey are responsible to t he organizat ion and t heir official act s are imput ed to it . T he juridical basis of
t heir special posit ion is found in convent ional law,20 since t here is no est ablished basis of usage or custom in
t he case of t he int ernat ional official. Moreover, t he relat ionship bet ween an int ernat ional organizat ion and a
member-st at e does not admit of t he principle of reciprocit y,21 for it is cont radictory to t he basic principle of
equalit y of st at es. An int ernat ional organizat ion carries out funct ions in t he int erest of every member st at e
equally. T he int ernat ional official does not carry out his funct ions in t he int erest of any st at e, but in serving t he
organizat ion he serves, indirect ly, each st at e equally. He cannot be, legally, t he object of t he operat ion of t he
principle of reciprocit y bet ween st at es under such circumst ances. It is cont rary to t he principle of equalit y of
st at es for one st at e member of an int ernat ional organizat ion to assert a capacit y to ext ract special privileges
for it s nat ionals from ot her member st at es on t he basis of a st at us awarded by it to an int ernat ional
organizat ion. It is upon t his principle of sovereign equalit y t hat int ernat ional organizat ions are built .

It follows from t his same legal circumst ance t hat a st at e called upon to admit an official of an int ernat ional
organizat ion does not have a capacit y to declare him persona non grata.

T he functions of t he diplomat and t hose of t he int ernat ional official are quit e different . T hose of t he diplomat
are funct ions in t he nat ional int erest . T he t ask of t he ambassador is to represent his st at e, and it s specific
int erest , at t he capit al of anot her st at e. T he funct ions of t he int ernat ional official are carried out in t he
int ernat ional int erest . He does not represent a st at e or t he int erest of any specific st at e. He does not usually
"represent " t he organizat ion in t he t rue sense of t hat t erm. His funct ions normally are administ rat ive, alt hough
t hey may be judicial or execut ive, but t hey are rarely polit ical or funct ions of represent at ion, such as t hose of
t he diplomat .

T here is a difference of degree as well as of kind. T he int errupt ion of t he act ivit ies of a diplomat ic agent is likely
to produce serious harm to t he purposes for which his immunit ies were grant ed. But t he int errupt ion of t he
act ivit ies of t he int ernat ional official does not , usually, cause serious dislocat ion of t he funct ions of an
int ernat ional secret ariat .22

On t he ot her hand, t hey are similar in t he sense t hat act s performed in an official capacit y by eit her a diplomat ic
envoy or an int ernat ional official are not at t ribut able to him as an individual but are imput ed to t he ent it y he
represent s, t he st at e in t he case of t he diplomat , and t he organizat ion in t he case of t he int ernat ional official.23

IV

Looking back over 150 years of privileges and immunit ies grant ed to t he personnel of int ernat ional
organizat ions, it is clear t hat t hey were accorded a wide scope of prot ect ion in t he exercise of t heir funct ions —
T he Rhine Treat y of 1804 bet ween t he German Empire and France which provided "all t he right s of neut ralit y" to
persons employed in regulat ing navigat ion in t he int ernat ional int erest ; T he Treat y of Berlin of 1878 which
grant ed t he European Commission of t he Danube "complet e independence of t erritorial aut horit ies" in t he
exercise of it s funct ions; T he Covenant of t he League which grant ed "diplomat ic immunit ies and privileges."
Today, t he age of t he Unit ed Nat ions finds t he scope of prot ect ion narrowed. The current tendency is to reduce
privileges and immunities of personnel of international organizations to a minimum. T he t endency cannot be
considered as a lowering of t he st andard but rat her as a recognit ion t hat t he problem on t he privileges and
immunit ies of int ernat ional officials is new. T he solut ion to t he problem present ed by t he ext ension of
diplomat ic prerogat ives to int ernat ional funct ionaries lies in t he general reduct ion of t he special posit ion of
bot h t ypes of agent s in t hat t he special st at us of each agent is grant ed in t he int erest of funct ion. The 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. While t he current direct ion of t he law seems to
be to narrow t he prerogat ives of t he personnel of int ernat ional organizat ions, t he reverse is t rue wit h respect to
t he prerogat ives of t he organizat ions t hemselves, considered as legal ent it ies. Historically, states have been more
generous in granting privileges and immunities to organizations than they have to the personnel of these
organizations.24

T hus, Sect ion 2 of t he General Convent ion on t he Privileges and Immunit ies of t he Unit ed Nat ions st at es t hat
t he UN shall enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process except insofar as in any part icular case it has
expressly waived it s immunit y. Sect ion 4 of t he Convent ion on t he Privileges and Immunit ies of t he Specialized
Agencies likewise provides t hat t he specialized agencies shall enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process
subject to t he same except ion. Finally, Art icle 50(1) of t he ADB Chart er and Sect ion 5 of t he Headquart ers
Agreement similarly provide t hat t he bank shall enjoy immunit y from every form of legal process, except in
cases arising out of or in connect ion wit h t he exercise of it s powers to borrow money, to guarant ee obligat ions,
or to buy and sell or underwrit e t he sale of securit ies.

T he phrase "immunit y from every form of legal process" as used in t he UN General Convent ion has been
int erpret ed to mean absolut e immunit y from a st at e's jurisdict ion to adjudicat e or enforce it s law by legal
process, and it is said t hat st at es have not sought to rest rict t hat immunit y of t he Unit ed Nat ions by
int erpret at ion or amendment . Similar provisions are cont ained in t he Special Agencies Convent ion as well as in
t he ADB Chart er and Headquart ers Agreement . T hese organizat ions were accorded privileges and immunit ies in
t heir chart ers by language similar to t hat applicable to t he Unit ed Nat ions. It is clear t herefore t hat t hese
organizat ions were int ended to have similar privileges and immunit ies.25 From t his, it can be easily deduced t hat
int ernat ional organizat ions enjoy absolut e immunit y similar to t he diplomat ic prerogat ives grant ed to diplomat ic
envoys.

Even in t he Unit ed St at es t his t heory seems to be t he prevailing rule. T he Foreign Sovereign Immunit ies Act was
passed adopt ing t he "rest rict ive t heory" limit ing t he immunit y of st at es under int ernat ional law essent ially to
act ivit ies of a kind not carried on by privat e persons. T hen t he Int ernat ional Organizat ions Immunit ies Act came
into effect which gives to designat ed int ernat ional organizat ions t he same immunit y from suit and every form
of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign government s. T his gives t he impression t hat t he Foreign Sovereign
Immunit ies Act has t he effect of applying t he rest rict ive t heory also to int ernat ional organizat ions generally.
However, aside from t he fact t hat t here was no indicat ion in it s legislat ive history t hat Congress cont emplat ed
t hat result , and considering t hat t he Convent ion on Privileges and Immunit ies of t he Unit ed Nat ions exempt s
t he Unit ed Nat ions "from every form of legal process," conflict wit h t he Unit ed St at es obligat ions under t he
Convent ion was sought to be avoided by int erpret ing t he Foreign Sovereign Immunit ies Act , and t he rest rict ive
t heory, as not applying to suit s against t he Unit ed Nat ions.26

On t he ot her hand, international officials are governed by a different rule. Sect ion 18(a) of t he General Convent ion on
Privileges and Immunit ies of t he Unit ed Nat ions st at es t hat officials of t he Unit ed Nat ions shall be immune from
legal process in respect of words spoken or writ t en and all act s performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y. T he
Convent ion on Specialized Agencies carries exact ly t he same provision. T he Chart er of t he ADB provides under
Art icle 55(i) t hat officers and employees of t he bank shall be immune from legal process wit h respect to act s
performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y except when t he Bank waives immunit y. Sect ion 45 (a) of t he ADB
Headquart ers Agreement accords t he same immunit y to t he officers and st aff of t he 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, t he most import ant immunit y to an int ernat ional official, in t he discharge of his int ernat ional funct ions,
is immunit y from local jurisdict ion. T here is no argument in doct rine or pract ice wit h t he principle t hat an
int ernat ional official is independent of t he jurisdict ion of t he local aut horit ies for his official acts. T hose act s are
not his, but are imput ed to t he organizat ion, and wit hout waiver t he local court s cannot hold him liable for t hem.
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 an 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. Provisions for immunity
from jurisdiction for official acts appear, aside from the aforementioned treatises, in the constitution of most modern
international organizations. The acceptance of the principle is sufficiently widespread to be regarded as declaratory of
international law.27

What then is the status of the international official with respect to his private acts?

Sect ion 18 (a) of t he General Convent ion has been int erpret ed to mean t hat officials of t he specified cat egories
are denied immunity from local jurisdict ion for acts of their private life and empowers local court s to assume
jurisdict ion in such cases wit hout t he necessit y of waiver.28 It has earlier been ment ioned t hat historically,
int ernat ional officials were grant ed diplomat ic privileges and immunit ies and were t hus considered immune for
bot h privat e and official act s. In pract ice, t his wide grant of diplomat ic prerogat ives was curt ailed because of
pract ical necessit y and because t he proper funct ioning of t he organizat ion did not require such ext ensive
immunit y for it s 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.29 This much is explicit from the Charter and Headquarters
Agreement of the ADB which contain substantially similar provisions to that of the General Convention.

VI

Who is competent to determine whether a given act is private or official?

T his is an ent irely different quest ion. In connect ion wit h t his quest ion, t he current tendency to narrow t he scope
of privileges and immunit ies of int ernat ional officials and represent at ives is most apparent . Prior to t he regime
of t he Unit ed Nat ions, t he det erminat ion of t his quest ion rest ed wit h t he organizat ion and it s decision was final.
By t he new formula, t he st at e it self t ends to assume t his compet ence. If t he organizat ion is dissat isfied wit h
t he decision, under t he provisions of t he General Convent ion of t he Unit ed St at es, or t he Special Convent ion for
Specialized Agencies, t he Swiss Arrangement , and ot her current dominant inst rument s, it may appeal to an
int ernat ional t ribunal by procedures out lined in t hose inst rument s. T hus, t he st at e assumes t his compet ence
in t he first inst ance. It means t hat , if a local court assumes jurisdict ion over an act wit hout t he necessit y of
waiver from t he organizat ion, t he det erminat ion of t he nat ure of t he act is made at t he nat ional level.30
It appears that the inclination is to place the competence to determine the nature of an act as private or official in the
courts of the state concerned. T hat t he prevalent not ion seems to be to leave to t he local court s det erminat ion of
whet her or not a given act is official or privat e does not necessarily mean t hat such det erminat ion is final. If t he
Unit ed Nat ions quest ions t he decision of t he Court , it may invoke proceedings for set t lement of disput es
bet ween t he organizat ion and t he member st at es as provided in Sect ion 30 of t he General Convent ion. T hus,
t he decision as to whet her a given act is official or privat e is made by t he nat ional court s in t he first inst ance,
but it may be subject ed to review in t he int ernat ional level if quest ioned by t he Unit ed Nat ions.31

A similar view is t aken by Kunz, who writ es t hat t he "jurisdict ion of local court s wit hout waiver for act s of privat e
life empowers t he local court s to det ermine whet her a cert ain act is an official act or an act of privat e life," on
t he rat ionale t hat since t he det erminat ion of such quest ion, if left in t he hands of t he organizat ion, would
consist in t he execut ion, or non-execut ion, of waiver, and since waiver is not ment ioned in connect ion wit h t he
provision grant ing immunit ies to int ernat ional officials, t hen t he decision must rest wit h local court s.32

Under t he T hird Rest at ement of t he Law, it is suggest ed t hat since an int ernat ional official does not enjoy
personal inviolabilit y from arrest or det ent ion and has immunit y only wit h respect to official act s, he is subject
to judicial or administ rat ive process and must claim his immunit y in t he proceedings by showing t hat t he act in
quest ion was an official act . Whet her an act was performed in t he individual's official capacit y is a quest ion for
t he court in which a proceeding is brought , but if t he int ernat ional organizat ion disput es t he court 's finding, t he
disput e bet ween t he organizat ion and t he st at e of t he forum is to be resolved by negot iat ion, by an agreed
mode of set t lement or by advisory opinion of t he Int ernat ional Court of Just ice.33

Recognizing t he difficult y t hat by reason of t he right of a nat ional court to assume jurisdict ion over privat e act s
wit hout a waiver of immunit y, t he det erminat ion of t he official or privat e charact er of a part icular act may pass
from int ernat ional to nat ional cont rol, Jenks proposes t hree ways of avoiding difficult y in t he mat t er. T he first
would be for a municipal court before which a quest ion of t he official or privat e charact er of a part icular act
arose to accept as conclusive in t he mat t er any claim by t he int ernat ional organizat ion t hat t he act was official
in charact er, such a claim being regarded as equivalent to a government al claim t hat a part icular act is an act of
St at e. Such a claim would be in effect a claim by t he organizat ion t hat t he proceedings against t he official were
a violat ion of t he jurisdict ional immunit y of t he organizat ion it self which is unqualified and t herefore not subject
to delimit at ion in t he discret ion of t he municipal court . T he second would be for a court to accept as conclusive
in t he mat t er a st at ement by t he execut ive government of t he count ry where t he mat t er arises cert ifying t he
official charact er of t he act . T he third would be to have recourse to t he procedure of int ernat ional arbit rat ion.
Jenks opines t hat it is possible t hat none of t hese t hree solut ions would be applicable in all cases; t he first
might be readily accept able only in t he clearest cases and t he second is available only if t he execut ive
government of t he count ry where t he mat t er arises concurs in t he view of t he int ernat ional organizat ion
concerning t he official charact er of t he act . However, he surmises t hat t aken in combinat ion, t hese various
possibilit ies may afford t he element s of a solut ion to t he problem.34

One final point . T he int ernat ional official's immunit y for official act s may be likened to a consular official's
immunit y from arrest , det ent ion, and criminal or civil process which is not absolut e but applies only to act s or
omissions in t he performance of his official funct ions, in t he absence of special agreement . Since a consular
officer is not immune from all legal process, he must respond to any process and plead and prove immunit y on
t he ground t hat t he act or omission underlying t he process was in t he performance of his official funct ions. T he
issue has not been aut horit at ively det ermined, but apparent ly t he burden is on t he consular officer to prove his
st at us as well as his exempt ion in t he circumst ances. In t he Unit ed St at es, t he US Depart ment of St at e
generally has left it to t he court s to det ermine whet her a part icular act was wit hin a consular officer's official
dut ies.35

Submissions

On t he bases of t he foregoing disquisit ions, I submit t he following conclusions:

First, pet it ioner Liang, a bank official of ADB, is not ent it led to diplomat ic immunit y and hence his immunit y is not
absolut e.

Under t he Vienna Convent ion on Diplomat ic Relat ions, a diplomat ic envoy is immune from criminal jurisdict ion of
t he receiving St at e for all act s, whet her privat e or official, and hence he cannot be arrest ed, prosecut ed and
punished for any offense he may commit , unless his diplomat ic immunit y is waived.36 On t he ot her 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.37 T his is t he reason why t he ADB Charter and
Headquarters Agreement explicit ly grant immunit y from legal process to bank officers and employees only wit h
respect to act s performed by t hem in t heir official capacit y, except when t he Bank waives immunit y. 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.
Petitioner cannot also seek relief under the mantle of "immunity from every form of legal process" accorded to ADB as an
international organization. The immunity of ADB is absolute whereas the immunity of its officials and employees is
restricted only to official acts. T his is in consonance wit h t he current t rend in int ernat ional law which seeks to
narrow t he scope of prot ect ion and reduce t he privileges and immunit ies grant ed to personnel of int ernat ional
organizat ions, while at t he same t ime aims to increase t he prerogat ives of int ernat ional organizat ions.

Second, considering t hat bank officials and employees are covered by immunit y only for t heir official act s, t he
necessary inference is t hat t he aut horit y of t he Depart ment of Affairs, or even of t he ADB for t hat mat t er, to
cert ify t hat t hey are ent it led to immunit y is limit ed only to act s done in t heir official capacit y. St at ed ot herwise,
it is not wit hin t he power of t he DFA, as t he agency in charge of t he execut ive depart ment 's foreign relat ions,
nor t he ADB, as t he int ernat ional organizat ion vest ed wit h t he right to waive immunit y, to invoke immunit y for
privat e act s of bank officials and employees, since no such prerogat ive exist s in t he first place. If t he immunit y
does not exist , t here is not hing to cert ify.

As an aside, ADB cannot even claim to have t he right to waive immunit y for privat e act s of it s officials and
employees. T he Chart er and t he Headquart ers Agreement are clear t hat t he immunit y can be waived only wit h
respect to official act s because t his is only t he ext ent to which t he privilege has been grant ed. One cannot
waive t he right to a privilege which has never been grant ed or acquired.

Third, I choose to adopt t he view t hat it is t he local court s which have jurisdict ion to det ermine whet her or not a
given act is official or privat e. While t here is a deart h of cases on t he mat t er under Philippine jurisprudence, t he
issue is not ent irely novel.

T he case of M.H. Wylie, et al. vs. Rarang, et al.38 concerns t he ext ent of immunit y from suit of t he officials of a
Unit ed St at es Naval Base inside t he Philippine t erritory. Alt hough a mot ion to dismiss was filed by t he
defendant s t herein invoking t heir immunit y from suit pursuant to t he RP-US Milit ary Bases Agreement , t he t rial
court denied t he same and, aft er t rial, rendered a decision declaring t hat t he defendant s are not ent it led to
immunit y because t he lat t er act ed beyond t he scope of t heir official dut ies. T he Court likewise applied t he ruling
enunciat ed in t he case of Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan 39 to t he effect t hat a mere invocat ion of t he immunit y
clause does not ipso facto result in t he charges being automat ically dropped. While it is t rue t hat t he Chavez
case involved a public official, t he Court did not find any subst ant ial reason why t he same rule cannot be made
to apply to a US official assigned at t he US Naval St at ion locat ed in t he Philippines. In t his case, it was t he local
court s which ascert ained whet her t he act s complained of were done in an official or personal capacit y.

In t he case of The Holy See vs. Rosario, Jr.,40 a complaint for annulment of cont ract of sale, reconveyance,
specific performance and damages was filed against pet it ioner. Pet it ioner moved to dismiss on t he ground of,
among ot hers, lack of jurisdict ion based on sovereign immunit y from suit , which was denied by t he t rial court . A
mot ion for reconsiderat ion, and subsequent ly, a "Mot ion for a Hearing for t he Sole Purpose of Est ablishing
Fact ual Allegat ion for Claim of Immunit y as a Jurisdict ional Defense" were filed by pet it ioner. T he t rial court
deferred resolut ion of said mot ions unt il aft er t rial on t he merit s. On cert iorari, t he Court t here ruled on t he
issue of pet it ioner's non-suabilit y on t he basis of t he allegat ions made in t he pleadings filed by t he part ies. T his
is an implicit recognit ion of t he court 's jurisdict ion to ascert ain t he suabilit y or non-suabilit y of t he sovereign by
assessing t he fact s of t he case. T he Court hast ened to add t hat when a st at e or int ernat ional agency wishes
to plead sovereign or diplomat ic immunit y in a foreign court , in some cases, t he defense of sovereign immunit y
was submit t ed direct ly to t he local court s by t he respondent s t hrough t heir privat e counsels, or where t he
foreign st at es bypass t he Foreign Office, t he court s can inquire into t he fact s and make t heir own
det erminat ion as to t he nat ure of t he act s and t ransact ions involved.

Finally, it appears from t he records of t his case t hat pet it ioner is a senior economist at ADB and as such he
makes count ry project profiles which will help t he bank in deciding whet her to lend money or support a part icular
project to a part icular count ry.41 Pet it ioner st ands charged of grave slander for allegedly ut t ering defamatory
remarks against his secret ary, t he privat e complainant herein. Considering t hat t he immunit y accorded to
pet it ioner is limit ed only to act s performed in his official capacit y, it becomes necessary to make a fact ual
det erminat ion of whet her or not t he defamatory ut t erances were made pursuant and in relat ion to his official
funct ions as a senior economist .

I vot e to deny t he mot ion for reconsiderat ion.

Davide, Jr., C.J., concurs.

Footnotes
1 Criminal Cases Nos. 53170 & 53171 of t he Met ropolit an Trial Court of Mandaluyong Cit y, Branch 60,
presided by Hon. Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla.
 2 SCA Case No. 743 of t he Regional Trial Court of Pasig Cit y, Branch 160, presided by Hon. Mariano M.
Umali.

PUNO, J., concurring:

1 48 SCRA 242 (1972).

2 190 SCRA 130 (1990)

3 238 SCRA 524 (1994).

4 241 SCRA 681 (1995).

5 262 SCRA 38 (1996).

6 Supra not e 1.

7 Supra not e 2.

8 Supra not e 3.

9 Supra not e 4.

10 Supra not e 5.

11 ICMC vs. Calleja, supra not e 2.

12 John Kerry King, The Privileges and Immunities of the Personnel of International Organizations xiii (1949),
cit ing: Suzanne Basdevant , Les Fonctionnaires Internationaux (Paris: 1931), Chapt er 1.

13 ICMC vs. Calleja, et al., supra, cit ing Art icles 57 and 63 of t he Unit ed Nat ions Chart er.

14 C. Wilfred Jenks, Contemporary Development in International Immunities xxxvii (1961).

15 Id. at 17.

16 J. K. King, supra not e 12, at 81.

17 See id. at 255.

18 Id. at 25-26.

19 Art icle 4, Vienna Convent ion on Diplomat ic Relat ions.

20 J. K. King, supra not e 12, at xiii.

21 Id. at 27.

22 Id. at 254-257.

23 Id. at 103.

24 J. K. King, supra not e 12, at 253-268.

25 1 Rest at ement of t he Law T hird 498-501.

26 Ibid.

27 J. K. King, supra not e 12, at 258-259.

28 Id. at 186.

29 But see id. at 259. It is import ant to not e t hat t he submission of int ernat ional officials to local
jurisdict ion for privat e act s is not complet ely accept ed in doct rine and t heory. Jenks, in part icular, has
 argued for complet e jurisdict ional immunit y, as has Hammarskjold.

30 Id. at 260-261.

31 Id. at 189.

32 Joseph L. Kunz, Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations 862 (1947), cit ed in J. K. King, id. at
254.

33 1 Rest at ement of t he Law T hird 512.

34 Jenks, supra not e 14, at 117-118.

35 1 Rest at ement of t he Law T hird 475-477.

36 Salonga & Yap, Public Int ernat ional Law 108 (5t h ed., 1992).

37 1 Id. at 511.

38 209 SCRA 357 (1992).

39 193 SCRA 282 (1991).

40 Supra not e 3.

41 T SN, G.R. No. 125865, October 18, 2000, p. 11; Rollo, p. 393.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation