1 Introduction
The grant of immunities and privileges to diplomats and their staff dates back to the earliest relations between and among states, and the rules regulating the various aspects of diplomatic relations constitute one of the earliest expressions of international law.
Enforcing what was then customary international law and prior to the drafting of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Philippine Government enacted Republic Act No. 75 on October 21, 1946 which made the assault, wounding, imprisonment, or inflicting of violence to the person of an ambassador or a public minister punishable by imprisonment of not more than three years. This law also declared as void any writ or process sued out or prosecuted by any person or judge whereby an ambassador or public minister or their domestic servant is arrested or imprisoned, or their goods or chattels distrained, seized or attached.
The legal framework of modern diplomatic law is the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) to which the Philippines is a state party. The VCDR is largely a codification of customary international law, having attained stability over long practice among states.
The privileges and immunities granted to foreign diplomatic and consular missions and their officials and personnel in the Philippines are principally those provided in VCDR,1 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR),2 and their Protocols. These Conventions were ratified by the President and concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have the force and effect of law.3
The Philippines has no special laws governing the treatment of diplomats and diplomatic premises, other than Republic Act No. 75, and generally follows those provided in the VCDR and VCCR.
This article will examine the extent of immunities and privileges extended, the manner by which immunity may be invoked, and the ways local courts have dealt with claims of immunity. It will also discuss the special cases of diplomats with same-sex spouses and the conduct of demonstrations in front of embassies, which shed further light on the privileges extended.
2 Extent of Privileges and Immunities
The privileges pertaining to diplomats include, depending upon their ranks, personal inviolability, immunity from jurisdiction (criminal, civil and administrative jurisdictions), immunity from giving evidence, and fiscal exemptions, while the privileges pertaining to properties include inviolability of embassy premises, residences, means of transportation, and archives and official correspondence. The purpose of these privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of the diplomatic mission.4 The immunities and privileges would extend to the members of the family derivatively.
Meanwhile, diplomatic and consular officers and personnel who are nationals or permanent residents of the Philippines enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and inviolability only with respect to official acts performed in the exercise of official duties and functions.
As a general rule, immunities are extended to foreign missions and their officials and personnel and their family members on the basis of reciprocity.
Notwithstanding their privileged status, it is the duty of all persons with such status to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.5 They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.6 They shall not practice for personal profit any professional or commercial activity.7 The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the Vienna Conventions or other rules of general international law.8
Privileges and immunities extended to the United Nations, its agencies and their officials and staff are generally only those granted by the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,9 the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the UN,10 and other relevant agreements with the Philippine Government. The Asian Development Bank11 and the International Rice Research Institute,12 among other international organizations (IOs), are entitled to privileges and immunities that are specified in their respective headquarters/host country agreements with the Philippines.
2.1 Recognition of Same-Sex Spouses of Diplomats13
An issue which had vexed segments of the diplomatic corps through the years was the visa and protocolar treatment of same-sex spouses of some members. Same-sex marriages have been recognized in a number of countries, and diplomats with same-sex spouses have been assigned to the foreign missions and IO s in Manila.
Philippine law, specifically the Family Code,14 does not provide for same-sex marriage. The Family Code, in Article 1, states that “marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.” When diplomats and officials of IO s with same-sex spouses took up their assignments, the diplomats and officials were issued the diplomatic 9(e-1) visas, but until recently their same-sex spouse were not issued such visa, but instead the 9(e-3) visa, which is of a lower category.
The VCDR, in Article 37(1), provides for immunities and privileges to the family of the diplomat and the members of his or her household: “The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in Articles 29 to 36.”
During the negotiations on the then proposed VCDR, attempts to define “members of the family” were made but ultimately failed, and the VCDR “was left without either a true definition or a procedure for settling differences of opinion between sending and receiving States.”15
The DFA Protocol Handbook on Immunities and Privileges lists as “members of the family” the spouse (as defined in Philippine law) and unmarried sons and daughters less than 21 years of age, while “other recognized members of the household” are those physically residing with the diplomatic or consular agent and those subject to reciprocal arrangements including dependent parents/parents-in-law, common-law spouse; and other dependents subject to approval of the DFA.16
As specified in the VCDR, VCCR and relevant agreements and conventions,17 ambassadors and those with diplomatic rank, and the members of their families (who are issued Diplomatic IDs), are entitled to absolute immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country. They may not be arrested nor detained, and are also immune from civil and administrative jurisdictions except in three cases.18
Administrative and technical staff and their families (who are holders of Official IDs) enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction, but their immunity from civil jurisdiction does not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. Service staff enjoy immunity only in respect to acts performed in the course of their duties.19
Inasmuch as the three 9(e) visa categories correspond to varying degrees of immunities and privileges, the lumping of same-sex spouses of diplomats with “members of the household, attendants, servants” has been a source of irritation to certain members of the diplomatic corps, particularly those who identify themselves as or with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
The DFA had only been issuing 9(e-3) visas to same-sex spouses. Same-sex spouses were not accorded the same status as opposite-sex spouses. Representations were made with the DFA by a number of foreign missions, mostly from Western countries, for the recognition of same-sex marriages involving diplomats and the issuance of 9(e-1) visas and Diplomatic IDs (and not “Official IDs”) to same-sex spouses.
The DFA sought guidance from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
In April 2019, in DOJ Opinion No. 11, series of 2019 (“Opinion”), Secretary Menardo Guevarra laid the new rule as follows:
(it) is our opinion that if the marriage of a foreign government official assigned to the country and his or her foreign same-sex spouse is considered valid in the place where it was celebrated (lex loci celebrationis) and said spouses are also considered validly married under their laws of nationality (lex nationalii) or domicile (lex domicilii), a diplomatic 9(e-1) visa … may be issued to the foreign same-sex spouse of the said foreign government official. On the other hand, in view of the lack of a marriage bond between a foreign government official and his or her informal same-sex partner or common-law spouse or partner, a diplomatic 9(e-1) visa … may not be issued to such partner or spouse.
In its Opinion, the DOJ followed the principle of lex loci celebrationis with respect to the validity of marriage celebrated abroad, i.e., a marriage that is valid where it was celebrated are to be recognized as such elsewhere, including the Philippines. This principle is subject to certain exceptions as specified in the Family Code, such as when the marriage is considered incestuous or void by reason of public policy. These exceptions apply only to marriages solemnized abroad between Filipinos, and not to marriages solemnized outside the Philippines between foreigners, including foreign diplomats and their foreign same-sex spouses. The only instance when the validity of their marriages will not be recognized here in the Philippines is when their marriages are considered universally incestuous or highly immoral.
On the basis of the DOJ Opinion, the DFA issued a circular Note dated May 23, 2019 to the diplomatic and consular missions and international organizations informing them that “dependent spouses, who are current holders of 9(e-3) visas may now apply for conversion to 9(e-1) visas, provided that the subject marriage is considered valid in the place where it was celebrated and the parties are also considered validly married under their laws of nationality or domicile.”
2.2 Demonstrations before Embassy Premises
Demonstrations have been held in front of foreign embassies in protest against the policies of their home governments. Leftist groups have often congregated before the U.S. Embassy in Manila and riled against the latter government’s “imperialist policies.” In recent years, picket rallies have been held in front of the Dutch Embassy in Makati calling attention to the “coddling” of Jose Ma. Sison in the Netherlands and urging that he and his comrades be sent back to face charges filed against them in the Philippines.20
As noted by Denza, politically motivated demonstrations before foreign embassies have become a favored method of public protest at the policies of the sending State, and with the increasing emphasis in many States on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly they often give rise to difficult decisions as to how the balance between the rights of citizens of the receiving State and the duty to prevent disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity should be struck by the local authorities.21
In Reyes v Bagatsing,22 the petitioner, on behalf of the Anti-Bases coalition, sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26, 1983 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon, starting from the Luneta Park to the gates of the United States Embassy. Once there, a short program would be held. The march would be attended by the local and foreign participants of an anti-bases conference. There was an assurance in the petition that all necessary steps would be taken “to ensure a peaceful march and rally.”23
However, the request was denied by the City Hall as their officials were “in receipt of police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit at this time at the place applied for.”24 City Ordinance No. 7295 also prohibits rallies or demonstrations within the radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery.25
An oral argument was heard, and the mandatory injunction was granted on the ground that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of a permit. In its ruling, the Court stated:
The Constitution is quite explicit: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.” Free speech, like free press, may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that [the State] has a right to prevent. Freedom of assembly connotes the right people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public concern. It is entitled to be accorded the utmost deference and respect. It is not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing, as in the case with freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent … In every case, therefore where there is a limitation placed on the exercise of this right, the judiciary is called upon to examine the effects of the challenged governmental actuation. The sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of this right, so fundamental to the maintenance of democratic institutions, is the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest.
…
… If the rally were confined to Luneta, no question, as noted, would have arisen. So, too, if the march would end at another park. As previously mentioned though, there would be a short program upon reaching the public space between the two gates of the United States Embassy at Roxas Boulevard. That would be followed by the handing over of a petition based on the resolution adopted at the closing session of the Anti-Bases Coalition. The Philippines is a signatory of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961 … It (is) binding on the Philippines. The second paragraph of the Article 22 reads: “2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.” … That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the Embassy.26
There was no such showing of a clear and present danger in this case, the Court noted.
In sum, the Vienna Convention obligation to protect the premises of embassies must be honored, however observance of this obligation does not preclude the application of the clear and present danger rule which precisely is a way of measuring the degree of protection needed for safeguarding the premises of embassies.27
The Reyes ruling is significant not only for diplomatic law but also for the Bill of Rights as it is the first to deal with the cognate rights of free speech and peaceful assembly. Similar rulings followed, notably Ruiz v Gordon;28 however, Reyes laid down the rules on assembly and petition.
3 Invoking Diplomatic Immunity
The Handbook on Privileges and Immunities of the Office of Protocol of the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs states the following:
1.1 As a general rule, immunities shall be extended on a reciprocal basis to foreign mission and their representatives who are duly accredited to the Philippine government, subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and its protocol for diplomatic personnel; the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 and its protocol for consular personnel; the pertinent Headquarters Agreement or Host Country Agreement for personnel of International Organizations; the 1947 Convention on the Specialized Agencies of the UN; the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN and other international agreements to which the Philippines is signatory.
1.2 Diplomatic and consular officers who are nationals or permanent residents of the Philippines shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and inviolability only with respect to official acts performed in the exercise of their official duties and functions.
1.3 Notwithstanding the entitlement of privileged parties to immunities under relevant conventions and agreements, it is the duty of all persons to respect the laws and regulations of the Philippines.29
A foreign embassy, consulate, or an international organization may invoke its immunity or that of its officer or personnel by requesting the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to issue a certificate pertaining to its status. The DFA will, upon receipt of the request and when warranted, issue a certificate of entitlement to immunity.
The DFA Handbook provides as follows:
When warranted, the entities concerned may invoke its immunity or that of its officers and personnel, and may communicate a request for the issuance of a certificate confirming its status to the Department through a Note Verbale.
The Department shall, upon receipt of the request, issue a certificate of identity and/or immunity of an officer or personnel after proper verification of its records.
3.1 Recourses upon Receipt of Immunity Claim
There are two recourses to the receiving State provided in the VCDR when immunity from jurisdiction is invoked by a foreign diplomatic person, namely a request for waiver of the immunity, and expulsion as a persona non grata.
Article 32 of the Vienna Convention allows the receiving State to ask the sending State to waive the diplomat’s immunity. This is particularly useful with respect to, among other cases, civil claims in domestic courts when such waiver would not impede the daily performance of the foreign mission, or the alleged crime is of a serious nature which if not given redress could harm relations. The Convention requires the sending State to make an express waiver of this privilege, generally conveyed through a diplomatic note.
Article 9 of the Convention also allows the receiving State to declare the person in question persona non grata (PNG). The PNG procedure enables the receiving State to declare a member of the foreign mission unacceptable “without having to explain its decision.” This signifies the expulsion of that member. An intimation that such a step may be taken can prompt the waiver of immunity or otherwise the settlement of the claim or issue. The Philippines rarely utilizes this remedy, as its use could create tension with the sending State.
Complaining parties at times seek the intervention of the Department of Foreign Affairs in their disputes with foreign diplomats, including on damages or money claims (for unpaid lease rentals and the like). Where appropriate, the DFA Office of Protocol play a mediation role between the parties toward a fair settlement of the claim. This is in view of the fact that the legal consequence of diplomatic immunity is procedural in character and does not affect any underlying substantive liability, and that diplomatic immunity should not be used as a shelter from legal obligations.30
The DFA also uses administrative measures to address abuse of diplomatic privileges, such as suspension of driving privileges or withholding car license plates in cases of flagrant violations of traffic regulations. Motor vehicles bearing diplomatic plates that are in violation of traffic rules are subject to traffic fines. As a matter of practice, the DFA does not intervene with police or local authorities for reimbursement of traffic fines paid nor the cancellation of traffic tickets. There is no exemption from the payment of highway toll fees as these are considered service charges.31
3.2 Manner of Invoking Immunity
In Holy See v. Rosario Jr.,32 the Supreme Court canvassed the ways by which immunity have been invoked. The Court noted that in the United States, the Executive Department, through the Secretary of State, makes a determination of a foreign state or international organization’s entitlement to immunity. Thus, if the Secretary of State determines that the defendant is entitled to immunity from suit, he shall direct the Attorney General to submit to the court a “suggestion” stating the same. In the United Kingdom, the Foreign Office issues a “certification.” The practice in the Philippines is for the concerned foreign embassy or international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of diplomatic immunity.
There have been different manners in which such endorsement is conveyed to courts, added the Court in Holy See. In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja,33 the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment attesting to the Commission’s entitlement to immunity. In World Health Organization v. Aquino,34 notice was sent by telegram. In Baer v. Tizon,35 the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, on behalf of the Commander of the then U.S. Naval Base at Olongapo City, a “suggestion” to the Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the “suggestion” in a Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae.
The procedure followed by the DFA, as stated in its Handbook, is for the embassy or international organization to communicate to the Department through a note verbale a request for the issuance of a certificate confirming its status, and then the Department may issue a certificate of identity and/or immunity after an evaluation of the matter.
3.3 Judicial Appreciation of Immunity Claims
In World Health Organization,36 Judge Aquino issued a search warrant against the shipment belonging to Dr. Leonce Verstuyft, Acting Assistant Director of Health Service, for alleged violation of the Philippine Tariff and Customs Code. Satisfied that the World Health Organization official was entitled to immunity pursuant to the Host Agreement between the Philippine Government and the WHO, the Supreme Court sustained the immunity claim stating:
It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his direction.37
The WHO ruling was prevailing jurisprudence on the matter until 2010 when the Supreme Court decided Liang v. People of the Philippines.38 Mr. Jeffrey Liang was an economist in the Asian Development Bank (ADB). A case for grave oral defamation was filed against him for alleged defamatory words against a fellow ADB employee. Upon the filing of the case, the Metropolitan Trial Court judge received a communication from the DFA Office of Protocol that Mr. Liang is covered by immunity from legal processes under the PH-ADB Headquarter Agreement. Based on the said communication, the trial court dismissed the criminal cases against Liang without notice to the prosecution.
Somewhat departing from the WHO ruling, the Supreme Court held that Liang was not entitled to immunity:
[T]he immunity mentioned in Section 45 of the Headquarters Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts were done in official capacity … Thus, the prosecution should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA (P)rotocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire … The DFA’s determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts.
It is this writer’s view that the WHO and Liang rulings can be reconciled. There is need to examine the level of immunity that the personnel is entitled to, specifically whether to full or absolute immunity (such as for diplomatic agents) or functional immunity (i.e., immunity for acts done in “official capacity” as in Mr. Liang’s case). The act in question has to be assessed as to whether the claimed immunity applies. Furthermore, there is need to allow the complainant the opportunity to be heard. In sum, the WHO ruling is the better rule with respect to diplomatic agents and senior officials of IO s who are entitled to full immunity. On the other hand, the Liang ruling is more appropriate for personnel who are not entitled to full immunity but to functional immunity.
In instances where the claim of immunity is upheld, an individual who feels aggrieved can ask his own government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels.39
A number of immunity cases involving IO s pertain to labor matters, specifically whether the National Labor Relations Commission can acquire jurisdiction over cases of dismissal of IO personnel, and whether the Department of Labor and Employment can order labor union certification election among them.
In DFA v. NLRC,40 the Supreme Court upheld the immunity of the ADB in a labor dismissal case. International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja41 determined whether the right of labor to petition for certification election was availing alongside claims of immunity. In a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), the government granted the former the status of a specialized agency with corresponding privileges and immunities. The DFA supported the claim of immunity, stating that an order to hold certification election violates this immunity. The Court ruled that specialized agencies are IO s with functions in particular fields, and ICMC enjoyed immunity as necessitated by its international character and recognized purposes.
The ICMC ruling was criticized by Merlin Magallona for its “sheer inaccuracies”42 He pointed out that IO s are established in a multilateral treaty by States and the latter comprise its membership. In contrast, the ICMC, a non-governmental organization although international and registered with the UN Economic and Social Council, was not created under international law as an international person. It is a private corporation composed of individuals, and its status determined by the State of New York, where it was incorporated. It is “intriguing how the Government can create a specialized agency out of ICMC by means of a Memorandum of Agreement and conjure unilaterally its coverage under the Convention on Specialized Agencies,” Magallona noted.43
4 Philippines as Party Invoking Diplomatic Immunity
The Philippines is host to foreign embassies, consulates and IO s principally in Metro Manila as well as to foreign consulates in the cities of Cebu and Davao. It also deploys Filipino diplomats to other countries and the UN offices, among others. As both a sending and receiving State, it has received claims of immunity from foreign embassies and diplomats as well as asserted immunity on behalf of its embassies and Filipino diplomatic personnel.
As a matter of practice, the Philippines as a sending State will not subject its diplomatic personnel to the criminal or civil jurisdiction of the receiving State. Nonetheless, it may encourage the concerned personnel to seek a resolution or settlement of the claim with a complaining private party.
Though it may not opt to waive the immunity of its personnel in the receiving State, this does not preclude the Department of Foreign Affairs from investigating the matter and prosecuting the crime. As stated in Article 31(4) of the Convention, “the immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.”
In a number of cases, erring Filipino personnel have been recalled to Manila and not allowed to return. Some were made to face administrative charges and dismissed from the service. For instance, two staff members who abused the privilege of purchasing liquors in a Muslim country and sold them for profit were made to face proceedings before the Board of Foreign Service Administration and then their services were terminated.
5 Conclusion
Philippine practice in immunities and privileges of diplomats, embassies and international organization has evolved with the times. In the early decades after the entry into force of the VCDR, the issues mostly revolved around the extent of immunity entitlement, notably whether international organizations are exempt from the application of local labor laws. The duty of the host government to protect embassies during demonstrations have occasionally been raised, although this concern has mostly been addressed at the level of the DFA and police authorities and did not reach the courts. Same-sex spouses of foreign diplomats were finally given recognition in 2019 with the issuance of a Department of Justice opinion. There have been incidences of abuse of immunities and privileges, but these are few and far between.
Philippine practice in this field of diplomatic law has been rich, varied and adaptable to the times. It also adheres to the letter and spirit of the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, with its avowed purpose of “ensur(ing) the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions.”
Malaya is the Philippine Ambassador to the Netherlands. He was previously the Undersecretary (Deputy Minister) of Foreign Affairs (Aug. 2019–March 2021) and served twice as the Assistant Secretary (Director-General) for Treaties and Legal Affairs (Apr. 2017–July 2019; 2009–2011) at the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). He is a career member of the Philippine foreign service since 1986 and was also previously the Philippine Ambassador to Malaysia and the DFA Spokesman. He is the author, main co-author and editor of seven books on Philippine diplomacy, Philippine presidency, and law, notably Philippine Treaties in Force 2020 (University of the Philippines Law Center (UPLC), 2021); Treaties: Guidance on Practices and Procedures (UPLC, 2018); and Forging Partnerships: Philippine Defense Cooperation under Constitutional and International Laws (UPLC/Foreign Service Institute, 2016). He has a BA in Economics (cum laude) and a Law degree, both from the University of the Philippines. He is currently the Vice President of the Philippine Society of International Law and a Member of the Editorial Board of the Philippine Yearbook of International Law. The views in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, opened for signature Apr. 18, 1961, 500 U.N.T.S. 95 (entered into force Apr. 24, 1964) [hereinafter VCDR]; see J. Eduardo Malaya & Crystal Gale P. Dampil-Mandigma, Philippine Treaties in Force 2020 263 (2021).
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, opened for signature Apr. 24, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (entered into force Mar. 19, 1967) [hereinafter VCCR], Philippine ratified the VCCR on Oct. 11, 1965; see Malay, supra note 1, at 262.
Merlin M. Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law 543 (2005), citing Guerrero’s Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Blayblock Transp. Serv. Emps Ass’n – Kilusan, G.R. No. L-41518 (June 30, 1976) (Phil.), https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1976/jun1976/gr_41518_1976.html.
VCDR, supra note 1, at the Preambular ¶4.
Id. art. 41.
Id.
Id. art. 42.
Id. art. 41(3).
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, opened for signature Feb. 13, 1946, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (entered into force Mar. 19, 1967), ratified by the President on 30 July 1947; concurred in by the Senate on 18 February 1947; entered into force for the Philippines on 28 Oct. 1947; see Malay, supra note 1, at 272.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, opened for signature Nov. 21, 1947, 33 U.N.T.S. 261 (entered into force Dec. 2, 1948), adopted at New York on 21 Nov 1947; concurred in by the Senate on 17 May 1949; entered into force for Philippines on 20 March 1950; see Malay, supra note 1, at 272.
The Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank, opened for signature Dec. 4, 1965, 571 U.N.T.S. 123 (entered into force Aug. 22, 1966), adopted at Manila on 4 Dec 1965; ratified by the President on 5 July 1966; concurred in by the Senate on 22 August 1966; entered into force on 22 August 1966; and Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Asian Development Bank regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank, signed at Manila on 22 Dec 1966; ratified by the President on 27 July 1967; concurred in by the Senate on 18 May 1967; entered into force on 28 July 1967. See Malay, supra note 1, at 221–222.
Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the International Rice Research Institute, opened for signature Apr. 24, 2006 (entered into force May 14, 2008), https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/36/13101, signed by PH at Pasay on 24 April 2006; ratified by the President of the Philippines on 23 May 2006; concurred in by the Senate on 23 April 2008; entered into force on 14 May 2008. See Malay, supra note 1, at 255.
See generally extended treatment on the subject in J. Eduardo Malaya and Anna Christina R. Iglesias, Recognizing the Effects of Same-Sex Marriages: An Examination of Department of Justice Opinion No. 11, Series of 2019 on the Issuance of 9(E-1) Visas to Same-Sex Spouses of Foreign Diplomats, 18 Philippine Yearbook of International Law 77 (2019).
Family Code, Exec. Ord. 209 as amended (Phil.).
Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 319–320 (4th ed., 2016).
Department of Foreign Affairs Office of Protocol, Handbook on Privileges and Immunities, 5 (2016), https://storage.googleapis.com/request-attachments/MUtvjYrIyGj8gBd9wx7XJG8yqUgx5mFC7nTy5Jodzr8zQ0YYXLwHN3dcqfMQIVjkSW6EB3Q19axt4bhV9x8y75qF31WvKEy4iU4p/OP-0195-2021%20(attachment)%20(1).pdf.
E.g., 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the U.N., 1947 Convention on the Specialized Agencies of the U.N. and the Headquarters Agreements to which the Philippines is a signatory.
VCDR, supra note 1, art. 29, 31, and 37(1). Under Article 31 of the VCDR, the exceptions to immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction are the following cases: (a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission; (b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending States; and (c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
Id. art.37 ¶¶2–3.
Lade Jean Kabagani, Groups call on Dutch gov’t to stop coddling Joma Sison, Philippine News Agency, (May. 5, 2021), http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1139244.
Denza, supra note 15, at 140.
J.B.L. Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, Resolution (Oct. 25, 1983); Extended opinion, (Nov. 9, 1983) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/nov1983/gr_l_65366_1983.html.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., G., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 311 (2003).
Ruiz v. Gordon, G.R. No. 65695 (Dec. 19, 1983) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/dec1983/gr_l_65695_1983.html.
Department of Foreign Affairs, supra note 16, at 28.
See Resolution adopted by the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities: Recommends that the sending State should waive the immunity of members of its diplomatic mission in respect of civil claims of persons in the receiving State when this can be done without impeding the performance of the functions of the mission, and that, when the immunity not waived, the sending State should use its best endeavors to bring about a just settlement of the claims. U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 20/L.4/Rev.1 (Apr. 11, 1961) (draft proposed by Israel); A/Conf. 20/14, pp 50–1 (Apr. 14, 1961); A/Conf. 20/10/Add 1 (Apr. 14, 1961); Denza, supra note 15, at 269–270.
Department of Foreign Aff., supra note 16, at 28.
Holy See v. Rosario Jr., G.R. No. 101949 (Dec. 1, 1994) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/dec1994/gr_101949_1994.html.
International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750 (Sept. 18, 1990) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/sep1990/gr_85750_1990.html.
World Health Organization v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-35131 (Nov. 29, 1972) (Phil.), https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/nov1972/gr_l_35131_1972.html.
Baer v. Tizon, G.R. No. L-24294 (May 3, 1974) (Phil.), https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/may1974/gr_l_24294_1974.html.
World Health Organization v. Aquino, supra note 34.
Id.
Liang v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 125865 (Jan. 28, 2000) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_125865_2001.html.
Holy See v. Rosario Jr., supra note 32.
DFA v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113191 (Sept. 18, 1996) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/sep1996/gr_113191_1996.html.
International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, supra note 32.
Magallona, supra note 3, at 292; quoted in Francis Tom Temprosa, Reflections of a Confluence: International Law in the Philippine Court 1940–2000, 19 Asian Yearbook of International Law 88, 102–103 (2013).
See Magallona 92. Magallona stated that the confusion as to diplomatic immunity and international immunity persists in Lasco v. UN Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration, 241 S.C.R.A. 681 (Feb. 23, 1995) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/gr_109095_109107_1995.html; Department of Foreign Affairs v. National Labor Relations Commission, 262 S.C.R.A. 39 (Sept. 18, 1996) (Phil.), https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996septemberdecisions.php?id=563; and Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center – Aquatic Department v. National Labor Relations Commission, 206 S.C.R.A. 283 (Feb. 14, 1992) (Phil.), https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995februarydecisions.php?id=107.