Minucher and Liang FullText ( State Immunity)

8/12/2019 Minucher and Liang FullText ( State Immunity)

1/10

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001]

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG),petitioner, vs. E!LE !F "HE

HILIINE#, respondent.

R E # ! L U " I ! N

YNARE#$#AN"IAG!, J.%

This resolves petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of ourDecision dated January 2! 2"""! denyin# the petition for revie$%

The Motion is anchored on the follo$in# ar#u&ents'

() T*+ DF,S D+T+RMIN,TION OF IMM-NIT. IS ,/O0ITI1,0 -+STION TO 3+ M,D+ 3. T*++4+1-TIV+ 3R,N1* OF T*+ 5OV+RNM+NT ,ND IS1ON10-SIV+ -/ON T*+ 1O-RTS%

2) T*+ IMM-NIT. OF INT+RN,TION,0OR5,NI6,TIONS IS ,3SO0-T+%

7) T*+ IMM-NIT. +4T+NDS TO ,00 ST,FF OF T*+,SI,N D+V+0O/M+NT 3,N8 9,D3)%

:) D-+ /RO1+SS ;,S F-00. ,FFORD+D T*+1OM/0,IN,NT TO R+3-T T*+ DF, /ROTO1O0%


2/10

follo$in# privile#es and i&&unities'

9a) I&&unity fro& le#al process $ith respect to acts perfor&ed Aythe& in their official capacity ecept $hen the 3anB $aives thei&&unity%

,fter a careful deliAeration of the ar#u&ents raised in petitionersand intervenors Motions for Reconsideration! $e find no co#ent reason

to disturA our Decision of January 2! 2"""% ,s $e have stated therein!the slander of a person! Ay any stretch! cannot Ae considered as fallin#$ithin the purvie$ of the i&&unity #ranted to ,D3 officers andpersonnel% /etitioner ar#ues that the Decision had the effect ofpreud#in# the cri&inal case for oral defa&ation a#ainst hi&% ;e $ish tostress that it did not% ;hat $e &erely stated therein is that slander! in#eneral! cannot Ae considered as an act perfor&ed in an official capacity%The issue of $hether or not petitioners utterances constituted oraldefa&ation is still for the trial court to deter&ine%

&HEREF!RE! in vie$ of the fore#oin#! the Motions for

Reconsideration filed Ay petitioner and intervenor Depart&ent of Forei#n,ffairs are D+NI+D $ith FIN,0IT.%

#! !R'ERE'.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), oin the concurrin# opinion of Mr%Justice /uno%

Kapunan, andPardo, JJ., concur%

Puno, J., /ls% See concurrin# opinion%

?(@1ri&inal 1ases Nos% "! presided Ay *on% Mariano M% -&ali%
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125865_puno.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125865.htm#_ednref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125865.htm#_ednref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125865_puno.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125865.htm#_ednref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125865.htm#_ednref2


3/10

RepuAlic of the /hilippines

#UREME !UR"Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 12*+6 F-rar/ 11, 200*H!#R!& MINUHER,petitioner!vs%

H!N. !UR" !F AEAL# a AR"HUR #AL3!,respondents%D + 1 I S I O N

4I"UG,J.:

So&eti&e in May (C>! an Infor&ation for violation of Section : ofRepuAlic ,ct No% >:2

The cri&inal char#e follo$ed a LAuy=Aust operationL conducted Ay the/hilippine police narcotic a#ents in the house of Minucher! an Iraniannational! $here a uantity of heroin! a prohiAited dru#! $as said to haveAeen seied% The narcotic a#ents $ere acco&panied Ay private respondent,rthur Scalo $ho $ould! in due ti&e! Aeco&e one of the principal$itnesses for the prosecution% On " January (C! /residin# Jud#e+utropio Mi#rino rendered a decision acuittin# the t$o accused%On "7 ,u#ust (C! Minucher filed 1ivil 1ase No% =:C( Aefore theRe#ional Trial 1ourt 9RT1)! 3ranch (C! of Manila for da&a#es onaccount of $hat he clai&ed to have Aeen tru&ped=up char#es of dru#

trafficBin# &ade Ay ,rthur Scalo% The Manila RT1 detailed $hat it hadfound to Ae the facts and circu&stances surroundin# the case%LThe testi&ony of the plaintiff disclosed that he is an Iranian national% *eca&e to the /hilippines to study in the -niversity of the /hilippines in(C:% In (C>! under the re#i&e of the Shah of Iran! he $as appointed0aAor ,ttach for the Iranian +&Aassies in ToByo! Japan and Manila!/hilippines% ;hen the Shah of Iran $as deposed Ay ,yatollah 8ho&eini!plaintiff Aeca&e a refu#ee of the -nited Nations and continued to stay inthe /hilippines% *e headed the Iranian National Resistance Move&ent inthe /hilippines%

L*e ca&e to Bno$ the defendant on May (7! (C>! $hen the latter $asArou#ht to his house and introduced to hi& Ay a certain Jose Ii#o! an

infor&er of the Intelli#ence -nit of the &ilitary% Jose Ii#o! on the otherhand! $as &et Ay plaintiff at the office of ,tty% 1risanto Saruca! a la$yerfor several Iranians $ho& plaintiff assisted as head of the anti=8ho&eini&ove&ent in the /hilippines%LDurin# his first &eetin# $ith the defendant on May (7! (C>! upon theintroduction of Jose Ii#o! the defendant epressed his interest in Auyin#caviar% ,s a &atter of fact! he Aou#ht t$o Bilos of caviar fro& plaintiff

and paid /("!"""%"" for it% Sellin# caviar! aside fro& that of /ersiancarpets! pistachio nuts and other Iranian products $as his Ausiness afterthe 8ho&eini #overn&ent cut his pension of over P7!"""%"" per &onth%Durin# their introduction in that &eetin#! the defendant #ave the plaintiffhis callin# card! $hich sho$ed that he is $orBin# at the -S +&Aassy inthe /hilippines! as a special a#ent of the Dru# +nforce&ent,d&inistration! Depart&ent of Justice! of the -nited States! and #ave hisaddress as -S +&Aassy! Manila% ,t the AacB of the card appears atelephone nu&Aer in defendants o$n hand$ritin#! the nu&Aer of $hichhe can also Ae contacted%

LIt $as also durin# this first &eetin# that plaintiff epressed his desire tooAtain a -S Visa for his $ife and the $ife of a country&an na&ed ,AAasToraAian% The defendant told hi& that he ?could@ help plaintiff for a fee ofP2!"""%"" per visa% Their conversation! ho$ever! $as &ore concentratedon politics! carpets and caviar% Thereafter! the defendant pro&ised to seeplaintiff a#ain%LOn May (C! (C>! the defendant called the plaintiff and invited the latterfor dinner at MarioQs Restaurant at MaBati% *e $anted to Auy 2"" #ra&sof caviar% /laintiff Arou#ht the &erchandie Aut for the reason that thedefendant $as not yet there! he reuested the restaurant people to place the sa&e in the refri#erator% Defendant! ho$ever! ca&e and plaintiff#ave hi& the caviar for $hich he $as paid% Then their conversation $asa#ain focused on politics and Ausiness%LOn May 2>! (C>! defendant visited plaintiff a#ain at the latterQsresidence for ( years at 8apitolyo! /asi#% The defendant $anted to Auy apair of carpets $hich plaintiff valued at P2!C""%""% ,fter so&e ha##lin#!they a#reed at P2:!"""%""% For the reason that defendant did not yet havethe &oney! they a#reed that defendant $ould co&e AacB the net day% Thefollo$in# day! at ('"" p%&%! he ca&e AacB $ith his P2:!"""%""! $hich he#ave to the plaintiff! and the latter! in turn! #ave hi& the pair ofcarpets%1awphi1.ntL,t aAout 7'"" in the afternoon of May 2! (C>! the defendant ca&e


4/10

AacB a#ain to plaintiffQs house and directly proceeded to the latterQsAedroo&! $here the latter and his country&an! ,AAas ToraAian! $ereplayin# chess% /laintiff opened his safe in the Aedroo& and oAtainedP2!"""%"" fro& it! #ave it to the defendant for the latterQs fee in oAtainin#a visa for plaintiffQs $ife% The defendant told hi& that he $ould Aeleavin# the /hilippines very soon and reuested hi& to co&e out of thehouse for a $hile so that he can introduce hi& to his cousin $aitin# in a

caA% ;ithout &uch ado! and $ithout puttin# on his shirt as he $as only inhis paa&a pants! he follo$ed the defendant $here he sa$ a parBed caAopposite the street% To his co&plete surprise! an ,&erican u&ped out ofthe caA $ith a dra$n hi#h=po$ered #un% *e $as in the co&pany of aAout7" to :" Filipino soldiers $ith > ,&ericans! all ar&ed% *e $ashandcuffed and after aAout 2" &inutes in the street! he $as Arou#ht insidethe house Ay the defendant% *e $as &ade to sit do$n $hile in handcuffs$hile the defendant $as inside his Aedroo&% The defendant ca&e out ofthe Aedroo& and out fro& defendantQs attach case! he tooB so&ethin#and placed it on the taAle in front of the plaintiff% They also tooB

plaintiffQs $ife $ho $as at that ti&e at the Aoutiue near his house andliBe$ise arrested ToraAian! $ho $as playin# chess $ith hi& in theAedroo& and Aoth $ere handcuffed to#ether% /laintiff $as not told $hyhe $as Aein# handcuffed and $hy the privacy of his house! especially hisAedroo& $as invaded Ay defendant% *e $as not allo$ed to use thetelephone% In fact! his telephone $as unplu##ed% *e asBed for any$arrant! Aut the defendant told hi& to shut up% *e $as nevertheless toldthat he $ould Ae aAle to call for his la$yer $ho can defend hi&%LThe plaintiff tooB note of the fact that $hen the defendant invited hi& toco&e out to &eet his cousin! his safe $as opened $here he Bept theP2:!"""%"" the defendant paid for the carpets and another P!"""%""$hich he also placed in the safe to#ether $ith a Aracelet $orthP(

In fact! the arrest of defendant and ToraAian $as liBe$ise on television!not only in the /hilippines! Aut also in ,&erica and in 5er&any% *isfriends in said places infor&ed hi& that they sa$ hi& on TV $ith saidne$s%L,fter the arrest &ade on plaintiff and ToraAian! they $ere Arou#ht to1a&p 1ra&e handcuffed to#ether! $here they $ere detained for threedays $ithout food and $ater%L(

Durin# the trial! the la$ fir& of 0una! Sison and Manas! filed a specialappearance for Scalo and &oved for etension of ti&e to file an ans$erpendin# a supposed advice fro& the -nited States Depart&ent of Stateand Depart&ent of Justice on the defenses to Ae raised% The trial court#ranted the &otion% On 2 OctoAer (C! Scalo filed another specialappearance to uash the su&&ons on the #round that he! not Aein# aresident of the /hilippines and the action Aein# one in persona&! $asAeyond the processes of the court% The &otion $as denied Ay the court! inits order of (7 Dece&Aer (C! holdin# that the filin# Ay Scalo of a&otion for etension of ti&e to file an ans$er to the co&plaint $as a

voluntary appearance euivalent to service of su&&ons $hich couldliBe$ise Ae construed a $aiver of the reuire&ent of for&al notice%Scalo filed a &otion for reconsideration of the court order! contendin#that a &otion for an etension of ti&e to file an ans$er $as not avoluntary appearance euivalent to service of su&&ons since it did notseeB an affir&ative relief% Scalo ar#ued that in cases involvin# the-nited States #overn&ent! as $ell as its a#encies and officials! a &otionfor etension $as peculiarly unavoidaAle due to the need 9() for Aoth theDepart&ent of State and the Depart&ent of Justice to a#ree on thedefenses to Ae raised and 92) to refer the case to a /hilippine la$yer $ho$ould Ae epected to first revie$ the case% The court a uo denied the&otion for reconsideration in its order of (< OctoAer (CC%Scalo filed a petition for revie$ $ith the 1ourt of ,ppeals! theredocBeted 1,=5%R% No% ("27! assailin# the denial% In a decision! dated"> OctoAer (CC! the appellate court denied the petition and affir&ed therulin# of the trial court% Scalo then elevated the incident in a petition forrevie$ on certiorari! docBeted 5%R% No% C((7! to this 1ourt% Thepetition! ho$ever! $as denied for its failure to co&ply $ith S1 1ircularNo% (=E in any event! the 1ourt added! Scalo had failed to sho$ thatthe appellate court $as in error in its uestioned ud#&ent%Mean$hile! at the court a uo! an order! dated "C FeAruary (CC"! $asissued 9a) declarin# Scalo in default for his failure to file a responsive
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt1


5/10

pleadin# 9ans$er) and 9A) settin# the case for the reception of evidence%On (2 March (CC"! Scalo filed a &otion to set aside the order of defaultand to ad&it his ans$er to the co&plaint% 5rantin# the &otion! the trialcourt set the case for pre=trial% In his ans$er! Scalo denied the &aterialalle#ations of the co&plaint and raised the affir&ative defenses 9a) ofMinuchers failure to state a cause of action in his co&plaint and 9A) thatScalo had acted in the dischar#e of his official duties as Aein# &erely an

a#ent of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration of the -nited StatesDepart&ent of Justice% Scalo interposed a counterclai& of /(""!"""%""to ans$er for attorneysQ fees and epenses of liti#ation%Then! on (: June (CC"! after al&ost t$o years since the institution of thecivil case! Scalo filed a &otion to dis&iss the co&plaint on the #roundthat! Aein# a special a#ent of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent,d&inistration! he $as entitled to diplo&atic i&&unity% *e attached tohis &otion Diplo&atic Note No% :(: of the -nited States +&Aassy! dated2C May (CC"! addressed to the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs of the/hilippines and a 1ertification! dated (( June (CC"! of Vice 1onsulDonna ;ood$ard! certifyin# that the note is a true and faithful copy of itsori#inal% In an order of 2< June (CC"! the trial court denied the &otion todis&iss%On 2 July (CC"! Scalo filed a petition for certiorari $ith inunction $iththis 1ourt! docBeted 5%R% No% C:2

personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and! aAsentany evidence to the contrary! the issue on Scalos diplo&atic i&&unitycould not Ae taBen up%The Manila RT1 thus continued $ith its hearin#s on the case% On (Nove&Aer (CC


6/10

i&&une fro& civil suit confor&aAly $ith the Vienna 1onvention onDiplo&atic RelationsL = is also a pivotal uestion raised in the instantpetition! the rulin# in 5%R% No% C>

The docu&ents! accordin# to Scalo! $ould sho$ that' 9() the -nitedStates +&Aassy accordin#ly advised the +ecutive Depart&ent of the/hilippine 5overn&ent that Scalo $as a &e&Aer of the diplo&atic staff

of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission fro& his arrival in the /hilippineson (: OctoAer (C< until his departure on (" ,u#ust (CE 92) that the-nited States 5overn&ent $as fir& fro& the very Ae#innin# in assertin#the diplo&atic i&&unity of Scalo $ith respect to the case pursuant tothe provisions of the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic RelationsE and 97)that the -nited States +&Aassy repeatedly ur#ed the Depart&ent ofForei#n ,ffairs to taBe appropriate action to infor& the trial court of

Scalos diplo&atic i&&unity% The other docu&entary ehiAits $erepresented to indicate that' 9() the /hilippine #overn&ent itself! throu#hits +ecutive Depart&ent! reco#niin# and respectin# the diplo&aticstatus of Scalo! for&ally advised the LJudicial Depart&entL of hisdiplo&atic status and his entitle&ent to all diplo&atic privile#es andi&&unities under the Vienna 1onventionE and 92) the Depart&ent ofForei#n ,ffairs itself authenticated Diplo&atic Note No% :(:% Scaloadditionally presented +hiAits LCL to L(7L consistin# of his reports ofinvesti#ation on the surveillance and suAseuent arrest of Minucher! thecertification of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration of the -nited StatesDepart&ent of Justice that Scalo $as a special a#ent assi#ned to the/hilippines at all ti&es relevant to the co&plaint! and the special po$er ofattorney eecuted Ay hi& in favor of his previous counsel> to sho$ 9a)that the -nited States +&Aassy! affir&ed Ay its Vice 1onsul!acBno$led#ed Scalo to Ae a &e&Aer of the diplo&atic staff of the-nited States diplo&atic &ission fro& his arrival in the /hilippines on (:OctoAer (C< until his departure on (" ,u#ust (C! 9A) that! on May(C>! $ith the cooperation of the /hilippine la$ enforce&ent officialsand in the eercise of his functions as &e&Aer of the &ission! heinvesti#ated Minucher for alle#ed trafficBin# in a prohiAited dru#! and 9c)that the /hilippine Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs itself reco#nied thatScalo durin# his tour of duty in the /hilippines 9(: OctoAer (C< up to(" ,u#ust (C) $as listed as Aein# an ,ssistant ,ttach of the -nitedStates diplo&atic &ission and accredited $ith diplo&atic status Ay the5overn&ent of the /hilippines% In his +hiAit (2! Scalo descriAed thefunctions of the overseas office of the -nited States Dru#s +nforce&ent,#ency! i%e%! 9() to provide cri&inal investi#ative epertise and assistanceto forei#n la$ enforce&ent a#encies on narcotic and dru# controlpro#ra&s upon the reuest of the host country! 2) to estaAlish and&aintain liaison $ith the host country and counterpart forei#n la$enforce&ent officials! and 7) to conduct co&ple cri&inal investi#ationsinvolvin# international cri&inal conspiracies $hich affect the interests of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt6


7/10

the -nited States%The Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations $as a codification ofcenturies=old custo&ary la$ and! Ay the ti&e of its ratification on (,pril (C>(! its rules of la$ had lon# Aeco&e staAle% ,&on# the city statesof ancient 5reece! a&on# the peoples of the Mediterranean Aefore theestaAlish&ent of the Ro&an +&pire! and a&on# the states of India! theperson of the herald in ti&e of $ar and the person of the diplo&aticenvoy in ti&e of peace $ere universally held sacrosanct%3y the end ofthe (>th century! $hen the earliest treatises on diplo&atic la$ $erepuAlished! the inviolaAility of a&Aassadors $as fir&ly estaAlished as arule of custo&ary international la$%Traditionally! the eercise ofdiplo&atic intercourse a&on# states $as undertaBen Ay the head of statehi&self! as Aein# the pree&inent e&Aodi&ent of the state he represented!and the forei#n secretary! the official usually entrusted $ith the eternalaffairs of the state% ;here a state $ould $ish to have a &ore pro&inentdiplo&atic presence in the receivin# state! it $ould then send to the lattera diplo&atic &ission% 1onfor&aAly $ith the Vienna 1onvention! thefunctions of the diplo&atic &ission involve! Ay and lar#e! therepresentation of the interests of the sendin# state and pro&otin# friendlyrelations $ith the receivin# state%C

The 1onvention lists the classes of heads of diplo&atic &issions toinclude 9a) a&Aassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state! ("9A)envoys!((&inisters or internuncios accredited to the heads of statesE and9c) char#es dQ affairs(2 accredited to the &inisters of forei#n affairs%(7

1o&prisin# the Lstaff of the 9diplo&atic) &issionL are the diplo&aticstaff! the ad&inistrative staff and the technical and service staff% Only theheads of &issions! as $ell as &e&Aers of the diplo&atic staff! ecludin#the &e&Aers of the ad&inistrative! technical and service staff of the&ission! are accorded diplo&atic ranB% +ven $hile the Vienna1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations provides for i&&unity to the&e&Aers of diplo&atic &issions! it does so! nevertheless! $ith anunderstandin# that the sa&e Ae restrictively applied% Only Ldiplo&atica#ents!L under the ter&s of the 1onvention! are vested $ith AlanBetdiplo&atic i&&unity fro& civil and cri&inal suits% The 1onventiondefines Ldiplo&atic a#entsL as the heads of &issions or &e&Aers of thediplo&atic staff! thus i&pliedly $ithholdin# the sa&e privile#es fro& allothers% It &i#ht Aear stressin# that even consuls! $ho represent theirrespective states in concerns of co&&erce and navi#ation and perfor&certain ad&inistrative and notarial duties! such as the issuance of

passports and visas! authentication of docu&ents! and ad&inistration ofoaths! do not ordinarily enoy the traditional diplo&atic i&&unities andprivile#es accorded diplo&ats! &ainly for the reason that they are notchar#ed $ith the duty of representin# their states in political &atters%Indeed! the &ain yardsticB in ascertainin# $hether a person is a diplo&atentitled to i&&unity is the deter&ination of $hether or not he perfor&sduties of diplo&atic nature%Scalo asserted! particularly in his +hiAits LCL to L(7!L that he $as an,ssistant ,ttach of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and $asaccredited as such Ay the /hilippine 5overn&ent% ,n attach Aelon#s to acate#ory of officers in the diplo&atic estaAlish&ent $ho &ay Ae inchar#e of its cultural! press! ad&inistrative or financial affairs% Therecould also Ae a class of attaches Aelon#in# to certain &inistries ordepart&ents of the #overn&ent! other than the forei#n &inistry ordepart&ent! $ho are detailed Ay their respective &inistries ordepart&ents $ith the e&Aassies such as the &ilitary! naval! air!co&&ercial! a#ricultural! laAor! science! and custo&s attaches! or the liBe%,ttaches assist a chief of &ission in his duties and are ad&inistrativelyunder hi&! Aut their &ain function is to oAserve! analye and interprettrends and develop&ents in their respective fields in the host country andsuA&it reports to their o$n &inistries or depart&ents in the ho&e#overn&ent%(:These officials are not #enerally re#arded as &e&Aers ofthe diplo&atic &ission! nor are they nor&ally desi#nated as havin#diplo&atic ranB%In an atte&pt to prove his diplo&atic status! Scalo presented Diplo&aticNotes Nos% :(:!


8/10

and seventeen 9() days fro& the ti&e his counsel filed on (2 Septe&Aer(C a Special ,ppearance and Motion asBin# for a first etension ofti&e to file the ,ns$er Aecause the Depart&ents of State and Justice ofthe -nited States of ,&erica $ere studyin# the case for the purpose ofdeter&inin# his defenses! Aefore he could secure the Diplo&atic Notefro& the -S +&Aassy in Manila! and even #rantin# for the saBe ofar#u&ent that such note is authentic! the co&plaint for da&a#es filed Aypetitioner cannot Ae pere&ptorily dis&issed%

L LThere is of course the clai& of private respondent that the acts i&putedto hi& $ere done in his official capacity% Nothin# supports this self=servin# clai& other than the so=called Diplo&atic Note% % The puAlicrespondent then should have sustained the trial courtQs denial of the&otion to dis&iss% Verily! it should have Aeen the &ost proper andappropriate recourse% It should not have Aeen over$hel&ed Ay the self=servin# Diplo&atic Note $hose Aelated issuance is even suspect and$hose authenticity has not yet Aeen proved% The undue haste $ith $hichrespondent 1ourt yielded to the private respondentQs clai& is arAitrary%L, si#nificant docu&ent $ould appear to Ae +hiAit No% "! dated "Nove&Aer (CC2! issued Ay the Office of /rotocol of the Depart&ent ofForei#n ,ffairs and si#ned Ay +&&anuel 1% Fernande! ,ssistantSecretary! certifyin# that Lthe records of the Depart&ent 9$ould) sho$that Mr% ,rthur ;% Scalo! Jr%! durin# his ter& of office in the /hilippines9fro& (: OctoAer (C< up to (" ,u#ust (C) $as listed as an ,ssistant,ttach of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and $as! therefore!accredited diplo&atic status Ay the 5overn&ent of the /hilippines%L Nocertified true copy of such Lrecords!L the supposed Aases for the Aelatedissuance! $as presented in evidence%1oncededly! vestin# a person $ith diplo&atic i&&unity is a prero#ativeof the eecutive Aranch of the #overn&ent% In ;orld *ealth Or#aniationvs% ,uino!(The #overn&ent of the -nited States itself! $hichScalo clai&s to Ae actin# for! has for&ulated its standards forreco#nition of a diplo&atic a#ent% The State Depart&ent policy is to onlyconcede diplo&atic status to a person $ho possesses an acBno$led#eddiplo&atic title and Lperfor&s duties of diplo&aticnature%L(Supple&entary criteria for accreditation are the possession of avalid diplo&atic passport or! fro& States $hich do not issue suchpassports! a diplo&atic note for&ally representin# the intention to assi#nthe person to diplo&atic duties! the holdin# of a non=i&&i#rant visa!Aein# over t$enty=one years of a#e! and perfor&in# diplo&atic functionson an essentially full=ti&e Aasis%(Diplo&atic &issions are reuested toprovide the &ost accurate and descriptive oA title to that $hich currentlyapplies to the duties perfor&ed% The Office of the /rotocol $ould thenassi#n each individual to the appropriate functional cate#ory%(C

3ut $hile the diplo&atic i&&unity of Scalo &i#ht thus re&aincontentious! it $as sufficiently estaAlished that! indeed! he $orBed for the-nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency and $as tasBed to conductsurveillance of suspected dru# activities $ithin the country on the datespertinent to this case% If it should Ae ascertained that ,rthur Scalo $asactin# $ell $ithin his assi#ned functions $hen he co&&itted the actsalle#ed in the co&plaint! the present controversy could then Ae resolvedunder the related doctrine of State I&&unity fro& Suit%The rc ha a #a cao - 7 h cor7 o9 a 9or:7a is a lon#=standin# rule of custo&ary international la$ then closelyidentified $ith the personal i&&unity of a forei#n soverei#n fro&suit2"and! $ith the e&er#ence of de&ocratic states! &ade to attach not ustto the person of the head of state! or his representative! Aut also distinctlyto the state itself in its soverei#n capacity% 2(If the acts #ivin# rise to a suitare those of a forei#n #overn&ent done Ay its forei#n a#ent! althou#h notnecessarily a diplo&atic persona#e! Aut actin# in his official capacity! theco&plaint could Ae Aarred Ay the i&&unity of the forei#n soverei#n fro&suit $ithout its consent% Suin# a representative of a state is Aelieved to Ae!in effect! suin# the state itself% The proscription is not accorded for theAenefit of an individual Aut for the State! in $hose service he is! under the&ai& = par in pare&! non haAet i&periu& = that all states are soverei#neuals and cannot assert urisdiction over one another%22The i&plication!in Aroad ter&s! is that if the ud#&ent a#ainst an official $ould reuirethe state itself to perfor& an affir&ative act to satisfy the a$ard! such as

the appropriation of the a&ount needed to pay the da&a#es decreed
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22


9/10

a#ainst hi&! the suit &ust Ae re#arded as Aein# a#ainst the state itself!althou#h it has not Aeen for&ally i&pleaded%27

In -nited States of ,&erica vs% 5uinto!2:involvin# officers of the -nitedStates ,ir Force and special officers of the ,ir Force Office of SpecialInvesti#ators char#ed $ith the duty of preventin# the distriAution!possession and use of prohiAited dru#s! this 1ourt has ruled =L;hile the doctrine 9of state i&&unity) appears to prohiAit only suitsa#ainst the state $ithout its consent! it is also applicaAle to co&plaintsfiled a#ainst officials of the state for acts alle#edly perfor&ed Ay the& inthe dischar#e of their duties% % It cannot for a &o&ent Ae i&a#inedthat they $ere actin# in their private or unofficial capacity $hen theyapprehended and later testified a#ainst the co&plainant% It follo$s that fordischar#in# their duties as a#ents of the -nited States! they cannot Aedirectly i&pleaded for acts i&putaAle to their principal! $hich has not#iven its consent to Ae sued% ,s they have acted on Aehalf of the#overn&ent! and $ithin the scope of their authority! it is that #overn&ent!and not the petitioners personally! ?$ho $ere@ responsiAle for theiracts%L2elaAorates'LIt is a different &atter $here the puAlic official is &ade to account in hiscapacity as such for acts contrary to la$ and inurious to the ri#hts of theplaintiff% ,s $as clearly set forth Ay Justice 6aldivar in Director of the3ureau of Teleco&&unications! et al%! vs% ,li#aen! et al% 977 S1R, 7>)'Inas&uch as the State authories only le#al acts Ay its officers!unauthoried acts of #overn&ent officials or officers are not acts of theState! and an action a#ainst the officials or officers Ay one $hose ri#htshave Aeen invaded or violated Ay such acts! for the protection of hisri#hts! is not a suit a#ainst the State $ithin the rule of i&&unity of theState fro& suit% In the sa&e tenor! it has Aeen said that an action at la$ orsuit in euity a#ainst a State officer or the director of a State depart&enton the #round that! $hile clai&in# to act for the State! he violates orinvades the personal and property ri#hts of the plaintiff! under anunconstitutional act or under an assu&ption of authority $hich he doesnot have! is not a suit a#ainst the State $ithin the constitutional provisionthat the State &ay not Ae sued $ithout its consent% The rationale for thisrulin# is that the doctrine of state i&&unity cannot Ae used as aninstru&ent for perpetratin# an inustice%

L

L9T)he doctrine of i&&unity fro& suit $ill not apply and &ay not AeinvoBed $here the puAlic official is Aein# sued in his private and personalcapacity as an ordinary citien% The cloaB of protection afforded theofficers and a#ents of the #overn&ent is re&oved the &o&ent they aresued in their individual capacity% This situation usually arises $here thepuAlic official acts $ithout authority or in ecess of the po$ers vested inhi&% It is a $ell=settled principle of la$ that a puAlic official &ay AeliaAle in his personal private capacity for $hatever da&a#e he &ay havecaused Ay his act done $ith &alice and in Aad faith or Aeyond the scopeof his authority and urisdiction%L2

, forei#n a#ent! operatin# $ithin a territory! can Ae cloaBed $ithi&&unity fro& suit Aut only as lon# as it can Ae estaAlished that he isactin# $ithin the directives of the sendin# state% The consent of the hoststate is an indispensaAle reuire&ent of Aasic courtesy Aet$een the t$osoverei#ns% 5uinto and Shauf Aoth involve officers and personnel of the-nited States! stationed $ithin /hilippine territory! under the R/=-SMilitary 3ases ,#ree&ent% ;hile evidence is $antin# to sho$ anysi&ilar a#ree&ent Aet$een the #overn&ents of the /hilippines and of the-nited States 9for the latter to send its a#ents and to conduct surveillanceand related activities of suspected dru# dealers in the /hilippines)! theconsent or imprimatur of the /hilippine #overn&ent to the activities ofthe -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency! ho$ever! can Ae #leanedfro& the facts heretofore else$here &entioned% The official echan#es ofco&&unication Aet$een a#encies of the #overn&ent of the t$o countries!certifications fro& officials of Aoth the /hilippine Depart&ent of Forei#n,ffairs and the -nited States +&Aassy! as $ell as the participation of&e&Aers of the /hilippine Narcotics 1o&&and in the LAuy=AustoperationL conducted at the residence of Minucher at the Aehest ofScalo! &ay Ae inadeuate to support the Ldiplo&atic statusL of the latterAut they #ive enou#h indication that the /hilippine #overn&ent has #ivenits imprimatur! if not consent! to the activities $ithin /hilippine territoryof a#ent Scalo of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency% The oAdescription of Scalo has tasBed hi& to conduct surveillance on suspecteddru# suppliers and! after havin# ascertained the tar#et! to infor& local la$enforcers $ho $ould then Ae epected to &aBe the arrest% In conductin#surveillance activities on Minucher! later actin# as the poseur=Auyerdurin# the Auy=Aust operation! and then Aeco&in# a principal $itness inthe cri&inal case a#ainst Minucher! Scalo hardly can Ae said to have

acted Aeyond the scope of his official function or duties%
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt27


10/10

,ll told! this 1ourt is constrained to rule that respondent ,rthur Scalo!an a#ent of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency allo$ed Ay the/hilippine #overn&ent to conduct activities in the country to help containthe proAle& on the dru# traffic! is entitled to the defense of statei&&unity fro& suit%

&HEREF!RE! on the fore#oin# pre&ises! the petition is D+NI+D% Nocosts%SO ORD+R+D%Davide! Jr%! 1%J%! 91hair&an)! .nares=Santia#o! 1arpio and ,cuna! JJ%!concur

Documents

Minucher and Liang FullText ( State Immunity)