RELATED DOCTRINE: Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except for actions committed outside his official functions.
FACTS: Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank and was charged with two counts of oral defamation. He was arrested but was released on bail. MeTC dismissed the cases after receiving an “office protocol” informing them that Liang is immune from suit under Sec. 45 of the Agreement between ADB and the Philippine Government.
ISSUE: Whether or not Liang can invoke immunity from suit.
DECISION: No. Liang’s case is not covered by the immunity. The immunity under Sec. 45 of the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts were done in an “official capacity.” It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. Slandering a person cannot be covered by the immunity agreement because the laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.
Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication from the DFA that Liang is covered by any immunity. It has no binding effect in courts. The court needs to protect the right to due process not only of the accused but also of the prosecution.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.