The Supreme Court ruled that immunity from legal process does not extend to acts, such as defamation, that are outside the scope of official duty. This decision reinforces that even individuals with certain immunities are accountable for actions that constitute crimes, ensuring that the privilege of immunity is not a shield for unlawful behavior. The Court emphasized that the determination of immunity is not absolute and requires careful examination, particularly when it involves potential criminal acts.

When Words Wound: Can International Immunity Protect Defamatory Speech?

This case revolves around Jeffrey Liang, an economist at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), who was charged with grave oral defamation for allegedly defaming a colleague, Joyce Cabal. Liang sought to invoke immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially dismissed the cases based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) asserting Liang’s immunity. However, the prosecution challenged this dismissal, arguing that the alleged defamatory acts were not part of Liang’s official duties and that the dismissal violated their right to due process. This legal battle reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine the extent and applicability of immunity in cases involving potential criminal conduct.

The Supreme Court emphasized that courts are not bound by the DFA’s preliminary determination of immunity. The Court stated:

“First, courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity. The DFA’s determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts.”

This underscores the judiciary’s role in independently assessing claims of immunity, ensuring that such privileges are not abused. The Court stressed the importance of due process, stating that the prosecution should have been given the opportunity to present evidence and challenge the claim of immunity. The right to due process applies to both the accused and the prosecution, ensuring a fair and impartial legal proceeding.

Building on this principle, the Court clarified that immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government is not absolute. The critical factor is whether the alleged defamatory acts were performed in an “official capacity.” The Court quoted Section 45 of the Agreement:

“Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity.”

The Court reasoned that slandering someone cannot be considered part of official duty. It cited established legal precedent that public officials are liable in their private capacity for acts done with malice, bad faith, or beyond the scope of their authority. This principle ensures that public officials are held accountable for their actions, even when those actions occur within the context of their employment.

Furthermore, the Court referenced the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which provides immunity from criminal jurisdiction, except in cases involving professional or commercial activity outside official functions. Since committing a crime is not part of official duty, even diplomatic immunity would not protect such acts.

Addressing the petitioner’s claim of a lack of preliminary investigation, the Court stated that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The Court stated:

“Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar.”

The Court further explained that the absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the information filed. Preliminary investigations are statutory rights and can only be invoked when specifically granted by law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Jeffrey Liang’s alleged defamatory statements were covered by immunity under the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. The Court had to determine if the statements were made in his official capacity.
Does the DFA’s opinion on immunity bind the courts?	No, the DFA’s opinion is preliminary and not binding. The courts must independently determine whether immunity applies based on the facts and the law.
Is immunity from legal process absolute?	No, immunity is not absolute. It typically applies only to acts performed in an official capacity.
Can a crime be considered part of official duty?	No, committing a crime such as defamation is not part of official duty. Therefore, immunity does not extend to such acts.
What is the significance of the Vienna Convention in this case?	The Vienna Convention, while not directly applicable, reinforces the principle that immunity does not extend to acts outside official functions, including criminal acts.
Is a preliminary investigation required in all criminal cases?	No, a preliminary investigation is not required in cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).
What happens if there is no preliminary investigation?	The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the information filed.
What is the practical impact of this ruling?	The ruling means that individuals working for international organizations are not immune from prosecution for criminal acts, like defamation, committed outside their official duties. It upholds accountability and ensures that privileges do not shield unlawful behavior.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Liang v. People clarifies the limits of immunity from legal process. It underscores that such immunity does not extend to criminal acts, such as defamation, that are not performed in an official capacity. This ruling ensures accountability and upholds the principle that no one is above the law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jeffrey Liang (Huefeng) v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000