Department of Foreign Affairs vs NLRC : 113191 : September 18, 1996... 3 of 7 except when the Bank waives the immunity. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/113191.htm [4] Like provisions are found in the Headquarters Agreement. Thus, its Section 5 reads: "The Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities. [5] And, with respect to certain officials of the bank, Section 44 of the agreement states: Governors, other representatives of Members, Directors, the President, Vice-President and executive officers as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Bank shall enjoy, during their stay in the Republic of the Philippines in connection with their official duties with the Bank: xxxxxxxxx (b) Immunity from legal process of every kind in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity. [6] The above stipulations of both the Charter and Headquarters Agreement should be able, nay well enough, to establish that, except in the specified cases of borrowing and guarantee operations, as well as the purchase, sale and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form. The Banks officers, on their part, enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity. The Charter and the Headquarters Agreement granting these immunities and privileges are treaty covenants and commitments voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government which must be respected. In World Health Organization vs. Aquino, [7] we have declared: 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 x x x 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, x x x or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction x x x as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that `in such cases the judicial department of government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.'" [8] To the same effect is the decision in International Catholic Migration Commission vs. [9] Calleja, which has similarly deemed the Memoranda of the Legal Adviser of the Department of Foreign Affairs to be "a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch of Government that ICMC x x x enjoy(s) immunities accorded to international organizations" and which determination must be held "conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarrass a political department of Government. In the instant case, the filing of the petition by the DFA, in behalf of ADB, is itself an affirmance of the government's own recognition of ADB's immunity. Being an international organization that has been extended a diplomatic status, the ADB is [10] In Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center vs. independent of the municipal law. [11] [12] Acosta, the Court has cited with approval the opinion of the then Minister of Justice; thus "One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that 1/20/2016 12:39 PM