COMPROMISE NIXED: Six out of every 10 readers (62 percent) reacting to our proposed compromise to resolve the question over the Estrada presidency are against settlement. That is supposed to shoot down the idea, but we’re not giving up on it yet.

Many readers are very emotional in their reactions, judging from the intensity of their arguments and the virulence of their language. But we don’t mind that, as long as they speak out of conviction (which we must grant every reader writing in).

Pro-Estrada readers who object to our proposal say there is no need for a settlement since Joseph Estrada is right in insisting that he is still the president and need not compromise. They complain that the administration has stacked up the judicial cards against him.

Pro-Arroyo readers, on the other hand, vehemently assail suggestions that the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is hobbled by constitutional flaws. It was precisely the Constitution, they say, that provided the rule on succession that gave Mrs. Arroyo the presidency on Jan. 20, 2001.

* * *

URGENCY CITED: A minority, about four out of every 10 reacting readers (38 percent), agreed there was urgent need to look for a solution, outside the courts if necessary, that can put to rest the question over Arroyo’s presidency and allow Filipinos of all persuasions to unite and move forward.

Oversimplified, our formula calls for (1) the Supreme Court revising, upon appeal of Mr. Estrada, its decision declaring a vacancy in the presidency on Jan. 20, 2001, and (2) Mr. Estrada ending his claimed leave of absence by finally resigning in favor of Mrs. Arroyo — all this after an omnibus settlement is quietly approved by all parties.

We excluded from the formula the disposition of the plunder case in the Sandiganbayan against Mr. Estrada so as not to complicate any further the already complicated subject. The parties are expected to include it anyway if ever they sit down to negotiate.

* * *

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: From Santiago (Chile), meanwhile, former ambassador Rodolfo A. Arizala sent us materials indicating that we were not entirely correct when we said last Tuesday (Postscript, 10June03) that “while an ambassador is immune from criminal charges, he is not immune from civil suit.”

We were then commenting on the filing by the firm Grundy Holdings of a civil suit in the Makati Regional Trial Court against Belgian Ambassador Christiaan Tanghe for his alleged non-payment of rent for the past six months.

Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice says on Page 120: “…an immunity does not imply any exemption from substantive law but confers a procedural protection from the enforcement processes in the receiving state. The diplomatic agent is legally bound to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state (provided that these do not infringe on his privileges and immunities). He is not exempt from the obligation to obey the local criminal law, or the duty to pay his debts, or to seek local planning permission before rebuilding his residence, or from local regulations regarding maintenance and insurance of his vehicle when he drives. But if he breaks any of these laws he cannot be arrested or detained by the executive authorities of the receiving state and he cannot be tried, sued or made to testify before the judicial authorities of that state.”

* * *

PERSONA NON GRATA: Arizala said that while foreign diplomats are supposed to comply with local laws, rules and regulations in the receiving state and pay their just obligations, they are immune from arrest, suit or being tried in the local courts.

Under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that took effect in 1964 and to which the Philippines is a signatory, diplomatic agents are immune from criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state, according to him.

He also cited Article 29 under which the person of a diplomatic agent is inviolable and may not be detained or arrested and hauled before a court of justice of the receiving state.

He added: “As far as criminal jurisdiction is concerned, diplomatic agents enjoy complete immunity from the legal system of the receiving state. The only remedy the host state has in the face of offences alleged to have been committed by a diplomat is to declare him persona non grata under Article 9 of the Convention.”

* * *

WAIVING IMMUNITY: Arizala cited Article 31(1) providing that “diplomats are also immune from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the state in which they are serving, except in three cases:

“First, where the action relates to private immovable property situated within the host state (unless held for mission purposes), secondly in litigation relating to succession matters in which the diplomat is involved as a private person (for example as an executor or heir), and finally, with respect to unofficial professional or commercial activity engaged in by the agent.”

As for waiving diplomatic immunity, Arizala quoted International Law by Malcolm N. Shaw, Second Edition, 1986, which says on Page 404: “Under s.32 of the Vienna Convention, the sending state may waive the immunity from jurisdiction of persons entitled to it, although waiver must always be express. Where a person with immunity initiates proceedings, he cannot claim immunity in respect to any execution of the judgment, for which a separate waiver is necessary.”

* * *

SETTLEMENT SUGGESTED: Arizala concluded: “In view of the foregoing, it appears that the case cited in Postscript (Civil Case 03-275) is better settled out of court (due to lack of jurisdiction by our local courts) by appealing to the sense of justice and fairness of the government the diplomatic agent represents.

“And better do it quietly, without fanfare. One may get better or positive result by such method instead of filing a formal case before the courts.

“Diplomats enjoy immunity from local jurisdiction unless expressly waived by the sending state. And even if jurisdiction is expressly waived and judgment is rendered, such judgment could not be executed or implemented unless there is another express waiver accepting said decision of the court.”

* * *

‘BALASUBAS’: We can imagine smart prosecutors pouncing on the exception in Article 31(1) cited by Arizala saying that diplomats are immune from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host state, “except xxx where the action relates to private immovable property situated within the host state (unless held for mission purposes).”

It seems to us that the civil suit filed in Makati over the Belgian ambassador’s alleged non-payment of rent for a private immovable property falls under the first exception cited above. Let the lawyers tangle over that point.

But the blatant reality is that if the Belgian ambassador or any other foreign diplomat wants to be balasubas, there is nothing a native can do about it by way of prosecuting him. Arizala is right — an out-of-court settlement may be the better route for the landlord.